Document Pack (Bookmarked) - Planning Committee 06 08 25
West Dunbartonshire Council · 6 August 2025
Back to Planning Committee — 6 August 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Agenda Planning Committee Date: Wednesday, 6 August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Time: 10.00 a.m. ___________________________________________________________________ Venue: Council Chambers, Clydebank Town Hall, 5 Hall Street, Clydebank G81 1UB _________________________________________________________________ Contact: Nicola Moorcroft, Committee Officer Email: nicola.moorcroft@west-dunbarton.gov.uk committee.admin@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Dear Member Please attend a meeting of the Planning Committee as detailed above. The business is shown on the attached agenda. Yours faithfully PETER HESSETT Chief Executive Page 1
Page 2
Distribution:- Councillor Lawrence O’Neill (Chair) Councillor Gurpreet Singh Johal (Vice Chair) Councillor Kevin Crawford Councillor Ian Dickson Councillor David McBride Councillor Fiona Hennebry Provost Karen Murray Conaghan Councillor Lauren Oxley Councillor Hazel Sorrell Councillor Clare Steel All other Councillors for information Date of Issue: 24 July 2025 Page 2
Page 3
PLANNING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, 6 AUGUST 2025 AGENDA 1 APOLOGIES 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members are invited to declare if they have any interests in the items of business on this agenda and the reasons for such declarations. 3 OPEN FORUM The Committee is asked to note that no open forum questions have been submitted by members of the public. 4 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 5 - 18 Submit for approval, as a correct record, the Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 4 June 2025. 5 PLANNING APPLICATION 19 - 33 Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, in respect of the following Planning application:- DC25/076/FUL: Section 42 Application to vary Condition 12 - Working Hours (Amendment to DC24/081/Ful) at Artizan Centre College Way, Dumbarton by West Dunbartonshire Council. 6 APPLICATION DC22/245/FUL SCOTTISH MINISTERS DECISION ON PLANNING 35 - 37 Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager providing an update on Planning Application DC22/245/FUL which was referred to the Scottish Ministers. 7/ Page 3
Page 4
7 NATIONAL PLANNING IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK 39 - 116 Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager providing an update on recent work undertaken by the Planning Service in relation to the National Planning Improvement Framework and the endorsement by the National Planning Improvement Team of the Performance Assessment and Improvement Plan. 8 DC25/019/S36: BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY CONSISTING OF COMPOUND OF BATTERIES AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, STORES, ACCESS TRACK, BUILDINGS, FENCING, POND, BUNDS AND NEW PLANTING AT BRAIDFIELD ROAD, HARDGATE, CLYDEBANK BY BRAIDFIELD BATTERY STORAGE LIMITED 117 - 143 Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager seeking agreement for a response to a consultation received from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit on behalf of the Scottish Ministers regarding a proposed battery energy storage system with a generating capacity of up to 100 megawatts. 9 DC23/223/S36: PROPOSED WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT 145 - 202 COMPRISING UP TO TEN WIND TURBINES OF APPROXIMATELY 7 MEGAWATTS (MW) EACH, WITH A MAXIMUM BLADE TIP HEIGHT OF UP TO 250M, AND BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) WITH A CAPACITY UP TO 20 MW AT THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED VALE OF LEVEN WINDFARM, KILPATRICK HILLS, EAST OF ALEXANDRIA BY VALE OF LEVEN WIND FARM LIMITED Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager seeking agreement on an updated consultation response following the receipt of a revised proposal reducing the height of the proposed turbines together with updated supporting documents from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit, on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, in connection with a proposed wind farm development comprising up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts (MW) each, with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m, and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW at the Site of the Proposed Vale of Leven Windfarm, Kilpatrick Hills, East of Alexandria by Vale of Leven Wind Farm Limited. Page 4
Page 5
PLANNING COMMITTEE At a Meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Civic Space, 16 Church Street, Dumbarton on Wednesday, 4 June 2025 at 10.00 a.m. Present: Councillors Ian Dickson, Gurpreet Singh Johal, Lawrence O’Neill, Chris Pollock and Clare Steel. Attending: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager; James McColl, Development Management Team Leader; Michael McDougall, Manager of Legal Services; and Nicola Moorcroft, Committee Officer. Apologies: Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Provost Karen Murray Conaghan and Councillors Fiona Hennebry, David McBride, Hazel Sorrell and Sophie Traynor. Councillor Lawrence O’Neill in the Chair DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST It was noted that there were no declarations of interest in any of the items of business on the agenda. OPEN FORUM The Committee noted that no open forum questions had been submitted by members of the public. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 16 April 2025 were submitted and approved as a correct record. PLANNING APPLICATIONS A report was submitted by the Chief Officer - Regulatory and Regeneration in respect of the following Planning applications:- ITEM 4 Page 5
Page 6
DC24/091/FUL: Further application under Section 42 to not comply with condition 11 of planning permission DC21/115/FUL at Queens Quay Full Dev Site, Cart Street, Clydebank by Clydeside Regeneration Limited. The Development Management Team Leader was heard in further explanation and in answer to Members’ questions. After discussion and having heard the Development Management Team Leader in further explanation and in answer to Members’ questions, the Committee agreed to refer the application to Full Council for determination, with a preliminary recommendation, based on the information considered to date, that it be approved, subject to the conditions as detailed within Appendix 1 hereto. DC24/197/FUL: Amendment to Condition 2 and Condition 14 of permission DC20/253 in relation to proposed site at Landfill Site at Auchincarroch Road, Jamestown, Alexandria by Barr Environmental Ltd. The Development Management Team Leader was heard in further explanation of the report. The Committee agreed to grant planning permission for this Section 42 application, subject to the conditions as detailed within Appendix 2 hereto. CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED PAYPHONE REMOVALS A report was submitted by the Chief Officer - Regulatory and Regeneration setting out the Council’s response to a consultation from BT Openreach on the proposed removal of various public telephone boxes in West Dunbartonshire. After discussion and having heard the Planning and Building Standards Manager and the Development Management Team Leader in further explanation and in answer to Members’ questions, the Committee agreed to offer no objection to the removal of all 13 payphones, as listed in paragraph 3.3 of the report. The meeting closed at 10.21 a.m. Page 6
Page 7
APPENDIX 1 DC24/091/FUL: Further application under Section 42 to not comply with condition 11 of planning permission DC21/115/FUL at Queens Quay Full Dev Site, Cart Street, Clydebank by Clydeside Regeneration Limited. GRANT full planning permission subject to the following conditions:- 1. For the avoidance of doubt, Phase 1 works relate to any works associated with the spine road, road improvements, quay walls, and public realm. The linear park will be completed following completion of the relevant residential phase to which it relates with the pocket parks and basin play park to be completed within a timescale agreed with the Planning Authority, all identified on annotated masterplan E2604.Sk001revJ received on 22nd June 2021 in connection with planning application DC21/115/FUL. Reason: To provide clarity and to ensure the conditions relate to the correct phasing. 2. Prior to commencement of any development on site, further applications for the approval of matters specified below shall be obtained from the planning authority. Applications shall include: a) site layout plans showing the position of all buildings, roads, footpaths, parking areas, walls, fences and landscaping; b) block and layout plans and elevations of each building, showing dimensions and palettes of external materials; c) landscape and streetscape plans showing the location and species of all proposed trees, shrubs, hedges, palettes of hard landscaping materials and street furniture; d) details of existing and proposed ground levels, and finished floor levels, relating to a clearly identified fixed datum point; e) a detailed report on the extent, scale and nature of any contamination of the site; and f) a detailed remediation scheme detailing the measures necessary to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use. Reason: To ensure full details are provided for each aspect of the development. 3. As part of any application(s) for approval of matters specified in conditions, and with regard to the requirements of condition 2 above, the design and layout of development parcels shall comply with the design principles/intents set out in sections 05 and 06 of the Design & Access Statement (Rev C, March 2016), the accompanying Framework Drawing No. P(0) 003 Rev E (or any subsequent amendments thereto), and the approved Design Codes for Page 7
Page 8
Queens Quay (approved September 2020) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the design principles agreed in these documents form part of the consideration of any subsequent planning applications. 4. At the same time as the submission of the first commercial use application (excluding any district heating system) a mini masterplan shall be submitted for the mixed used area coloured yellow on Drawing No. P(0) 003 rev E (including building plots, design principles and a parking strategy) for the further approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to allow consideration of the proposed mix of uses, and to ensure consistency of design standards across the site and that a parking strategy is considered early in the design process. 5. As part of any application(s) for the approval of matters specified in conditions for Phase 1 works, and notwithstanding the requirements of condition 2c) above, details of the landscaping strategy for the spine road, linear park and pocket parks shall include: a) location and species of all proposed trees, shrubs, hedges; b) palettes of hard landscaping materials, street furniture and play equipment; c) identify potential locations for public art; and d) the means of management and maintenance of the landscaping and public open space. Reason: To ensure full details are submitted for further consideration. 6. No development (other than the spine road works, road improvement works, quay wall works, public realm works, health and care site works and investigative works, but excluding the linear and pocket parks) shall commence on site until such time as a site-wide water environment investigation and assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and as a minimum shall include the following: a) Suitable and sufficient monitoring from across the site in order to identify the extent, scale and nature of contamination with regards to the water environment. b) An appropriate level of assessment that identifies the key receptors and the significance of any pollutant linkages found to be present. c) Should a significant pollutant linkage be identified on the site then a site wide preliminary remedial options appraisal is to be provided that demonstrates whereabouts on the site remediation is considered likely. Any measures identified in the report shall be implemented as approved within a timescale agreed with the Planning Authority. Page 8
Page 9
Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 7. No development (other than the spine road works, road improvement works, quay wall works, public realm works, health and care site works and investigative works, but excluding the linear and pocket parks) shall commence on site until such time as a site wide assessment of the underlying ground gas regime has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and as a minimum shall include the following: a) Suitable and sufficient monitoring from across the site in order to assess the ground gas conditions that currently exist under the site. b) A strategy confirming that and detailing how the monitoring of ground gas boreholes will continue throughout the various development phases. It should also refer to the future method of reporting to the Planning Authority as the development progresses. c) A preliminary assessment of the implications of the existing ground gas conditions on the proposed mixed-use development. Any measures identified in the report shall be implemented as approved within a timescale agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 8. As part of any application(s) for the approval of matters specified in conditions, Noise Impact Assessments for each development parcel shall be carried out to assess the potential impacts of noise from sources including road traffic, air traffic, plant equipment and entertainment noise and submitted for the further approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to avoid disturbance to residential properties. 9. Prior to the reuse of material from the onsite spoil mounds and/or the importation of any material onto the site, details of the source of the material and associated test results to demonstrate its suitability for use shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. In addition to this and in accordance with BS3882:2015, the material shall also be free from metals, plastic, wood, glass, tarmac, paper and odours associated with contaminated soils. Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 10. No development shall commence until the developer submits an archaeological mitigation strategy for the further approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the approved strategy is fully implemented in accordance with the recommendations set out in sections 8.339 – 8.353 of the Environmental Statement approved under planning Page 9
Page 10
permission DC15/234 and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken in agreement with the Planning Authority and West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Reason: The site is of archaeological significance and the strategy will set out the general scope of mitigation work to be followed before and during development but allow the detailed preparation of more detailed Written Schemes of Investigation to be brought forward for approval as each development parcel becomes imminent. 11. All applications for the approval of matters specified in conditions shall include land raising of low-lying areas of the site to above the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood level (set at 5.4m AOD), and finished floor levels of all buildings are to be set to at least 0.6m above the 1 in 200 year plus climate change floor level at 6.1m AOD. All development shall be implemented in accordance with these details. Reason: To mitigate against the risk from flooding by the adjacent River Clyde. 12. As part of the approval of matters specified in conditions, each development parcel shall comply with the recommendations of the Drainage Impact Assessment (Rev B, October 2015) with details of the means of disposal of surface water, foul sewage and a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme to be submitted for the further approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an appropriate means of drainage for the site. 13. The number of dwelling units consented for the site shall not exceed 1,056 units unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the density of development is appropriate to the site and that the number of dwelling units does not exceed the figure upon which the Transport Assessment was based without proper consideration of any resultant implications. 14. Prior to the commencement of development, a strategy detailing the implementation of community/affordable housing provision within the site shall be submitted for the further approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure the provision of an appropriate level of social housing. 15. As part of the Phase 1 application for the approval of matters specified in conditions, a Construction and Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted for the further approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with NatureScot. It shall: a) detail measures to screen the development in terms of noise and visual disturbance from the Inner Clyde SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI; Page 10
Page 11
b) detail measures to limit pollution to the Inner Clyde SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI; c) identify those works that are likely to have significant potential for visual and noise disturbance, such as piling. No works which are identified as likely to have a significant potential for visual and/or noise disturbance shall be carried during the main wintering period (September to early April). The Construction and Environmental Management Plan shall be implemented within a timescale agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to minimise the risk of the development giving rise to adverse impacts upon the protected Inner Clyde SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI. 16. As part of the Phase 1 application for the approval of matters specified in conditions, a detailed Recreation and Access Management Plan which details measures to limit potential disturbance to the north shore of the Inner Clyde SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI from increased access to the river shall be submitted for the further approval of the Planning Authority and implemented within a timescale agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to minimise the risk of the development giving rise to adverse impacts upon the protected Inner Clyde SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI. 17. As part of the Phase 1 application for the approval of matters specified in conditions, the applicant shall submit a Sustainable Transport Strategy which shall include details of: a) bus integration into the site; b) walking routes to/from the site; c) location of bus stops; d) green travel plans; and e) initiatives towards encouraging bus services into the site. The recommendations of the Sustainable Transport Strategy shall require to be implemented in accordance with an agreed phasing plan within a timescale agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To deliver effective, efficient and integrated transport for the site that does not have a detrimental impact on the sustainability of the existing town centre. 18. As part of any application for approval of matters specified in conditions, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority detailing the opportunities for sustainable travel to and from that development parcel. Reason: To promote sustainable means of transport and to reduce reliance on the car. Page 11
Page 12
19. As part of the Phase 1 application for the approval of matters specified in conditions, the following shall be included: a) details of parking provision for visitors to the Titan Crane and the riverside walkway; and b) details of the new signal-controlled junction and realignment of Cable Depot Road (section 9.14 of the Transport Assessment (October 2015). c) These works shall be implemented as approved as part of the Phase 1 works to the site. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking facilities in order to minimise the incidence of roadside parking which would be a danger to other road users. 20. Prior to any part of the development site being occupied or otherwise being brought into use, the works recommended in the Transport Assessment (October 2015) to realign Ailsa Road (section 9.12) and carry out layout improvements to Cart Street/Glasgow Road junction (section 9.23) shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking facilities in order to minimise the incidence of roadside parking which would be a danger to other road users. 21. As part of any application(s) for the approval of matters specified in conditions, parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted parking standards, and no building shall be occupied until its parking facilities have been completed. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking facilities in order to minimise the incidence of roadside parking which would be a danger to other road users. 22. As part of any application(s) for the approval of matters specified in conditions, each residential unit shall be provided with a secure covered bicycle storage facility at ground floor level. Each non-residential development shall have adequate secure covered cycle storage for staff in addition to adequate securable covered cycle facilities for visitors/customers. Reason: To encourage the use of sustainable forms of travel and to discourage crime by providing secure facilities. 23. The amount of retail floor space permitted is 3,000m² (gross). Any unit trading primarily in convenience goods shall not exceed 1,000m². Any unit trading in comparison goods shall not exceed 250m². Proposals to exceed these floor space thresholds shall be the subject of a separate planning application and retail statement for the further approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To limit the impact of the development on Clydebank town centre to the levels tested in the Planning and Retail Statement (GVA James Barr, Page 12
Page 13
October 2015), and to ensure that a convenience store is included in the development which is of a size to increase choice within Clydebank. 24. As part of any application(s) for the approval of matters specified in conditions details of soft and water landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. Details must comply with Advice Note 3 “Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping & Building Design”. These details shall include: • The species, number and spacing of trees and shrubs • Details of any water features • Drainage details including SUDS – such schemes must comply with Advice Note 6 “Potential Bird Hazards from Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes” The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Glasgow Airport through the attraction of birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the application site. 25. Any development that would create a roof area greater than 250 square metres with a roof pitch of less than 15° shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The submitted plan shall include details of the management of the roofs within the site which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and “loafing” birds. The management plan shall comply with Advice Note 8 “Potential Bird Hazards from Building Design”. Reason: To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Glasgow Airport through the attraction of birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the application site. 26. As part of the first application for the approval of matters specified in conditions under Condition 2 above, an Energy Strategy for the site shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. The Energy Strategy shall include details for the delivery and implementation of on-site low carbon and renewable energy solutions, building specific technologies and features alongside any other measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency on the site. The approved strategy including any agreed measures shall be implemented on site and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and shall remain in place for the lifetime of the development. Any modifications or updates required for the approved strategy shall first be subject to the written approval of the Planning Authority and implemented thereafter as approved. All subsequent applications for matters specified by condition under Condition 2 above shall demonstrate adherence to the agreed approach. Page 13
Page 14
Reason: To ensure the incorporation of low carbon technologies and minimise greenhouse gas emissions 27. As part of the first application for the approval of matters specified in conditions under Condition 2 above, a biodiversity enhancement strategy for the site shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. The biodiversity enhancement strategy shall include details designed to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. The approved strategy including any agreed measures shall be implemented on site and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and shall remain in place for the lifetime of the development. Any modifications or updates required for the approved strategy shall first be subject to the written approval of the Planning Authority and implemented thereafter as approved. All subsequent applications for matters specified by condition under Condition 2 above shall demonstrate adherence to the agreed approach. Reason: In the interests of the enhancement of biodiversity and maximising positive biodiversity benefits. Page 14
Page 15
APPENDIX 2 DC24/197/FUL: Amendment to Condition 2 and Condition 14 of permission DC20/253 in relation to proposed site at Landfill Site at Auchincarroch Road, Jamestown, Alexandria by Barr Environmental Ltd. GRANT full planning permission subject to the following 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. 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. Page 15
Page 16
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, hereby 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 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. Page 16
Page 17
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. 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 Page 17
Page 18
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. 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 Page 18
Page 19
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 6th August 2025 DC25/076/FUL: Section 42 application to vary Condition 12 - working hours (Amendment to DC24/081/FUL) at Artizan Centre, College Way, Dumbarton by West Dunbartonshire Council 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 This application seeks to amend the terms of a condition 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. 2. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 The application site is located on College Way within Dumbarton’s Town Centre and extends to approximately 1 ha. The site is primarily hardstanding and includes a variety of buildings forming part of the Artizan Shopping Centre, with a few small areas of grass along the site’s boundary as well as some street trees planted along High-Street, at the car park on Risk Street Carpark and at Artizan Centre entrance on St Mary’s Way. A small portion of the south of the development site is located within the Dumbarton Town Centre Conservation Area boundary, including the buildings fronting High Street. 3.2 Planning Application DC24/081/FUL covered what will be Phase 1 of a wider re- development project of the current Artizan Centre site in Dumbarton. The wider masterplan/development framework is being considered separately via an application for Planning Permission in Principle (DC24/108/PPP) and comprises a mixed-use scheme that seeks to redevelop the site and partially repurpose the existing buildings where possible. The masterplan seeks to create a new high quality permeable public realm and is intended to contain the following uses: residential; retail (at ground floor and key corners); leisure/food and beverage and a healthcare facility. West Dunbartonshire Council successfully applied to the UK Government’s Levelling Up Fund to tackle the decline of Dumbarton Town Centre and deliver three key projects in the town, one of which is the Artizan Centre. 3.3 At the November 2024 meeting of the Planning Committee, Members determined to grant application DC24/081/FUL for façade improvements to existing shopfronts as well as landscaping and associated infrastructure. The façade improvements included: The removal of the “gateway” canopies at the entrances to the Artizan Centre St Marys Way. Conservation Area Consent had also already been granted under application DC24/086/CON for the removal of the canopy at the High Street which is within the Conservation Area, ITEM 5 Page 19
Page 20
Removal of shelter canopies on College Way, Upgrade of shelter canopies on High Street with bronze film, Partial removal of zinc cladding at upper levels to be replaced with glazed ceramic tile cladding. This cladding will be similar to what has been approved at the adjacent Glencairn House, Timber cladding at upper levels on High Street to be removed, and replaced with timber effect cladding panels, Painting of concrete at upper-level black, Removal of existing light fittings attached to building and replaced with bronze coloured light fittings, One concrete upstand to be cut off at roof line and made good with new capping piece, and All shopfronts including glazing, doorsets and signage to be removed and replacement black aluminium shopfronts installed. 3.4 The permission also included public realm/landscaping proposals comprising: Creation of new square in the location of the buildings currently being removed, A shelter structure as a focal point within the new square created via a series of vertical elements with the inclusion of a sedum roof canopy, Enhancement of Collage Way with new high-quality paving and landscaping, Open space, Play space, A feature landscaped area in the form of “maze”. 3.5 This current application seeks to modify the terms of condition 12 which was attached to application DC24/081/FUL. Condition 12 of application DC24/081/FUL reads as follows: During the period of construction, all works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary (or at such other place(s) as may first be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority), shall be carried out between the following hours unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority: a. Mondays to Fridays: 0800 – 1800 b. Saturdays: 0800 – 1300 c. Sundays and public holidays: No Working 3.6 The applicant has proposed an amended change in wording as follows: During the period of construction, all works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary (or at such other place(s) as may be first agreed in writing with the Planning Authority) shall be carried out between the hours and programme shown on the submitted schedule SAV1. Where changes to the programme are required an amended schedule shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its information. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 West Dunbartonshire Council Environmental Health Service Environmental Health are satisfied with the proposed changes to working hours. It should be noted that the agreed hours include all noise generating activities so works should have ceased and staff cleared the site (where this generates noise) by the agreed schedule of hours. Page 20
Page 21
5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 One objection was received. The full details are contained within the planning file and are available for public viewing. However, the key points of objection can be summarised as follows: The proximity of Lennox Evangelical Church to the site may result in works disrupting Sunday services between 0930 and 1330. The detail of the extended hours proposed is unclear. The concerns raised shall be considered in the appraisal in the Section 7 below. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6.1 This application, submitted under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 (as amended), seeks to vary the terms of condition 12 of planning permission DC24/081/FUL. Annex H of Scottish Government Circular 3/2022 – Development Management Procedures sets out that in determining Section 42 applications, planning authorities may only consider the issue of the conditions to be attached to any resulting permission. However, as the effect of granting this Section 42 application will see the planning permission renewed, the Planning Authority is entitled to look at the principle of development in the light of any material change in the Development Plan policies. In this case, the current planning permission for the site was granted in November 2024, there have been no changes to either the planning policy position or the circumstances of the application site and works associated with implementing this permission have not yet commenced on site. Whilst all development plan policies relevant to the proposed development are highlighted below, a full detailed reassessment of the proposal is not considered to be required. National Planning Policy 4 6.2 A small proportion of the site is within the ‘Clyde Mission’ area, identified as one of eighteen National Developments with National Planning Framework 4 which recognises that significant land assets are under-utilised across the Clyde, (including waterfront sites such as Queens Quay) and that longstanding inequality, in relation to poor environment and health outcomes require to be tackled as a national priority. The Clyde Mission designation aims to repurpose and reinvigorate vacant and derelict land as well as adapting the area to the impacts of climate change, where nature-based solutions would be particularly supported. Whilst the scale of this proposal in itself is not categorised as a National Development in terms of The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, delivery of the development proposals for the site would support the objectives of the national development designation. 6.3 Policy 1 relates to tackling the climate and nature crises and states that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 2 also relates to the climate in the form of climate mitigation and adaptation and states development proposals will be sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible and development proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Policy 3’s intent is to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Subject to a variety a matters being addressed by condition, the proposal would have a neutral impact in respect of Policies 1, 2 and 3. Page 21
Page 22
6.4 As part of the site is located within a conservation area Policy 7 applies. Development proposals in or affecting conservation areas will only be supported where the character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting is preserved or enhanced. A number of listed buildings are located within the town centre in the vicinity of the site and Policy 7 further advises that development proposals affecting the setting of listed building should preserve their character and special architectural and historic interest. In previously granting planning permission for the site, it was concluded there was no adverse impact and this position remains. 6.5 Within the Artizan Centre, some of the units are vacant and as such Policy 9 addressing brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings applies. Development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings, whether permanent or temporary, will be supported. 6.5 Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale as per Policy 14. Policy 15 relates to local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods. Development proposal will contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20-minute neighbourhoods. Consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to shopping and playgrounds and informal play opportunities, parks, green streets and spaces. There is thus no conflict with these Policies. 6.6 Policy 21 which addresses play, recreation and sport encourages, promotes and facilitates spaces and opportunities for play, recreation and sport. Policy 22 on flood risk and water management states 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. The application site is within an area at risk of flooding and falls into the exemption set out within the Policy relating to redevelopment of an existing building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use. It remains that as per the Policy matters relating to flood risk require to be fully considered and understood. 6.7 Policy 21 which addresses play, recreation and sport encourages, promotes and facilitates spaces and opportunities for play, recreation and sport. Policy 22 on flood risk and water management states 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. The application site is within an area at risk of flooding and falls into the exemption set out within the Policy relating to redevelopment of an existing building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use and as such there is no conflict with the policy. 6.8 Policy 23 relates to Health and safety. Part (e) states that development proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. Overall, the proposal including the amended approach to construction hours is acceptable and fully assessed in Section 7 below. Policy 28 relates to Retail and states that development proposals for retail (including expansions and changes of use) will be consistent with the town centre first principle. 6.9 With appropriate planning conditions, it remains that the proposed development is supported by all policies of NPF4 and is assessed fully in Section 7 below. West Dunbartonshire Adopted Local Plan 2010 Page 22
Page 23
6.10 Policy UR1 encourages the redevelopment and re-use of underused, vacant and/or derelict land and buildings for appropriate uses such as housing. Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high quality of design and respects the character and amenity of the area. 6.11 Policy RET5 seeks to improve the environment of the town centres of Alexandria, Clydebank and Dumbarton and Policy RET6 seeks to protect and enhance the retail and commercial function by encouraging the improvement of existing retail floorspace. 6.12 Policy DC 2 requires new shopfronts, whether on existing buildings or on new developments, to be designed in accordance with the Council’s Shop Front Design Guide for commercial frontages. 6.13 Policy BE1 seeks to ensure that no works adversely affect the appearance and character of conservation areas and Policy BE2 takes a similar approach in respect of ensuring that proposals do not adversely affect the setting of any listed buildings. Policy BE3 encourages and supports the renovation rather than demolition of derelict properties which are not listed but are considered to contribute to the townscape character of the surrounding area. Policy B5 advises on development proposals that impact upon local archaeology and the approach to assessing and recording features. 6.14 Policy R2 states that the Council will have due regard to the provision of open space as an integral part of proposals. Policy R3 relates to the enhancement of open space and sports facilities. 6.15 Policy E1 relates to the Council’s biodiversity duty. Policy E5 requires new development proposals to consider impacts on trees and incorporate suitable tree planting. 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. There is a general presumption against development within the flood plain. The up-to-date development plan position in flooding is set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 which therefore has primacy in this instance. 6.16 It remains that the proposal overall complies with the relevant policies of the adopted local plan and is assessed fully in Section 7 below. 7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 7.1 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. 7.2 Policy CP1 seeks to ensure that all new development will be expected to contribute towards creating successful places by having regard to the six qualities of a successful place (distinctive, adaptable, resource efficient, easy to get to/move around, safe and pleasant, and welcoming). Policy CP2 requires the integration and consideration of green infrastructure from the outset of the design process through to its maintenance and stewardship of the resource. Page 23
Page 24
7.3 Dumbarton Policy 1 High Street and Retail Development supports a more diverse and vibrant Town Centre and will encourage a range of uses within the Core Town Centre area where they accord with Policy SC2 of the Plan. Policy SC2 supports a range of different uses within the core Town Centre where they help to improve the vibrancy of the Town Centre. 7.4 Policy BE1 takes a similar approach to the adopted Local Plan in respect of archaeology with Policy BE2 advising on the impact upon the setting of listed buildings. Due to the location within a conservation area, Policy BE3 applies. Policy BE3 does states that new development within or affecting a Conservation Area should be of a high standard of design and enhance the character of the area and should have regard to the Conservation Area Appraisal for that area. 7.5 Policies ENV1, ENV4, and ENV6 are all similar to the ecology and tree, water environment and flooding policies of the adopted Local Plan, although in respect of flooding, the up-to-date development plan position is set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 which has primacy. 7.6 The Council will actively encourage the temporary greening of any vacant, derelict, stalled or underused site to improve the contribution to the green infrastructure and to improve the character and amenity of the particular community or area in accordance with Policy ENV7. Policy ENV8 relates to air, light and noise pollution and states that all new development must ensure that significant adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties and uses are avoided. Policy ENV9 requires developers to establish the nature of any contamination on any potential development site. Where contamination is present and risks to key receptors are identified, then remediation will be required to ensure the site can be made suitable for its future use. 7.7 It is considered that overall, it remains that the proposal complies with the relevant policies above. Historic Environment Scotland’s Policy and Guidance 7.8 The Historic Environment Policy for Scotland seeks to ensure that changes to specific assets and their context are managed in a way that protects the historic environment. 7.9 Historic Environment Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Note series provides advice and guidance to Planning Authorities determining applications which affect the historic environment. Guidance Note subjects relevant to this proposal include setting, external walls, shopfronts and windows. 7.10 The guidance note on ‘Setting’ advises that setting can be important to the way in which historic structures or places are understood, appreciated and experienced, and provides guidance on factors to be considered in assessing the impact of a change on the setting of a historic asset or place. Overall, it is considered that the principle of the proposal will enhance the setting of the Dumbarton Conservation Area and be to the benefit of the wider area and therefore have no detrimental effects to any surrounding Conservation Area or listed buildings. 7.11 The guidance on ‘External Walls’ highlights that the design, materials, method of construction, colour, texture, detailing and finish typically contribute to the character of a historic wall. Whilst the buildings of the Artizan themselves are not listed they form a part of the fabric of the Conservation Area. Shopfronts are highlighted as contributing to the architectural quality of a building and to the character of a place. Page 24
Page 25
7.12 Overall, it remains that the proposal overall presents no conflicts with Historic Environment Scotland’s Policy and Guidance. 7.13 Dumbarton Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisal Dumbarton Town Centre Conservation Area was designated on 11 October 2019. The Conservation Area Appraisal notes that the architecture of Dumbarton town centre falls into a number of distinct eras which can be easily identified by the styles and materials employed. This creates interest and relieves potential monotony. It is noted that since the turn of the century, West Dunbartonshire Council has seen the regeneration of the town centre as a priority, including the Artizan Centre at the heart of the 1960s re- development which was re-modelled in 2004 7.14 The creation of the Artizan Centre and its redevelopment is noted at several points throughout the appraisal, with comments made that the re-modelling (and enlargement) of the Artizan Centre destroyed the 1960s pedestrian route through the town square to the cinema, housing and station beyond; that there are a number of unresolved areas behind and near the Artizan Centre that do not aid orientation; and that there is even a uniformity of scale in the buildings that were delivered as part of the creation of the Artizan Centre. 7.15 The Dumbarton Town Centre Conservation Area Proposal of 2019 noted that the High Street Character Area had retained much of its original form in terms of its solid frontage and retail designation. The lack of quality in shop frontages and signage is extremely detrimental to the character and townscape of Dumbarton. Many shopfronts and signage displays on High Street are constructed of non-traditional materials, and do not reflect the original proportions of traditional shopfronts. 7.16 Open space in the town centre comprises largely of car parks and small pockets of grass: Dumbarton is well served by places to park and the majority of these are landscaped with hedge planting and trees (some flowering). 7.17 The appraisal also notes that given the various periods of development evident in the Dumbarton Town Centre Conservation Area, there is a wide range of building materials used, not all of which fall under the category of “traditional”. Public realm finishes are stated to be tidy, albeit clinical. Creating Places Guidance and Green Network and Green Infrastructure Guidance 7.18 The Creating Places Supplementary Guidance – November 2022 seeks to achieve high quality development with a design led approach based on a thorough appraisal of the site and an analysis of its context and sets out that this is expected for all development proposals. 7.19 The Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance - November 2022 seeks to ensure that the proposal also integrates landscaping and green infrastructure as part of the setting of the new development and open space created. This will include a focus on biodiversity enhancement. Assessment of Section 42 applications 7.20 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 12 of planning permission DC24/081/FUL as worded, with alternative wording sought. Condition 12 relates to working hours. The effect of a Section 42 application, if successful, is to grant planning permission again for the whole development but with the amended conditions Page 25
Page 26
replacing those that were issued previously. Planning Authorities, if minded, may attach new or updated conditions if permission is granted. Principle of Development 7.21 As noted in paragraph 6.1 above, the principle of development on this site has already been established through the granting of planning permission DC24/081/FUL. This permission remains extant and can be implemented as approved. It remains that the site is located within the defined Dumbarton Town Centre area as well as within the core Town Centre area. NPF4, the adopted Local Plan and the proposed LDP2 all promote developments within town centres which increase viability and vitality of the town centre. The proposals to upgrade shopfronts is well supported by Policy 14 of NPF4 which requires proposals to improve the quality of an area and regardless of scale as well as Policy DC 2 of the adopted Local Plan. 7.22 The proposal for public realm works in the form of a shelter structure, play area and landscaping is also well supported through Policy 15 relating to local living and 20 minute areas as well as Policy 21 relating to the provision of play opportunities. In addition, Policy ENV7 supports the temporary greening of sites. 7.23 The proposal will support long term town centre regeneration plans for Dumbarton Town Centre and will complement the proposals for the regeneration of the Glencairn House. Overall, the principle of the development to upgrade existing shopfronts as well as the public realm works are appropriate and encouraged within the Town Centre where this development proposal is located. The proposals will provide significant enhancement to the area, which in turn will create a more attractive environment which will potentially encourage people to the Town Centre. Any increase in footfall will have a positive impact on the overall vitality and viability of the Town Centre. Overall, the principle of the development remains acceptable and a full, detailed, reassessment of the wider proposal is not considered to be required. Hours of working – Condition 12 7.24 The Section 42 application has been submitted to alter Condition 12 so that the hours of working can be amended from those prescribed within the original condition. In considering if it is acceptable to amend these working hours there needs to be an assessment as to the reason the hours were first conditioned and whether these hours still apply. 7.25 The condition was applied “to ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by creating excessive noise and disturbance at unsocial hours” and followed advice provided in the consultation response from Environmental Health. Since the attachment of this condition to the previous granting of planning permission it has been highlighted by the applicant that in order to ensure that the businesses within the Artizan centre can remain open and operational during the construction period, façade improvement works are required to be carried outwith regular trading hours (i.e. after 5pm). The specific hours of working and timeframes are included within the schedule provided as part of the application submission (SAV1). This sets out a programme of works for each section of the site including start and finish dates together with timings of particular aspects of the works. These timings have working hours to 11pm for a variety of works including canopy works together with shopfront replacement works near to residential properties. Other works such as shopfront works within College Way which are away from residential properties are not restricted. The programme of works will run until 27/11/26. The application is supported by a Construction Noise Assessment. Page 26
Page 27
7. 26 The applicant proposes to vary the condition by way of an update the wording to add reference the working hours as referenced in the submitted schedule SAV1. In addition, the applicant has further proposed the wording “Where changes to the programme are required an amended schedule shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its information”. This would mean that any future changes to the agreed working hours would not have to be approved in writing by the Planning Authority and would only be provided for information. 7.27 When undertaking the assessment of the proposed variation to Condition 12, Policy 23 of NPF4 is relevant. Policy 23 (Health and Safety) of NPF4 seek to protect people and places from environmental harm Policy 23-part e) states that development proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. The agent of change principle applies to noise sensitive development. A Noise Impact Assessment may be required where the nature of the proposal or its location suggests that significant effects are likely. A Construction Noise Assessment has been submitted in support of the proposal. This report provides an assessment of the potential noise impacts between the hours of 17:00 and 03:00 arising from the proposed works. It is concluded that the application site is within a busy town centre location and that a variety of works can be undertaken on site into the evening without the potential for adverse impact upon residential amenity with the town centre. However, significant nighttime effects on amenity could arise from construction activities. The submitted working hours schedule proposes that audible works outwith the site boundary will generally cease by 23:00. It is noted, however, that for some works such as canopy removal for example, this time is later than the cautionary approach recommended in the applicant’s Noise Assessment. 7.28 In considering whether the proposed hours of work are acceptable, the application assessment is guided by the advice in the consultation response from the Council’s Environmental Health Service. Following full consideration of the proposed working hours and noting the busy town centre location, Environmental Health offer no objections on the proposal and are satisfied with the proposed changes to working hours. It is however noted that that the agreed hours include all noise generating activities so works should have ceased and staff cleared the site (where this generates noise) by the agreed schedule of hours. In further assessing the application and as highlighted in paragraph 7.26 above, the applicant seeks further flexibility in their proposed condition which would mean that any future changes to the agreed working hours would not have to be approved in writing by the Planning Authority and would only be provided for information. This raises the concern that there would be insufficient control over future changes to the agreed working hours which could have the potential to adversely impact upon residential amenity. Whilst it is considered appropriate to allow an element of flexibility for changes and updates to the programme of works, such changes would require to be agreed by the Planning Authority. In addition, it is also considered appropriate to retain the ability of the applicant to undertake works during the standard daytime working hours specified in the original condition 12 and the applicant’s proposed condition would not permit this. As such, an alternative wording for the amended condition 12 is recommended as follows: 7.29 “During the period of construction, all works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary (or at such other place(s) as may be first agreed in writing with the Planning Authority) shall be carried out between the hours and programme shown on the submitted schedule SAV1 in addition to the standard working hours of: Mondays to Fridays: 0800 - 1800 Saturdays: 0800 - 1300 Page 27
Page 28
Sundays and public holidays: No Working Where changes to the programme are required, an amended schedule shall be submitted to the Planning Authority prior to the changes being implemented and approved in writing before their implementation.” 7.30 It is considered that subject to the wording of the condition as set out above, the development proposal is acceptable with reference to with the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan policies. Outstanding matters raised in representations 7.31 Considering the objection received, this was in relation to the proposed working hours disturbing the Sunday services of Lennox Evangelical Church which is located at 2 Risk Street. Whilst some of the works are highlighted as affecting properties on Risk Street, the church is not specifically noted as being affected. The timings for the works that affect residents of Risk Street are between 6pm and 11pm and as such do not affect the Sunday services between 0930 and 1330. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 The acceptability of the re-development of the site has previously been established with the granting of planning permission in principle (ref: DC24/081/FUL). This application is a Section 42 application to vary the terms of condition 12 of planning application DC24/081/FUL. Following consideration of the applicants proposed variation to the condition and informed by the consultation responses from the Council’s Environmental Health Service, it is concluded, subject to the further revised wording being applied as set out in paragraph 7.29 above, the proposal is in accordance with Policy 23 of NPF4. 9. CONDITIONS 1. Prior to the commencement of development on site, exact details of all proposed external materials (inclusive of all hard surfaces), to be used in the development site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be completed in strict accordance with the approved material details and palette. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. 2. Notwithstanding the approved plans, a programme for the implementation and completion of the soft and hard landscaping works shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall proceed accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. 3. Notwithstanding the approved details, a Tree protection Plan to describe how trees on site shall be safeguarded through the development process, including details of any works required to the trees to allow for the construction phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be completed in strict accordance with the approved plan. Page 28
Page 29
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity, protection and enhancement of biodiversity and tree protection. 4. That any trees, shrubs or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged or become diseased within five years of completion of the landscaping shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and biodiversity. 5. Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to the installation of the proposed play equipment, full details of the equipment to be installed and its location shall be provided to and approved in writing. Thereafter, the play equipment shall be installed as specified, and remain in place for the lifetime for the development unless otherwise agree in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that full details of play equipment are secured. 6. Prior to commencement of any works on site, a site management scheme for construction traffic shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter work shall proceed in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 7. a) No development that breaks ground or otherwise involves ground works (other than investigative work) can take place until such time as a comprehensive site investigation has been carried out to the appropriate Phase level and submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The investigation shall be completed by a suitably qualified and competent person and completed in accordance with advice given in the following: Planning Advice Note 33 (2000) and Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995) BS 10175:2011+A1:2013 – British Standards institution ‘The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice’. Land Contamination and Development Management -Guidance. https://www.ep-scotland.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/ConLanDevGuide_12-Aug19-FINAL.pdf i. If the Phase 1 investigation indicates any potential pollution linkages, a Conceptual Site Model must be formulated, and these linkages must be subjected to risk assessment. If a Phase 2 investigation is required, then a risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages will require to be submitted. ii. If the risk assessment identifies any unacceptable risks then an appraisal of remedial options followed by a detailed remediation scheme will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. No works other than investigative works shall be carried out on site prior to receipt of the Planning Authority’s written approval of the remediation scheme. Page 29
Page 30
Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 8. Remediation of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme prior to the proposed development being brought into use. Any amendments to the approved remediation scheme shall not be implemented unless approved in writing by the Planning Authority. On completion of the remediation works, the developer shall submit a verification report to the Planning Authority, confirming that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme and that the works have successfully reduced the risks to acceptable levels. Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 9. The presence of any previously unexpected contamination that becomes evident during the development of the site shall be reported to the Planning Authority in writing within one week, and work on the site shall cease. At this stage, if requested by the Planning Authority, an appropriate investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken and a remediation scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the recommencement of site works. The approved details shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 10. If there is a requirement to either re-use site won material or to import material then the assessment criteria and sampling frequency that would adequately demonstrate its suitability for use shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to any material being re-used or imported. In addition to this and in accordance with BS3882:2015 and BS8601:2013, material to be used in the top 300mm shall also be free from metals, plastic, wood, glass, tarmac, paper and odours. On completion of the works and at a time and or phasing agreed by the Planning Authority, the developer shall submit a validation report containing details of the source of the material and associated test results to demonstrate its suitability for use. Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 11. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Authority, no development shall commence on site until such time as a scheme for the control and mitigation of dust has been submitted to and approved in writing by this Authority. The scheme shall identify likely sources of dust arising from the development or its construction and shall identify measures to prevent or limit the occurrence and impact of such dust. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented fully prior to any of the identified dust generating activities commencing on site and shall be maintained thereafter, unless otherwise approved by this Authority. Reason: To minimise the occurrence of dust, in the interests of the amenity of the area. 12. During the period of construction, all works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary (or at such other place(s) as may be first agreed in writing with the Planning Authority) shall be carried out between the hours and programme shown on the submitted schedule SAV1 in addition to the standard working hours of: Page 30
Page 31
Mondays to Fridays: 0800 - 1800 Saturdays: 0800 - 1300 Sundays and public holidays: No Working Where changes to the programme are required, an amended schedule shall be submitted to the Planning Authority prior to the changes being implemented and approved in writing before their implementation. Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by creating excessive noise and disturbance at unsocial hours. 13. Prior to any works proposed which break ground or otherwise involves ground works, the developer shall secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Reason: In the interests of the recording of antiquity. Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 6th August 2025 Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Service 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 forms and plans 2. Representation 3. Consultation responses 4. National Planning Framework 4 5. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 6. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended Creating Places Guidance (2022) 8. Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance (2022) 9. Dumbarton Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisal 10. Historic Environment Policy for Scotland Page 31
Page 32
11. Historic Environment Scotland Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes on Setting, External Walls and Shopfronts 12. Planning application DC24/081/FUL Wards affected: Ward 3 (Dumbarton) Page 32
Page 33
¯ Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (C) Crown copyright and database right 23/07/2025. All rights reserved. West Dunbartonshire OS Licence Number 100020790. Scale: 1:1,250@A423/07/2025 West Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street Dumbarton G82 1QL DC25/076/FUL - Map ITEM 5 - APPENDIX 1 Page 33
Page 34
Page 34
Page 35
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 6th August 2025 _____________________________________________________________ Subject: Planning application DC22/245/FUL – Formation of a dwellinghouse with the re-establishment of the derelict Ferrydyke cottage into a family home, involving the renovation of the existing property inclusive of the construction of a dormer and extension to the rear together with associated works at Former Ferry Dyke Canal House, Portpatrick Road, Old Kilpatrick by Mr Farhat Malik. 1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to update the Committee of the position relating to the above planning application which was referred to the Scottish Ministers following Committee determining it was minded to grant planning permission. 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee note the decision. 3. Background 3.1 Planning application DC22/245/FUL considered the re-establishment of the derelict cottage, involving the renovation of the property and the construction of a dormer and extension to the rear and associated works at the Former Ferry Dyke Canal House on Portpatrick Road, Old Kilpatrick. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) objected to the proposal on flood risk grounds. This was because SEPA considered the proposed development would put people or property at risk of flooding, which is contrary to the duties set out under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, and the policy principles of National Planning Framework 4. 3.2 In considering the application, the proposal would bring back into use a vacant and derelict building which is also on the Buildings at Risk Register. Whilst the building itself is not listed, it has historical context with being the bridge keeper’s cottage, adjacent to the scheduled monument that is the Forth and Clyde Canal. It has been suggested through the supporting documents that the area has been problematic for anti-social behaviour and that the bringing back into use of the cottage would create natural surveillance to discourage this. The proposed materials proposed are of high quality and the design is appropriate to the building and its surroundings. However, the application site sits within an area which is at risk of flooding. As such Policy 22 of NPF4 applies. This policy only supports development within such areas in certain circumstances, none of which apply to this site as the previous use as a dwellinghouse has been abandoned. Through consultation, SEPA objected in principle to the proposal stating that the proposed development is expected to put people or property at risk of flooding, which is contrary to the duties set out under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, and the policy principles of National Planning Framework 4. 3.3 In considering this application, Members noted there was no objection from the Council as local flood authority. The local members, with a knowledge of the site, could not recall when the site last flooded. Whilst SEPA described the proposed ITEM 6 Page 35
Page 36
development as being dangerous it was not explained why that was the case and the engineer involved with the proposal was satisfied. It was noted that there would be access from the towpath in times of flooding. The elected members, informed by the submitted flood risk assessment and lack of objection from the local flood authority, concluded if the development went ahead there would be a greater benefit to the community in terms of the benefits in addressing a derelict building. Committee therefore determined that they were minded to grant planning permission against the Officer’s recommendation. 4. Main Issues 4.1 Following consideration by Committee on 7th August 2024, the planning application was notified to the Scottish Ministers under the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009. 4.2 The Scottish Ministers decided that in terms of Section 46 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to require the application to be referred to the Ministers for determination. 4.3 The Reporter’s recommendation dated 21st of January specifically reviews flood risk, impact on open space, biodiversity effects and impact on the historic environment and townscape character as well as other material considerations. In regard to flood risk the Reporter concluded that the site is ‘at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area’ and the proposed residential development would introduce a highly vulnerable use in terms of flood risk. As such, the proposal would be contrary to NPF4 policy 22 (Flood risk and water management). The lower ground floor would sit below the predicted future coastal flood risk level and it has not been demonstrated that safe egress can be achieved. The proposal therefore has the potential to result in damage to property and people being trapped and requiring evacuation from the emergency services. The Reporter considered that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which would still justify granting planning permission. Therefore, the Reporter recommend that planning permission was refused. 4.4 On 22nd of May the Planning Authority received notification of the Scottish Minister’s decision. The Scottish Ministers agree with the Reporter’s conclusion and recommendation, and refused planning permission for the proposed development. 5. People Implications 5.1 There are no people implications associated with this report. 6. Financial and Procurement Implications 6.1 There are no financial or procurement issues associated with this report. 7. Risk Analysis 7.1 There are no risks associated with this report. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) 8.1 There are no equalities issues associated with this report. Page 36
Page 37
9. Consultation 9.1 Consultation was undertaken during the consideration of the planning application. 10. Strategic Assessment 10.1 The Council’s decision on these planning applications is considered to have been consistent with the following strategic priorities: Our Economy – Strong and Flourishing; Our Environment – A Greener Future; and Our Communities – Resilient and Thriving. Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 6th August 2025 Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning & Building Standards Manager Email: Michael.Mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: James.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendices: None Background Papers: 1. Report to Planning Committee 7th August 2024 - Planning application - Formation of a dwellinghouse with the re- establishment of the derelict Ferrydyke cottage into a family home, involving the renovation of the existing property inclusive of the construction of a dormer and extension to the rear together with associated works at Former Ferry Dyke Canal House, Portpatrick Road, Old Kilpatrick by Mr Farhat Malik. 2. DPEA Case Record – https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?ID=125491 Wards Affected: Ward 6 (Clydebank Waterfront) Page 37
Page 38
Page 38
Page 39
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 6th August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Subject: National Planning Improvement Framework Update 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to update Planning Committee on the recent work undertaken by the Planning Service in relation to the National Planning Improvement Framework and the endorsement by the National Planning Improvement Team of our Performance Assessment and Improvement Plan. 2. Recommendation 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee notes the outcome of the above process. 3. Background 3.1 The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 introduced a new statutory requirement for a National Planning Improvement Co-ordinator to monitor the performance of Planning Authorities in the discharge of their functions and to provide advice to planning authorities on what steps might be taken to improve the performance. 3.2 The National Planning Improvement Framework (NPIF) has now replaced the previous Planning Performance Framework (PPF) and requires Planning Authorities to self-assess themselves against the 12 attributes of a high performing Planning Authority. In total there are 47 factors/indicators within those attributes that can be taken account of when scoring against each attribute. Whilst the statistics of the PPF mainly looked at speed of decision making, the NPIF looks at a broader range of matters. The assessment is split into 5 themes, comprising the 12 attributes, as set out in the diagram below. ITEM 7 Page 39
Page 40
3.3 The self-assessment results in a score of 1-5, as set out in the diagram below. Scores of 1-2 suggest that we have good practice and we are asked to provide best practice examples to share with the National Planning Improvement Team. Scores of 3-5 would suggest that further improvement is required or a reprioritisation of current improvements. 3.4 All Planning Authorities were split into 3 cohorts and assigned a peer review partner. We were in the last cohort, cohort 3, and our partner was Clackmannanshire Council. 4. Main Issues Performance Assessment 4.1 Preparatory work for the NPIF commenced in December 2024 and was largely complete by April 2025. As the process is collaborative, the guidance requires a stakeholder meeting in order to test our draft documents and to seek feedback from our partners on both our self-assessment and our identified performance actions. This meeting took place on 15th May 2025 and included a variety of stakeholders alongside representatives from the Planning Service, including from Community Councils, Clackmannanshire Council, consultees, key agencies and a local architect. The National Planning Improvement Team were also in attendance and the event was facilitated independently of the Planning Service. 4.2 The stakeholder meeting largely validated and agreed with many aspects of our performance and scoring but provided constructive feedback on many areas. A summary of this feedback is included in our final Performance Assessment at in Appendix 1. 4.3 The agreed scoring of the Planning Authorities performance is summarised below: Attribute Score (1-5) Summary of reason for score Page 40
Page 41
1. The Planning Authority has sufficient resources and skills to maximise productivity 3 The service is currently maximising productivity within available resources, but further workforce, capacity and budget planning is required 2. The Planning Authority has a valued and supported workforce 3 The service is currently maximising training and development opportunities within existing resources, but further work is required in line attribute 1 to ensure officers are supported to carry out their role and continue their professional development 3. This Planning Authority has embedded continuous improvement 1 Despite resource and system challenges the service continually seeks ways in which processes can be streamlined or enhanced 4. This Planning Authority has sound governance 3 The service has effective governance structures; however, these are required to be reviewed 5. This Planning Authority has effective leadership 1 The service has a Chief Planning Officer in place and supports the culture of continuous improvement 6. The Planning Authority has a robust policy and evidence base 3 Whilst work is underway to prepare LDP3, the authority does not have an up-to-date Development Plan in place 7. The Planning Authority makes best use of data and digital technology 3 The service makes extensive use of digital data and technology with regards to GIS, but has significant issues with the back- office system 8. The Planning Authority has effective and efficient decision- making processes 3 The service has effective and efficient decision-making processes in many aspects of Development Management performance but overall performance could be further enhanced and the Scheme of Delegation requires review. 9. The Planning Authority has good customer care 3 The service generally provides good customer service, although it is recognised that certain areas need improvement based on formal and informal feedback 10. The Planning Authority has effective engagement and collaboration with stakeholders and communities 3 The service generally has effective engagement and collaboration but have identified areas where this could be strengthened 11. The Planning Authority supports the delivery of sustainable, liveable and productive places 1 The service has been recognised in the past for its approach to placemaking and we have a dedicated Placemaking Co- Ordinator post within the service. Page 41
Page 42
12. The Planning Authority supports the delivery of appropriate development 2 The service offers 2 different levels of preapplication advice to prospective applicants to ensure that they are aware of development plan requirements and expectations Improvement Actions 4.4 The Performance Assessment narrative, and scoring, has then fed into the development of improvement actions. In conjunction with the stakeholder group, 11 improvement actions were agreed and these are summarised below: Implement the new back-office document management system and carry out a full end-to-end review of all workflow processes Develop a workforce strategy and service training plan, including any options/opportunities for restructure of cases for investment Complete Scheme of Delegation Review to ensure it is proportionate Finalise review of committee and delegated Reports of Handling templates to ensure that they are proportionate and are clear and easy to be understood by a variety of audiences Produce detailed Team Improvement Plans, focusing on improvements that increase efficiency, and are clear, including increasing the quality of our customer communication Undertake review of the Development Management and Enforcement Charters and processes to ensure they remain fit for purpose Set up regular agents forum, in conjunction with Building Standards Carry out wider service day (with Building Standards and Environmental Health) to share good practice and workstream updates. This will inform detailed Team Improvement Plans Implement Project Management approach within Development Management Explore how “Added Value” can be better captured and reported on Review Development Management conditions 4.5 The Planning Authority also submitted the following Good Practice Examples: Attributes 3 and 5 – Culture of Continuous Improvement and Leadership Attribute 7 – Open Space Audit Attributes 11 and 12 – Supporting High Quality Development and Places National Planning Improvement Team Endorsement Page 42
Page 43
4.6 On the 13th June, the service received confirmation that the National Planning Improvement Team had endorsed the Performance Assessment and Improvement Action Plan. The National Planning Improvement Champion wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive to inform them of this and that this has also been submitted to the Minister for Public Finance. Next steps 4.7 The Planning Service continues to seek opportunities to learn from, and share, best practice and a number of best practice case studies are available on the Improvement Service website. Our own performance assessment and improvement actions will be publicised on our website. We are currently working with Clackmannanshire Council as they go through their process and seek to build on past benchmarking sessions with other authorities later this year. 4.8 Not all identified improvement actions can be delivered immediately, some are medium and longer term (2-3 years) but progress has already been made in several areas, including the review of Reports of Handling, implementation of a project management approach and the implementation of the new back- office system. The improvement actions are embedded into service workstreams to ensure their delivery. 4.9 As the NPIF process is much more intensive than the previous PPF, a complete review of the Performance Assessment and Improvement actions is not going to be undertaken on an annual basis. Further guidance on year 2 of the NPIF has recently been issued and will be actioned by the service iun due course. This will include a check in with our peer review partner authority and stakeholder group, meet with the National Improvement Team and to provide updates on progress with our improvement actions. 5. People Implications 5.1 There are no people implications associated with this report. 6. Financial and Procurement Implications 6.1 There are no financial or procurement implications associated with this report. 7. Risk Analysis 7.1 The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 introduced a new statutory requirement for a National Planning Improvement Co-Ordinator to monitor the performance of Planning Authorities in the discharge of their functions and to provide advice to Planning Authorities on what steps might be taken to improve the performance. The endorsement by the National Planning Improvement Co- Ordinator of the authorities Improvement Plan confirms the authority has met its statutory requirement. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) Page 43
Page 44
8.1 There are no equalities issues associated with this report. 9. Consultation 9.1 Consultation was undertaken during the preparation of the documents, as set out in section 4. 10. Strategic Assessment 10.1 The authority’s assessment and improvement actions are considered to be relevant to, and will help deliver, all of the Council’s strategic priorities: Our Communities – Resilient and Thriving Our Environment – A Greener Future Our Economy – Strong and Flourishing Our Council – Inclusive and Adaptable Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 6th August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Service Manager, Michael.Mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendices: Appendix 1: Performance Assessment Appendix 2: NPIF Improvement Plan Appendix 3: Good Practice Example (Attributes 3 and 5) Appendix 4: Good Practice Example (Attribute 7) Appendix 5: Good Practice Example (Attributes 11 and 12) Background Papers: None Wards Affected: All Page 44
Page 45
1 NATIONAL PLANNING IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK Performance Assessment Template Cohort 3 May 2025 ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 1 Page 45
Page 46
2 Planning Authority: West Dunbartonshire Council Lead officer: Michael Mulgrew Email: development.management@west- dunbarton.gov.uk Phone number: 0141 951 7930 West Dunbartonshire Local Context West Dunbartonshire Council covers an area of around 98 square miles and serves a population of approximately 88,000, within a mixed urban and rural area in the west of Scotland. Forming part of the Glasgow city-region and sitting along the River Clyde, the planning authority area includes the main urban areas of Clydebank, Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven, and features such as the Kilpatrick Hills, Forth and Clyde Canal and Antonine Wall. The planning authority area excludes those parts of West Dunbartonshire within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (parts of Balloch and the countryside to the east and west of Loch Lomond). The National Park Authority produces its own National Planning Improvement Framework. Page 46
Page 47
3 Service Structure Planning sits within the larger Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Service, which in turn sits within the Regulatory and Regeneration Service. We sit under a Chief Officer who reports directly to the Chief Executive. The service manager covers a wide remit as outlined in the service structure below. The service is the largest within the Regulatory and Regeneration service by FTE, with 41.9 FTE posts. The planning service has undergone a small restructure with the removal of the Team Leader Development Planning and Place post and the creation of a new Principal Officer post that covers a wider remit, including management of the Antonine Wall Project Manager and Development Officer, and the Placemaking Co-Ordinator post. The Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Service Manager also acts as the Chief Planning Officer as required by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. The planning only structure of the service is outlined below. The service is small but busy, focused on achieving quality placemaking outcomes. Page 47
Page 48
4 Note – Technical Support is a shared resource with Building Standards As of 1st May 2025, the service is operating with 2 vacant posts. A Lead Planning Officer post has been appointed and will be in post by the end of May 2025 and a Support Assistant post is currently going through the recruitment process. Planning Performance Framework 2022/2023 In our last PPF (2023) we noted a number of service improvements for the 2023/2024 period. An update on progress with these actions are outlined below. Improvement Action Progress at January 2025 We will reorganise the Planning and Building Standards files on the Council’s network. Action complete We will implement IDOX Enterprise for Uniform workflow management system. Action complete We will develop a business case for full IDOX/Uniform document management system and submit a growth bid for implementation through the 2024/2025 budget. Action complete. The Business case was agreed, and funding secured, in December 2024. Work has commenced to procure and implement this system. Hold a Service Day. Action partially complete. A service improvement plan and team building afternoon was carried out in February 2025. This action will be carried forward and include the wider service, including Environmental Health. Page 48
Page 49
5 Hold a Planning and Building Standards Forum for users of the service. Action incomplete. This will be carried forward. Review Local Review process and procedures. Action complete Investigate the possibility of new tablets to support field work. Action incomplete. This will be carried forward into team workplans Revise the planning application committee report template. Action in progress. A revised template is expected to be in place later this year. Review the Planning Scheme of Delegation. Action in progress. Early work on a revised scheme is underway and further engagement will take place later 2025 with corporate leadership and elected members. Review of Committee processes and procedures. Action incomplete. This will be carried forward. Progress on service improvement work has been impacted during 2024 due to several vacancies across the service, including a vacant service manager post between April and August 2024 and a vacant line manager post in Development Planning and Place since February 2024. Other vacancies over this period included a GIS technician, Support Assistant and a Lead Planning Officer within Development Management. Page 49
Page 50
6 NPIF Process Our assessment process included a stakeholder meeting to review our draft assessment, good practice examples and draft improvement actions. This meeting took place on the 15th May and all documents were issued 1 week earlier. The meeting took place in person at the Council Offices. Whilst some attendees unfortunately had to drop out on the day, the workshop was well attended and collaborative. Attendees are noted below: Attendees Alistair Conarty – West Dunbartonshire Community Council Forum / Old Kilpatrick Community Council Darius Jack – National Planning Improvement Officer (Improvement Service) Keith Johnston – Planning and Building Standards Team Leader (Clackmannanshire Council) Clare Laurenson – Principal Officer Development Planning and Place (West Dunbartonshire Council) James McColl – Development Management Team Leader (West Dunbartonshire Council) Craig McLaren – National Planning Improvement Champion (Improvement Service) Michael Mulgrew – Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Service Manager / Chief Planning Officer (West Dunbartonshire Council) Kevin Murphy – Homes for Scotland (written comments only) Isobel Plunkett – West Dunbartonshire Community Council Forum / Clydebank East Community Council Susan Rintoul – National Planning Improvement Project Officer (Improvement Service) Elaine Troup (Facilitator) - Economic Development Manager (West Dunbartonshire Council) Mark Walsh – Environmental Health Co-Ordinator (West Dunbartonshire Councill) Kevin Yoong – Key Agency Representative (Scottish Water) Louise Ewing – Director Bruach Architects Observer/Note Taker Eva Hutchison – Technical Support officer (West Dunbartonshire Council) We extend our thanks again to all those who attended for their time and valuable feedback at the workshop. Page 50
Page 51
7 Overall, attendees agreed with many aspects of our performance and scoring and provided constructive feedback on many areas. A summary of comments and the Planning Authorities response is provided in the table below. Workshop Comment Planning Authority Comments Communication – Participants agreed this was important and suggested there should be an additional action to improve on community involvement and customer communication. Make better use of Community Councils as we have less resources. Ensure engagement is tailored to audience and make it as accessible and simple as possible. We agree with these comments, but rather than an individual action, we believe that the groups feedback is best represented by ensuring communication is embedded into everything we do. As well as being worked into general workplans, this will also feature in the Team Improvement Plans, and this has been specifically highlighted in the improvement actions. Meaning of “Appropriate Development” - Participants felt that the scoring against attribute 12, delivery of appropriate development, does not tie with LRB record. We note the concerns raised by participants. The NPIF guidance notes that attribute 12 refers to “The Planning Authority Supports the Delivery of Consented Development” and the prompts include, the proportionate use of Section 75’s and conditions, aswell as processing agreements and Delivery programmes. This would appear to be different from the participants understanding of the attribute. However, on reflection and looking at the matter holistically, we have agreed to amend our scoring from 1 to 2 to reflect the constructive feedback from the group. Added Value - Participants agreed we should make the capturing of added value a higher priority to show how we are working together to achieve placemaking outcomes We agree with these comments and have amended the importance from low to high and from medium term to short term. Training for Elected Members – Participants supported elected training for members involved in taking planning decisions. Noted. Better reflect the challenges of the service – Participants noted that we should be clearer on the challenges the service faces in terms of systems and recruitment and retention. We note the constructive feedback from the group and the narrative for Attribute 1 has been amended to reflect this comment. Back-office document management – Participants agreed there were significant challenges and we should produce guidance on how we want files submitted. We note the concerns raised by participants and we hope this matter will be addressed by future changes. The NPIF guidance notes that attribute 7 refers to “The Planning Authority makes best use of data and digital Page 51
Page 52
8 Participants also questioned the scoring for attribute 7 considering these challenges. technology” and the prompts include encouraging and promoting the use of the e- development portal and the ability to use interactive web-mapping, GIS and spatial data. Whilst we believe that within this attribute, we are making the best use of data and digital technology, we do recognise that there may be a mismatch when considered in the context of our current back-office system capabilities and public planning portal. We have amended this scoring to 3 to better reflect the feedback of participants, however, we continue to include our best practice example in relation to GIS. Scheme of Delegation – Participants agreed with review of Scheme of Delegation and noted that it is important that Elected Members are seeing the “right” applications. Suggestion that Matters Specified in Conditions Applications are delegated to officers where the Planning Permission in Principle has been decided by Planning Committee. Feedback noted. Team Improvement Plans – Participants agreed and supported this action but raised some concerns over the ability to resource improvements. There may be opportunities to share training costs with other authorities. We note the feedback from the group. Whilst it may be challenging, it is nonetheless important to ensure that the Team Improvement Plans capture the individual improvement actions so that they can be monitored. The plans will be kept up to date and reflect realistic timescales for completion. Enforcement Charter – Participants agreed with this action but suggested that the Development Management Customer Charter should also be reviewed. The feedback from the group is noted. Whilst this would be picked up in the Team Improvement Plans as part of our process reviews, we have amended this action to include the review of the charter. Service Day – Participants agreed with this action but suggested that it needs to add value to officers and should be followed up with identified actions. Staff morale was also discussed as part of this and participants agreed that it is important to “celebrate success”. Noted. Page 52
Page 53
9 Agents forum - Participants agreed this action and suggested that it should be a 2- way discussion forum. Participants also suggested that there should be a parallel Community Council forum. We note the feedback from the group. This emerged from the communication theme discussed above. We are embedding clarity of communication into individual actions in Team Improvement Plans, and we will consider this as part of this our normal engagement actions with Community Councils and the Community Council forum, particularly regarding the progression of the Development Plan. Development Management Conditions – Participants agreed this but suggested that it should be brought forward given its importance. We note the feedback from the group. Whilst we agree the conditions review is important, there is national work currently taking place on standard conditions and the timescale noted in the action is intended to tie in with this. This does not mean that improvements to our conditions will not be made, but rather that our timescales accord with the national workstream. Page 53
Page 54
10 A high performing planning authority needs to have the right number of people to do the work expected of it with the rights skills set. It also needs to have a strategy to ensure that it retains and recruits the right staff in the future. It supports staff to upskill and to be prepared for changes in policy, legislation, and new circumstances. Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Does the planning authority have the sufficient level of staff to carry out all activities within the required timeframes? • Does the planning authority have the ability to carry out all activities within the required timeframes with its current budget? • Does the planning authority have the ability to carry out all activities within the required timeframes with its current income? • Does the planning authority received responses from consultees within the prescribed timescale when assessing planning applications? • Does the planning authority have the ability to access the appropriate advice, expertise, evidence and data it requires? Narrative The Planning Authority has had difficulty regarding recruitment and retention of planners for several years in common with many other Planning Authorities. There is a nationally recognised skills shortage, and a government and industry led drive to increase the number of planners coming into the system is currently under way. 2024 had been a particularly challenging year in part due to the number of vacancies within the Planning service (Service Manager, Principal Officer Development Planning and Place, Placemaking Co-Ordinator, Lead Planning Officer, GIS Officer and Support Assistant), as well as across the wider service in Building Standards and Environmental Health. Alongside significant system issues, the vacancies placed the service under considerable pressure. Continued pressure on Local Authority budgets requires difficult decisions to be made to the way in which all council services are delivered, and planning (along with the wider service) have not been immune to these pressures. This has resulted in a ATTRIBUTE 1: THIS PLANNING AUTHORITY HAS SUFFICIENT RESOURCES AND SKILLS TO MAXIMISE PRODUCTIVITY Page 54
Page 55
11 restructure of the planning service and a reduction in headcount over the last few years, including the removal of enforcement/compliance posts within Development Management and a Planning Policy Officer post within Development Planning and Place. As a smaller authority, the planning service has limited specialised posts, for example there are no conservation, archaeology, landscape design or tree specialists within the service, due to cost and insufficient numbers of applications requiring dedicated specialist support. However, we do have a specialist design post, Placemaking Co-Ordinator. Where other specialised support is required, this is generally procured externally, and archaeological advice is provided by the West of Scotland Archaeological Society (WoSAS). Outwith the planning service, the service has access to specialist advice provided by other parts of the Council, including, Biodiversity, a Tree Officer (although the planning service processes all tree work consents), Roads, Flooding and Environmental Health. As with all Council services, the demands placed on services can result in delays and the service seeks to work proactively with other services to streamline input when required. Feedback around specific areas of concern from customers and officers are being taken forward as part of the continual streamlining of the Development Management process in relation to consultations. To balance competing demands, the service has sought to maximise income from discretionary charging and currently charges for a broad range of discretionary activities, such as pre- application advice, discharge of conditions and non-material variations and the maximum 25% allowed by regulations for retrospective applications. Despite the challenging environment in which the service works, the service provides as an efficient, clear and proportionate service as possible. A culture of continuous individual, professional and service improvement is embedded within all parts of the service. The table below sets out some key facts about the structure of the service, including the number of full MRTPI qualified planners. Page 55
Page 56
12 Section Post Type FTE Permanent Posts Vacancies FTE MRTPI Posts Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Service Manager (Chief Planning Officer) 1 0 1 Development Planning and Place Principal Officer 1 0 1 Core LDP Team 1 0 1 Placemaking Co- Ordinator 1 0 1 Special Projects (Antonine Wall) 1.6 0 0 Development Management Team Leader 1 0 1 Core DM Team 4 1 0 Total 10.6 1 5 As noted previously, the vacant post outlined above in the Core DM team has been appointed and will be in post shortly. By the end of May, the planning teams will be fully staffed within the current structure. The current age range of the planning teams is outlined in the graphs below. Page 56
Page 57
13 The analysis of the age range within the service indicates that whilst there are no immediate issues in terms of succession planning, the service does not currently have any officers in the under 30 bracket, indicating that perhaps more can be done to encourage younger planners by exploring opportunities for the introduction of graduate/assistant type posts as part of any future service redesign. An analysis of planning fee income over the period 1st April 2019 until 31st March 2024, shows an inconsistent fee income, and has ranged from a low of £178,673 in 2020/2021 to a high of £418,691 in 2023/2024. This reflects the wider economic challenges seen across all Planning Authorities as well as the influence of overall small numbers of major planning applications. The average fee income over this period is £226,012. Additional unfunded duties arising from the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 have increased pressure on limited staff time and resources. The most immediate pressure is within the Development Planning and Place Team with regards to the preparation of the new Development Plan. Work on the evidence report is underway and the latest Development Plan Scheme, approved by Planning Committee in December 2024, introduced a 7-month delay to the timetable. Partly due to more time being required to ensure the evidence report is robust, taking account of feedback from the DPEA to authorities that have already went through gate check, and partly due to pressure on existing resources. The service is working collaboratively with colleagues across the service contributing to evidence report work in some way. The current scheme targets submission to gatecheck in July. This is proving to be challenging, and the service is keeping this target under close review to Page 57
Page 58
14 ensure that a robust evidence report is produced prior to submitting. Further updates will be given to Planning Committee as required to update the scheme. The Development Management Team is a small but busy team. The team is set up to be an all- area general team, with no division by application type or by geographical area. This allows for a nimble approach to planning applications and ensures that all officers receive a broad range of applications to support service delivery needs as well as their own professional and personal development. Looking at previous 5-year trends (2019/2020 - 2023/2024), on average, the service annually determines: Development Management performance is mixed, with clear highlights and some areas identified for improvement. The Scottish Government has set a target that 80% of all local applications should be determined within 2 months. The service is currently underperforming in this regard, but broadly comparable to the national average for local applications. The graph below shows that over the period 1st April 2023 until 31st December 2024, performance has generally slowed and the 80% target is not being met. For local applications the service was below the national average of 63.7% for 23/24. The Council has however generally performed significantly better than the national average for Major applications. Page 58
Page 59
15 Despite the 80% target not being met, the service can demonstrate generally good performance against the statutory determination periods. Comparing the chart below to the national average, using this metric, the service is performing well against other authorities. For 23/24 the service was significantly faster at determining major applications than the national average of 36.1 weeks. Despite a slowdown in the 1st April to 31st December 2024 timescales, this is still well below this national average. In terms of all local applications, again the authority is ahead of the national average of 11.6 weeks for 23/24. Page 59
Page 60
16 The Development Management team are particularly impacted by current back-office arrangements that are directly resulting in slower performance than the service believes it can achieve. As the back-office system is split between 2 providers (IDOX for Uniform case management and Civica for document management) it is increasingly becoming incompatible with service requirements and is resulting in manual processes and difficulties for both customers and staff to be able to consistently view full planning files via the planning portal and document management system. In 2024 the service rolled out Enterprise workflow for Uniform and this has resulted in improvements to workflow and automation, however, a business case has been accepted and funding secured for a significant investment in a new document management system that is fully integrated with the case management system. This will bring the service into line with other Scottish authorities, and is expected to deliver significant officer, customer and performance improvements. This will be implemented in stages across 2025/2026. As part of this implementation, a full review of all workflows and templates is being undertaken to implement a lean process environment, remove duplication and utilise the workflow to enable a more thorough project management approach to development management applications, including utilisation of measures such as Planning Processing Agreements. This is a significant commitment by the service and may impact performance in the short term as resources will be required to be split between day-to-day processing and these wider service changes, but it is expected to result in longer term process and performance improvements. Page 60
Page 61
17 Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Does the planning authority have a workforce planning strategy in place? • Does the planning authority have the ability to support staff development and upskilling and send staff on relevant courses? • Does the planning authority have a deliverable commitment to support staff health and wellbeing? Narrative The Planning Authority does not currently have a formal workforce strategy in place. However, the service sees the value in preparing such a strategy to support the training and development of existing staff and to also seek to address succession planning and to explore the suitability of the current structure and the possibility of introducing an alternative staff structure that supports the development of graduates to gain experience to then qualify to submit for MRTPI (Chartered) status. This would be done in conjunction with Building Standards. Irrespective of a formal strategy, continuous improvement amongst the team is embedded and officers are encouraged by the Chief Planning Officer and line managers to continue to seek opportunities for training, development and collaboration. Example events that officers have ATTRIBUTE 2: THE PLANNING AUTHORITY HAS A VALUED AND SUPPORTED WORKFORCE Page 61
Page 62
18 recently attended include In addition to the above formal events, officers have carried out some service benchmarking exercises, in conjunction with Building Standards, with both Argyll and Bute Council and Stirling Council. As outlined above, there has been challenges with recruitment in the past and there is a national shortage of qualified planners and supporting disciplines. However, the service remains committed to supporting individuals and the profession and exploring opportunities regarding the new University of West of Scotland planning course. All eligible officers are encouraged to work towards MRTPI status, and the service will support officers to do so. We have also recently supported a placement from a student from the University of Glasgow who was studying GIS. They supported the GIS officer and Development Planning and Place projects that will support LDP Evidence Report workstreams. The service is committed to continue working in partnership with HOPS, the RTPI, Scottish Government and planning universities to support planning as a career choice and to explore opportunities for mentoring or work experience opportunities that we can offer. Staff wellbeing is important to the service. As the service is compact, sudden unplanned absences or increases in workload can be a source of stress and pressure for staff as it is difficult to absorb such pressures. All officers are encouraged to be open and honest with their line manager about their current workload and a collaborative approach to mitigating pressures Page 62
Page 63
19 as much as possible is in place with line managers assisting in prioritising tasks in the most effective manner as the circumstances dictate. Corporately, the Council has a range of health and wellbeing supports available and staff are encouraged to make use of these where appropriate. It is recognised however, that despite a proactive approach, at times demand outstrips resources, and unavoidable pressures and delays will occur. Line managers regularly report to the Chief Planning Officer emerging issues to ensure high levels of communication and discussion around ways in which capacity may be unlocked. At a corporate level flexible working arrangements are built into contracts and working arrangements can be tailored to meet particular needs and situations that are balanced to ensure an appropriate level of service delivery is maintained. Page 63
Page 64
20 Improvement Action Plan (People theme) Attribute Score (1=Making excellent progress, 5= No progress) 1. The planning authority has sufficient resources and skills to maximise productivity 3 The service is currently maximising productivity within the available resources. However, further detailed workforce, capacity and budget planning is required to ensure that service performance can adequately respond to both internal and external pressures on the service. The workforce strategy will also require reviewing the dependencies of other Council services to support the delivery of both the Development Plan and the Development Management process. 2. The planning authority has a value and supported workforce 3 The service is currently maximising training and development opportunities within existing resources. The development of a workforce strategy will ensure that officers are supported to carry out their role and their professional development. Based on the grading above, outline any areas of improvement that are required and by whom and their level of importance (High/ Medium/ Low) and by when (short/ medium/ long term). Page 64
Page 65
21 Improvement Action What action will you take? What will the outcome be? Owner Importance High Medium Low Timescale Short term – 1 year Medium term – 3 years Long term – 3+ years Resources Implement the new back- office document management system and carry out a full end-to-end review of all workflow processes Chief Planning Officer, Development Management Team Leader, Technical Support Co-Ordinator High Short term All service staff will be required to support this process in some way. In conjunction with IDOX and ICT, a project board will be established. Develop a workforce strategy and service training plan, including any options/opportunities for restructure or cases for investment Chief Planning Officer High Medium term Chief Officers for relevant service areas, finance and organisational development and People and Change partner. Page 65
Page 66
22 A high performing planning authority has a positive culture through ensuring it has sound governance, effective leadership and a commitment to continuous improvement. The authority has an identified chief planner, who is supported by a strong leadership group to advise on decision-making, policy and operational management. Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Has the planning authority undertaken an annual assessment of its performance and acted upon areas previously identified as in need of improvement? • Has the planning authority achieved recognition at relevant awards or through performance accreditation frameworks? • Has the planning authority engaged in peer review, good practice exchange or improvement activities? • Has the planning authority addressed any complaints upheld by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and have evidence of this and that it has learned from valid cases? Narrative The service regularly undertakes assessment of processes and current processes. This was previously mostly done through the Planning Performance Framework, and we continue to report on performance 6 monthly to the Scottish Government As a result of continuous improvement, a number of actions are underway to improve performance, customer experience and reporting. Workstreams and actions recently implemented or underway include: ➢ Revised templates for both committee and delegated reports of handling to remove duplication and to make them clearer and more concise ➢ Revised decision notice templates and the introduction of a cover letter to highlight the legislative requirements to ensure that conditions are discharged, and the required notices are completed (Notification of Initiation of Development and Notification of Completion of Development) ➢ A revised document naming protocol to improve clarity of the application casefile ATTRIBUTE 3: THIS PLANNING AUTHORITY HAS EMBEDDED CONTINOUS IMPROVEMENT. Page 66
Page 67
23 ➢ Enterprise digital workflow introduced and there is an ongoing commitment to refining processes where possible in advance of full IDOX integration ➢ Procedure notes completed for Technical Support Team processes ➢ Updating the Development Planning webpages to improve visibility of work related to the next Development Plan ➢ Cleansing of internal file drive folder structure ➢ Planning and Building Standards will take part in the trial of sharepoint in advance of a wider Council rollout Officers regularly engage with authorities across Scotland to share knowledge and practice exchange via several routes. The Chief Planning Officer is the current Junior Vice Chair of the Development Planning Sub-committee of HOPS, and The Principal Officer Development Planning and Place provides additional representation on this committee and an officer sits on the Climate Change Energy and Resources Committee. The service is also represented on Mineral Officers Working Group. The Development Management Team Leader represents the service on the Development Management Sub-Committee. Alongside these formal committees, officers regularly make use of the KHUB HOPS forum. West Dunbartonshire forms part of the wider Glasgow City Region, formally the Clydeplan Strategic Development Planning area, and continues to take part in regional working, with representation at both strategic Chief Officer and officer levels. The Council has a robust 2 stage complaints process. By its nature, planning processes can often result in dissatisfaction regarding an application processing or outcome or how an objection has been handled. The Council has a written procedure for dealing with complaints and the escalation to stage 2 where complaints cannot be addressed at a service level. Over the period 1st April 2023 – 31st December 2024, 4 complaints were escalated to the SPSO, however in all cases the complaints were not taken forward by them. The service is committed to learning from any feedback provided by the SPSO or others that we can action to improve the service. Page 67
Page 68
24 Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Does the planning authority have an effective scheme of delegation in place? • Have all councillors who exercise a planning function undergone statutory training and is there is evidence of ongoing training for members? • Have more than x % of officer recommendations have been overturned by councillors at committee or Local Review Body. Narrative The planning service’s current scheme of delegation is due to be refreshed this year as it is more than 5 years old and is required to be updated. The scheme is generally considered to have been effective to balance the need for efficient decision making and ensuring elected members have sufficient oversight of planning applications and policy formation. However, as it has been some time since the scheme was updated and there has been significant changes to the Development Plan system and pressures on the planning service, the review will consider what changes may be required to the scheme to ensure it remains proportionate and effective and allows the best use of time and resources by both officers and elected members. All non-delegated development management applications and development planning matters are reported to a single Planning Committee, comprising of a cross-party representation of 10 of the Council’s 22 elected members. The Local Review Body sits separately from Planning Committee but consists of the same members. All members have access to specific planning training, whether they sit on Planning Committee or not and a refresher course was offered in December 2024. Committee overturns of officer's recommendation are quite low, with 92% of officer's recommendations being accepted by members. In comparison, over the same period, members sitting as the Local Review Body overturned 100% of all delegated decisions where a review had been sought. Whilst this is quite a high rate, the number of overall applications considered by the LRB, is a low figure, compared to the number of applications. ATTRIBUTE 4: THE PLANNING AUTHORITY HAS SOUND GOVERNANCE Page 68
Page 69
25 The Local Review Body data can be contrasted with DPEA data. Whilst numbers of appeals for planning applications and enforcement notice appeals are low, DPEA have dismissed the appeals in both cases. Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Does the planning authority have an identified Chief Planning Officer in place? ATTRIBUTE 5: THE PLANNING AUTHORITY HAS EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP Page 69
Page 70
26 • Does the Chief Planning Officer advise on corporate decision making and policy within the broader organisation? • Is the planning authority's Chief Planning Officer a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute? • Does the Chief Planning Officer advise and support external bodies through engagement in organisations’ committees, advisory groups or working groups? • Does the planning authority have a strong leadership team that supports a culture of continuous improvement? Narrative The Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Service Manager carries out the Chief Planning Officer function. The Chief Planning Officer is supported by the Principal Officer Development Planning and Place and the Development Management Team Leader, both MRTPI qualified. The Chief Planning officer is MRTPI qualified and has over 11 years’ experience in Local Government Planning Authorities, across both Development Planning and Development Management. As noted in attribute 3, the Chief Planning Officer regularly inputs into work by HOPS and the Improvement Service and is the current Junior Vice Chair of the Development Planning Sub- Committee. They also collaborate and engage with regional authorities through the Glasgow City Region working arrangements. Whilst not a Chief Officer in terms of the Council’s organisation structure, the Chief Planning Officer provides strategic planning support to the Council’s Chief Officers and Chief executive to encourage and support the integration of corporate and service level outcomes with good placemaking outcomes and to promote the value of the planning service across the Council. They sit on a variety of project boards providing high visibility of the planning service, for example the City Deal project board for the Exxon development site and the Housing Emergency Action Plan Project Board. The Chief Planning Officer meets with the Chief Officer Regulatory and Regeneration individually, and collectively with the other service managers, monthly to discuss wider service and corporate issues. Within the service, the Chief Planning Officer mirrors this approach with a programme of formal monthly catch ups, individually and collectively, with the Principal Officers for Environmental Health and Development Planning and Place, the Development Management and Building Standards Team Leaders and Technical Support Co-ordinator. These meetings focus on day-to-day issues as well as having a focus on service improvement workstreams. These formal catch ups are supplemented by regular informal catch ups on specific issues with officers at all levels. Page 70
Page 71
27 Improvement Action Plan (Culture theme) Attribute Score (1=Making excellent progress, 5= No progress) 3. This Planning Authority has embedded continuous improvement 1 Despite resource and system challenges, the service continually seeks ways in which processes can be streamlined or enhanced and this approach is embedded into all service workstreams. 4. This Planning Authority has sound governance 3 The service has effective governance structures; however, these are required to be reviewed 5. This Planning Authority has effective leadership 1 The service has a Chief Planning Officer in place and supports the culture of continuous improvement Based on the grading above, outline any areas of improvement that are required and by whom and their level of importance (High/ Medium/ Low) and by when (short/ medium/ long term). Improvement Action What action will you take? What will the outcome be? Owner Importance High Medium Low Timescale Short term – 1 year Medium term – 3 years Long term – 3+ years Resources Complete review of Scheme of Delegation to ensure it is proportionate Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader High Short term Chief Planning Officer, Legal Manager, Chief Officer Regulatory and Regeneration and Elected Members Page 71
Page 72
28 Implement the new back- office document management system and carry out a full end-to-end review of all workflow processes Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader/ Technical Support Co-Ordinator High Short term All service staff will be required to support this process in some way. In conjunction with IDOX and ICT, a project board will be established. Finalise review of committee and delegated Reports of Handling Templates to ensure that they are proportionate and are clear and easy to be understood by a variety of audiences Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader Medium Short term Chief Planning Officer, Development Management Team Leader and Democratic and Registration Services Manager Produce detailed team improvement plans, focusing on improvements that increase efficiency and are clear, including increasing the quality of our customer communication Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader/ Principal Officer Development Planning and Place / Technical Support Co-Ordinator High Short Term All service staff Page 72
Page 73
29 A high performing planning authority needs to have an effective local development plan and other strategies in place to provide a vision for the future of the area. It needs to be able to set and deliver on policy ambitions and priorities by clearly informing decision making and providing certainty and predictability for communities, developers and investment. The authority’s development management systems need to be effective in making the right decisions about development and be efficient as possible in doing this. The planning authority makes best use of digital technology and how it manages and uses data. Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Does the planning authority have an up to date Local Development Plan in place and/ or is on track to adoption? • Does the planning authority have an up to date Regional Spatial Strategy in place/ or on track to adoption? • Has the planning authority’s Local Development Plan Evidence Report been approved by the Department of Planning and Environmental Appeals and/ or on track for approval? • Have the application of the Local Development Plan’s policies been found to be deficient at appeal or judicial review? Narrative West Dunbartonshire does not have an up-to-date Local Development Plan. The current Local Plan was adopted in 2010, and the Council does not have an adopted “new-style” Development Plan. The Council did not adopt Local Development Plan 1, and the Council was under direction from Scottish Ministers to not adopt the Proposed Local Development Plan 2 unless all required modifications were implemented. The Council ultimately declined to accept one of the modifications and therefore did not adopt the plan. The Proposed Plan, as modified, was published, but not adopted, and as the Council’s most up to date expression of local development plan policies and spatial strategy, it forms a significant material consideration in the determination of planning applications. ATTRIBUTE 6: THE PLANNING AUTHORITY HAS A ROBUST POLICY AND EVIDENCE BASE Page 73
Page 74
30 The service is focused on the delivery of Local Development Plan 3 and the most recently approved Development Plan Scheme (December 2024) programmes adoption of the plan in January 2028. The evidence report is currently being prepared, with a target for submission to gatecheck in summer 2025. The current timescale has been extended by a period of 7 months since the publication of the original Development Plan Scheme, and as outlined above, this is being kept under review. In terms of a Regional Spatial Strategy, the Council is working collaboratively within the Glasgow City Region to produce a regional spatial strategy in the future. In 2020/2021 the region, under the previous Clydeplan arrangements, collaborated to produce an indicative Regional Spatial Strategy to input into, what was then, the emerging National Planning Framework 4. Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Has the planning authority encouraged and promoted planning applications to be submitted through the e-development portal? • Does the planning authority have a data governance strategy in place for the management of planning data? • Does the planning authority have the ability to use interactive web-mapping, GIS and spatial data? • Does the planning authority have the ability to use digital approaches to engagement, including website, social media and other platforms? Narrative The service seeks to direct all applications to the eDevelopment Scotland portal for all submissions, including post application submission documents. The available data shows that the service achieves over 90% of all planning application submissions via the portal. Whilst not all applications can be made through this portal, the service has online forms that allow the digital submission of pre-applications, requests for non-material variations and requests to discharge conditions. The service focuses on the best use of digital technology and the move to an integrated case management and document management solution will allow further refinement to our end-to-end digital processes. ATTRIBUTE 7: THE PLANNING AUTHORITY MAKES BEST USE OF DATA AND DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY Page 74
Page 75
31 Whilst there is no corporate level GIS team, the service has a GIS officer who works collaboratively with other council services to ensure the best use of GIS. At a service level, GIS is well developed and well-integrated with service procedures. Our GIS system is currently undergoing a number of updates. It is a key component to the services approach to managing development plan data and evidence report work. Planning, as part of the wider Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health service, has a social media presence on X, formally Twitter. However, its continued use and value as an engagement tool is under review. The service regularly liaises with the Council’s corporate communication team to promote development plan work and in relation to applications that are to be considered by the Planning Committee. Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Does the planning authority planning have the ability to make decisions on planning applications within the required timeframes? • Are less than x% of planning decisions overturned at appeal or judicial review? • Does the planning authority have an up to date Enforcement Charter in place? • Does the planning authority have the ability to resolve enforcement cases? Narrative Commentary on planning performance is covered within attribute 1 of this assessment. It is considered that the service, whilst performing well within the level of resources and IT challenges, is generally performing slower than the statutory targets. We are however performing well against national averages. Recruitment into both the Development Planning and Place, and Development Management teams, and the upcoming investment in IT infrastructure (covered in attribute 1), alongside the ongoing review of processes and procedures, are expected to have a positive impact on performance. Regarding planning enforcement, our Planning Enforcement Charter was last updated in December 2022. The charter was due to be renewed by December 2024, however, due to resource challenges this did not take place. The service expects to have a revised charter in place by December 2025. Notwithstanding that the charter was not reviewed and republished, a “light touch” mini review has satisfied the service that the charter remains fit for purpose and provides clear guidance on how enforcement breaches will be investigated by the authority until the fuller review later this year. We have clear processes and an electronic form on our website to submit all enquiries. ATTRIBUTE 8: THE PLANNING AUTHORITY HAS EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT DECSION MAKING PROCESSES Page 75
Page 76
32 The service previously had a dedicated 1 FTE enforcement role; however, this resource was removed in October 2021. All enforcement procedures are carried out by Development Management case officers. Whilst this works well for reactive planning enforcement, due to current resources, proactive monitoring is a challenge. However, as noted in other parts of this assessment, it is hoped that the recent recruitment into the service will improve this situation and allow for enhancements to the monitoring regime. Enforcement case details from the 1st April 2023 until 31st December 2024 are noted in the table below. Page 76
Page 77
33 Improvement Action Plan (Tools theme) Attribute Score (1=Making excellent progress, 5= No progress) 6. The planning authority has a robust policy and evidence base 3 Whilst work is underway to prepare LDP3, the authority does not have an up-to-date Development Plan in place 7. The planning authority makes best use of data and digital technology 3 The service makes extensive use of digital data and technology with regards to GIS, but has significant issues with the back office system 8. The planning authority has effective and efficient decision making processes 3 The service has effective and efficient decision making processes in many aspects of DM performance but overall performance could be further enhanced and Scheme of Delegation requires review Based on the grading above, outline any areas of improvement that are required and by whom and their level of importance (High/ Medium/ Low) and by when (short/ medium/ long term). Improvement Action What action will you take? What will the outcome be? Owner Importance High Medium Low Timescale Short term – 1 year Medium term – 3 years Long term – 3+ years Resources Implement the new back- office document management system and carry out a full end-to-end Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team High Short term All service staff will be required to support this process in some way. In conjunction with IDOX and Page 77
Page 78
34 review of all workflow processes Leader/ Technical Support Co-Ordinator ICT, a project board will be established. Finalise review of committee and delegated Reports of Handling Templates to ensure that they are proportionate and are clear and easy to be understood by a variety of audiences Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader Medium Short term Chief Planning Officer, Development Management Team Leader and Democratic and Registration Services Manager Produce detailed team improvement plans, focusing on improvements that increase efficiency and are clear, including increasing the quality of our customer communication Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader/ Principal Officer Development Planning and Place / Technical Support Co-Ordinator High Short Term All service staff Undertake review of the Development Management and Enforcement Charters and processes to ensure they remain fit for purpose. Development Management Team Leader Medium Short Term Development Management Team Page 78
Page 79
35 A high performing planning authority should ensure a wide range of people are involved in shaping their future places. Engagement should be fair and inclusive, early, collaborative, meaningful and proportionate and should include difficult to reach groups. The authority should engage with a wide range of partners at a national, regional and local level to ensure a joined-up approach and that links are made across policies and programmes. The planning authority should demonstrate good customer care, transparency and effective communication. Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Does the planning authority have the ability to offer pre-application advice where it is requested? • Has the planning authority held regular engagement events with developers and communities? • Do the results from the customer and stakeholder survey show that customers are satisfied with the service offer by the planning authority? Narrative This narrative is addressed within the narrative for attribute 10. ATTRIBUTE 9: THE PLANNING AUTHORITY HAS GOOD CUSTOMER CARE Page 79
Page 80
36 Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Does the planning authority have a community engagement strategy and infrastructure in place to ensure engagement is early, collaborative, meaningful and proportionate? • Has the planning authority undertaken community engagement, for example consistent and effective use of the Place Standard Tool, to inform decision-making processes? • Has the planning authority engaged with a good representation of the community including young people, gypsies and travellers, people with protected characteristics, including disability, race, age, sex and sexual orientation, and including people from a range of socio-economic backgrounds? • Has the planning authority supported the production of Local Place Plans when requested? • Do the results from the customer and stakeholder survey show that stakeholders are satisfied with their collaboration with the planning authority? Narrative West Dunbartonshire Planning Authority places a high value on the front loading of planning processes through both general and specific pre-application advice. We are committed to taking a proactive role in supporting the delivery of high-quality development. General planning advice is provided by the Technical Support Team, who are the first point of contact for customers. Where this requires input from a Planning Officer, these are then passed to them for response. Current workloads do not require us to operate a formal duty officer process, and all enquiries are shared out amongst available officers. This service formally operates in line with the standard business hours of the Council; Monday – Thursday, 8.45 – 16.45, and 08.45 - 15.55 on Fridays. Due to flexible working patterns, and that officers may be out on site, we encourage phone and email enquiries in the first instance to ensure that customers are helped in the most efficient manner and by the right person. Whilst we do not hold formal records of how enquiries are received, we would estimate that less than 5% of enquiries are made in person. Bespoke pre-application advice is available and split into 2 different types. The Pre-application Advice service supports applicants who require guidance for smaller less complex proposals, for example, change of use or small residential development applications. And the Pre-application Framework supports larger and more complex developments. The framework approach is led by our Placemaking Co-Ordinator who supports such developments through the process and includes review by our Place and Design Panel where appropriate. ATTRIBUTE 10: THE PLANNING AUTHORITY HAS EFFECTIVE ENGAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNITIES Page 80
Page 81
37 The service has previously identified through the last Planning Performance Framework that we wanted to hold regular forum sessions, likely alongside Building Standards, with local architects and agents. The service remains committed to this and aim to carry out such an event in 2025 and then at regular intervals, at least annually, thereafter. In terms of community engagement, the Council does have an engagement strategy and the engagement working group to help guide engagement processes; these have helped to inform the engagement as set out in the LDP Participation Statement. Early engagement for the development plan included attending 6 community council meetings to raise awareness of the start of the new Local Development Plan process. To support the evidence gathering consultation, officers organised several webinars with internal and external partners and stakeholder; attended partners’ meetings and events to discuss the consultation and held one-to-one meetings with stakeholders where appropriate. This included the West Dunbartonshire Equalities Forum; Strategic Housing Providers Forum; Community Council Forum; WDCVS Third Sector Leader’s Forum and the Children’s Right’s Advisory Board. An online “Tell us about your place” place standard survey was undertaken with 89 responses, with further responses were received to the children’s and young peoples versions. The call for evidence survey, which was directed more at stakeholders and partner organisations received 59 responses across the NPF4 topics, further one-to-one engagement has sought to fill evidence gaps and ensure that key agencies have all had the opportunity to engage. The Council also commissioned Planning Aid Scotland to support the co-production of an easy start guide for the preparation of local place plans, which worked with community councils and other groups to shape the guidance. This used several different engagement methods including, online and telephone surveys as well as in person and online events to enable groups to engage in ways that suited the capacity of their volunteers. This process finished with an online launch and training event to familiarise groups with the guide and the Local Place Plan process. The Council Housing service has a monthly Gypsy Traveller Liaison meeting with community members from the Council’s site at Dennystoun Forge. Officers from the Development Planning team have also attended this meeting, to raise awareness of the local development plan and to discuss specific evidence gaps in relation to the need and demand for additional pitches or sites for Gypsy Travellers. The Gypsy Traveller Liaison Officer has supported us to undertake a survey of residents of the site as well as members of the community who are not resident of the site to complete surveys to fill this evidence gap. The planning service has not carried out a formal customer satisfaction survey, however the National Planning Improvement Team carried out a National Customer and Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey in November 2024. The outcome of this was favourable to the service, and we performed better on every marker against the national average. On every summary marker Page 81
Page 82
38 we achieved at least a 57% favourable response (either good/very good or satisfied/very satisfied). We look forward to maintaining customer satisfaction as a result of our improvement actions and engaging further with customers and stakeholders in advance of the next survey later in 2025. Information from customers during the processing of applications, highlights a general dissatisfaction regarding the availability and stability of the online planning portal. This impacts negatively on perceptions of the service. As highlighted in the tools theme, the service is currently working to implement a new full IDOX solution that is expected to improve the availability and stability of the portal. Page 82
Page 83
39 Improvement Action Plan (Engage theme) Attribute Score (1=Making excellent progress, 5= No progress) 9. This planning authority has good customer care 3 The service generally provides good customer service, although it is recognised that certain areas need improvement based on formal and informal feedback 10. The planning authority has effective engagement and collaboration with stakeholders and communities. 3 The service generally has effective engagement and collaboration but have identified areas where this could be strengthened Based on the grading above, outline any areas of improvement that are required and by whom and their level of importance (High/ Medium/ Low) and by when (short/ medium/ long term). Improvement Action What action will you take? What will the outcome be? Owner Importance High Medium Low Timescale Short term – 1 year Medium term – 3 years Long term – 3+ years Resources Set up regular agents forum, in conjunction with Building Standards Chief Planning Officer/Development Management Team Leader/ Princiapal Officer Development Planning and Place/Building Standards Team Leader Medium Short/Medium Term Development Management, Development Planning and Building Standards Page 83
Page 84
40 Carry out wider Service Day (with Building Standards and Environmental Health) to share good practice and workstream updates. This will inform detailed Team Improvement Plans Chief Planning Officer Medium Short All Service staff Page 84
Page 85
41 A high performing planning authority should demonstrate place leadership by taking a collaborative place-based approach in line with the Place Principle. It should use the Place and Wellbeing Outcomes in decision-making processes, to achieve the three spatial principles outlined in NPF4: Sustainable places, where we reduce emissions, restore and better connect biodiversity; Liveable places, where we can all live better, healthier lives; and Productive places, where we have a greener, fairer and more inclusive wellbeing economy. The planning authority should seek to ensure that there are no impediments to delivering agreed development. Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Is the planning authority aware of the Place and Wellbeing Outcomes, the evidence that sits behind them and is it using them in decision-making processes? • Has the planning authority identified tools and approaches to delivering sustainable, liveable and productive places and is implementing them? Narrative The service is aware of the Place and Wellbeing Outcomes and is taking this approach forward as part of the preparation of the next Local Development Plan. West Dunbartonshire Council had one of the project towns for the Shaping Places for Wellbeing Project, which sought to embed the Place and Wellbeing Outcomes within our decision-making processes. The Council undertook place and wellbeing assessments for a number of strategies and policy documents and a suite of place and wellbeing outcome briefings was prepared. These briefings are part of the evidence for the local development plan and have been shared with other services through the Engagement Working Group. It is intended that a place and wellbeing assessment will be undertaken for the Proposed Plan, and we continue to embed these processes within our decision making as part of the placemaking coordinator role. ATTRIBUTE 11: THE PLANNING AUTHORITY SUPPORTS THE DELIVERY OF SUSTAINABLE, LIVEABLE AND PRODUCTIVE PLACES Page 85
Page 86
42 Development Management processes naturally involve seeking placemaking outcomes and seeking better developments above guidance. Whilst added value is captured in Reports of Handling, the current processes do not allow for the data to be extracted in a quantifiable and integrable way, so the service is keen to explore this being captured directly within Uniform as part of our service improvement actions. This will allow the service to report clearly in the future how we have added value in terms of place and wellbeing outcomes and delivering sustainable, liveable and productive places within West Dunbartonshire. The Local Development Plan 2 Proposed Plan sets out a place focussed spatial strategy which identifies key areas for regeneration and development within our communities as well as key assets to be protected and enhanced. These places each have place specific policies and development strategies to ensure that development brought forward meets the needs of our communities. While the sustainable, liveable and productive place themes of NPF4 are more recent than our Proposed Plan, the spatial strategy is a key aspect of our approach to delivering these places. Each of the Delivering Our Places areas, identified within the Proposed Plan has a masterplan or development framework, or has the requirement for a masterplan to be prepared when an application is brought forward, to ensure that a coherent approach to development is achieved for these key strategic sites. This has ensured that masterplans have been brought forward as part of the Planning Permission in Principle applications for the Exxon City Deal and Carless sites as well as town centre masterplans/development frameworks for Clydebank and Alexandria town centres. The delivery of these projects are guided by a Project Board including leaders from key council services and partners where appropriate. West Dunbartonshire Councils pre-application process and Place and Design Panel are other key tools which the authority uses to raise the quality of development proposals and deliver better outcomes for our communities. Through the pre-application process there is the opportunity to provide early placemaking advice to applicants and incorporate stakeholders concerns prior to the application being submitted. As well as raising the bar in terms of design this also front-ends development details, reducing the need for conditions and reducing delays while discharging these so that development can get started more quickly once approved. Page 86
Page 87
43 Please consider the following when thinking about this attribute and how you have performed over the last year: • Has the planning authority provided clear and proportionate expectations of Section 75 agreements and set these out in the LDP and pre-application discussions and they are concluded within 6 months of resolution to grant? • Does the planning authority take a proportionate approach to imposing conditions? • Does the planning authority have an ambitious local housing land requirement that exceeds the Minimum All Tenure Housing land requirements in NPF4 and is it on track to support delivery? • Are the number of processing agreements the planning authority has agreed with applicants increasing? • Does the planning authority have an effective delivery programme in place that supports the delivery of development on the ground? Narrative Due to our current developer contributions policy, the service typically relies on Section 69 agreements rather than Section 75 agreements. However, any application that requires a Legal Agreement is generally expected to be concluded within 6 months of either the officer recommendation being accepted by an Appointed Officer or Planning Committee. The service has recently introduced wording to any committee recommendation requiring a legal agreement that seeks delegation to the Chief Planning Officer to refuse any application subject to a legal agreement within 6 months of the committee date where there has been no meaningful progress to completion. This may be formalised as part of the review of the Scheme of Delegation. Case officers seek to discuss any financial contributions at an early stage of application processing to reduce any delay, and where possible, this is advised at the preapplication stage. A rolling programme reviewing planning conditions is currently being progressed by the service. Initially this will involve Environmental Health conditions, and then other types of conditions will follow. This review is taking place in tandem with other workstreams, including reviewing the consultation protocol, and is part of a package of measures to improve efficiency and certainty for both our consultees and customers and to ensure that conditions are proportionate to the scale and type of development. This will also aid with future monitoring, discharge and enforcement of conditions. Other measures include exploring publication of new validation standards to be open and transparent to applicants about what information is required for assessment and to encourage sufficient information to be submitted, reducing the need for subsequent conditions. ATTRIBUTE 12: THE PLANNING AUTHORITY SUPPORTS THE DELIVERY OF CONSENTED DEVELOPMENT Page 87
Page 88
44 The Council is committed to delivery of development. Within the Council there are several working groups and project boards to support the delivery of key projects for the authority, which the planning service supports. These include cross service project boards for the Local development plan, the Exxon City Deal Project, Queens Quay, Dumbarton Levelling Up Fund Project as well as the Scottish Marine Technology Park at Carless, in partnership with the landowner. Officers from across the Council also regularly meet to share practice and insights at the Engagement Working Group. The Planning, Regeneration, Roads and Asset Management group, also meets regularly to keep partners aware of the range of projects which may have impacts across these services. As set out in the narrative for attribute 1, currently there is low utilisation of Planning Performance Agreements, but the service is exploring ways to promote their use further this as part of the implementation of a project management approach for applications. Page 88
Page 89
45 Improvement Action Plan (People theme) Attribute Score (1=Making excellent progress, 5= No progress) 11. The planning authority supports the delivery of sustainable, liveable and productive places 1 12. This planning authority supports the delivery of appropriate development 2 Based on the grading above, outline any areas of improvement that are required and by whom and their level of importance (High/ Medium/ Low) and by when (short/ medium/ long term). Improvement Action What action will you take? What will the outcome be? Owner Importance High Medium Low Timescale Short term – 1 year Medium term – 3 years Long term – 3+ years Resources Complete review of Scheme of Delegation to ensure it is proportionate Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader High Short term Chief Planning Officer, Legal Manager, Chief Officer Regulatory and Regeneration and Elected Members Implement Project Management approach within Development Management Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader High Short/Medium term Development Management, Technical Support and and Uniform Implement the new back- office document management system and carry out a full end-to-end review of all workflow processes Chief Planning Officer, Development Management Team Leader, Technical Support Co-Ordinator High Short term All service staff will be required to support this process in some way. In conjunction with IDOX and ICT, a project board will be established. Page 89
Page 90
46 Explore how “Added Value” can be better captured and reported on Development Management Team Leader High Short Term Uniform system Review Development Management Conditions Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader High Medium Development Management and other sections of the Council (e.g. Environmental Health, Roads etc.) Page 90
Page 91
NATIONAL PLANNING IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK IMPROVEMENT ACTION PLAN 2024 West Dunbartonshire Council ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 2 Page 91
Page 92
A high performing planning authority needs to have the right number of people to do the work expected of it with the rights skills set. It also needs to have a strategy to ensure that it retains and recruits the right staff in the future. It supports staff to upskill and to be prepared for changes in policy, legislation, and new circumstances. Attribute Score (1=Making excellent progress, 5= No progress) 1. The planning authority has sufficient resources and skills to maximise productivity 3 2. The planning authority has a valued and supported workforce 3 Based on the grading above, outline any areas of improvement that are required and by whom and their level of importance (High/ Medium/ Low) and by when (short/ medium/ long term). Improvement Action What action will you take? What will the outcome be? Owner Importance High Medium Low Timescale Short term – 1 year Medium term – 3 years Long term – 3+ years Resources Implement the new back-office document management system and carry out a full end-to-end review of all workflow processes Chief Planning Officer, Development Management Team Leader, Technical Support Co- Ordinator High Short term All service staff will be required to support this process in some way. In conjunction with IDOX and ICT, a project board will be established. Page 92
Page 93
Develop a workforce strategy and service training plan, including any options/opportunities for restructure or cases for investment Chief Planning Officer High Medium term Chief Officers for relevant service areas, finance and organisational development and People and Change partner. A high performing planning authority has a positive culture through ensuring it has sound governance, effective leadership and a commitment to continuous improvement. The authority has an identified chief planner, who is supported by a strong leadership group to advise on decision-making, policy and operational management. Attribute Score (1=Making excellent progress, 5= No progress) 3. This Planning Authority has embedded continuous improvement 1 4. This Planning Authority has sound governance 3 5. This Planning Authority has effective leadership 1 Based on the grading above, outline any areas of improvement that are required and by whom and their level of importance (High/ Medium/ Low) and by when (short/ medium/ long term). Improvement Action What action will you take? What will the outcome be? Owner Importance High Medium Low Timescale Short term – 1 year Medium term – 3 years Long term – 3+ years Resources Page 93
Page 94
Complete review of Scheme of Delegation to ensure it is proportionate Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader High Short term Chief Planning Officer, Legal Manager, Chief Officer Regulatory and Regeneration and Elected Members Implement the new back-office document management system and carry out a full end- to-end review of all workflow processes Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader/ Technical Support Co-Ordinator High Short term All service staff will be required to support this process in some way. In conjunction with IDOX and ICT, a project board will be established. Finalise review of committee and delegated Reports of Handling Templates to ensure that they are proportionate and are clear and easy to be understood by a variety of audiences Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader Medium Short term Chief Planning Officer, Development Management Team Leader and Democratic and Registration Services Manager Produce detailed team improvement plans, focusing on improvements that increase efficiency and are clear, including increasing the quality of our customer communication Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader/ Principal Officer Development Planning and Place / Technical Support Co-Ordinator High Short Term All service staff Page 94
Page 95
A high performing planning authority needs to have an effective local development plan and other strategies in place to provide a vision for the future of the area. It needs to be able to set and deliver on policy ambitions and priorities by clearly informing decision making and providing certainty and predictability for communities, developers and investment. The authority’s development management systems need to be effective in making the right decisions about development and be efficient as possible in doing this. The planning authority makes best use of digital technology and how it manages and uses data. Attribute Score (1=Making excellent progress, 5= No progress) 6. The planning authority has a robust policy and evidence base 3 7. The planning authority makes best use of data and digital technology 3 8. The planning authority has effective and efficient decision-making processes 3 Based on the grading above, outline any areas of improvement that are required and by whom and their level of importance (High/ Medium/ Low) and by when (short/ medium/ long term). Improvement Action What action will you take? What will the outcome be? Owner Importance High Medium Low Timescale Short term – 1 year Medium term – 3 years Long term – 3+ years Resources Implement the new back-office document management system and carry out a full end-to-end review of all workflow processes Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader/ Technical Support Co-Ordinator High Short term All service staff will be required to support this process in some way. In conjunction with IDOX and ICT, a project board will be established. Page 95
Page 96
Finalise review of committee and delegated Reports of Handling Templates to ensure that they are proportionate and are clear and easy to be understood by a variety of audiences Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader Medium Short term Chief Planning Officer, Development Management Team Leader and Democratic and Registration Services Manager Produce detailed team improvement plans, focusing on improvements that increase efficiency and are clear, including increasing the quality of our customer communication Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader/ Principal Officer Development Planning and Place / Technical Support Co-Ordinator High Short Term All service staff Undertake review of the Development Management and Enforcement Charters and processes to ensure they remain fit for purpose. Development Management Team Leader Medium Short Term Development Management Team Page 96
Page 97
A high performing planning authority should ensure a wide range of people are involved in shaping their future places. Engagement should be fair and inclusive, early, collaborative, meaningful and proportionate and should include difficult to reach groups. The authority should engage with a wide range of partners at a national, regional and local level to ensure a joined-up approach and that links are made across policies and programmes. The planning authority should demonstrate good customer care, transparency and effective communication. Attribute Score (1=Making excellent progress, 5= No progress) 9. This planning authority has good customer care 3 10. The planning authority has effective engagement and collaboration with stakeholders and communities. 3 Based on the grading above, outline any areas of improvement that are required and by whom and their level of importance (High/ Medium/ Low) and by when (short/ medium/ long term). Improvement Action What action will you take? What will the outcome be? Owner Importance High Medium Low Timescale Short term – 1 year Medium term – 3 years Long term – 3+ years Resources Set up regular agents forum, in conjunction with Building Standards Chief Planning Officer/Development Management Team Leader/ Principal Officer Development Planning and Place/Building Standards Team Leader Medium Short/Medium Term Development Management, Development Planning and Building Standards Carry out wider Service Day (with Building Standards and Environmental Health) to Chief Planning Officer Medium Short All Service staff Page 97
Page 98
share good practice and workstream updates. This will inform detailed Team Improvement Plans A high performing planning authority should demonstrate place leadership by taking a collaborative place-based approach in line with the Place Principle. It should use the Place and Wellbeing Outcomes in decision-making processes, to achieve the three spatial principles outlined in NPF4: Sustainable places, where we reduce emissions, restore and better connect biodiversity; Liveable places, where we can all live better, healthier lives; and Productive places, where we have a greener, fairer and more inclusive wellbeing economy. The planning authority should seek to ensure that there are no impediments to delivering agreed development. Attribute Score (1=Making excellent progress, 5= No progress) 11. The planning authority supports the delivery of sustainable, liveable and productive places 1 12. This planning authority supports the delivery of appropriate development 2 Based on the grading above, outline any areas of improvement that are required and by whom and their level of importance (High/ Medium/ Low) and by when (short/ medium/ long term). Improvement Action What action will you take? What will the outcome be? Owner Importance High Medium Low Timescale Short term – 1 year Medium term – 3 years Long term – 3+ years Resources Complete review of Scheme of Delegation to ensure it is proportionate Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader High Short term Chief Planning Officer, Legal Manager, Chief Officer Regulatory and Regeneration and Elected Members Page 98
Page 99
Implement Project Management approach within Development Management Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader High Short/Medium term Development Management, Technical Support and and Uniform Implement the new back-office document management system and carry out a full end-to-end review of all workflow processes Chief Planning Officer, Development Management Team Leader, Technical Support Co-Ordinator High Short term All service staff will be required to support this process in some way. In conjunction with IDOX and ICT, a project board will be established. Explore how “Added Value” can be better captured and reported on Development Management Team Leader High Short Term Uniform system Review Development Management Conditions Chief Planning Officer / Development Management Team Leader High Medium Development Management and other sections of the Council (e.g. Environmental Health, Roads etc.) Page 99
Page 100
NPIF Good Practice template Which attributes of a high performing planning authority does this relate to: ☐Attribute 1: The Planning Authority has sufficient resources and skills to maximise productivity ☐Attribute 2: The Planning Authority has a valued and supported workforce ☒Attribute 3: This Planning Authority has embedded continuous improvement ☐Attribute 4: This Planning Authority has sound governance ☒Attribute 5: This Planning Authority has effective leadership ☐Attribute 6: This Planning Authority has a robust policy and evidence base ☐Attribute 7: This Planning Authority makes best use of data and digital technology ☐Attribute 8: This Planning Authority has effective and efficient decision making processes ☐Attribute 9: This Planning Authority has good customer care ☐Attribute 10: This Planning Authority has effective engagement and collaboration with stakeholders and communities ☐Attribute 11: This Planning Authority supports the delivery of sustainable, liveable and productive places ☐Attribute 12: This Planning Authority supports the delivery of consented development West Dunbartonshire Council Title: Culture of continuous improvement and leadership Context Ensuring a culture of continuous improvement and being supported by leadership to identify areas for improvement and empowerment to implement solutions What happened? The service has embedded continuous improvement into everything that we do. As noted in the performance assessment, the service has generally good performance but has areas for improvement and is hampered by inefficient back-office systems. The service has a Chief Planning Officer who is committed to continuous improvement of planning and place outcomes, as well as performance outcomes in terms of certainty, speed and efficiency of decision ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 3 Page 100
Page 101
making. The Chief Planning Officer function is carried out by the service manager for Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health. Whilst a broad remit, the role provides for significant opportunities to work collaboratively and there is a good degree of synergy within the services. For example, the Technical Support team is a multi-disciplinary team that supports both planning teams and Building Standards, whilst Environmental Health is a key consultee for the planning process. The Chief Planning Officer is supported in this collaborative approach by the individual Principal Officers, Team Leaders and Co-Ordinator's and they are empowered to identify areas of improvement and to work together to achieve this. Individual catch ups take place regularly and meet as a group monthly to discuss wider service issues. This approach extends vertically, both upwards to other Council services, and downwards to individuals and teams within the service. The Chief Planning Officer, whilst not a formal Chief Officer in terms of the corporate structure, supports the corporate leadership team on planning matters and sits on a variety of project boards and has regular catch ups and communications with services across the Council. A recent example of how continuous improvement is embedded into the team was a joint service improvement afternoon that was undertaken by the Development Planning and Place, Development Management, Building Standards and Technical Support teams, facilitated by the service manager. The goal of this day was to hear more about the challenges individuals, teams and the service as a whole faced, what worked, what could be improved and their ideas for change. The format of the afternoon included some fun team building exercises to foster further collaboration across the service. The event highlighted the following: What we do well • Flexible working • Positive and supportive work culture • Endurance under pressure • Embrace change • Make the best of out dated systems • Achieve high quality development Challenges • Not having appropriate IT systems to help us or our customers • Providing good customer service in relation to the website and the planning portal • Failure to attract and retain staff, aswell as delays in recruitment when it is approved Opportunities • In service training and sharing of learning, skills and knowledge • Ensure budgets for known software updates • To make “Service Days” more regular with guest speakers from other services • Collate procedural guidance in a central place (handbook) for all processes • Review processes with increased enterprise usage and future review when IDOX DMS is implemented Page 101
Page 102
• Explore technology for site visits and dangerous buildings (e.g. drones, 3D cameras) • Present our roles, what we do, and what we do not do, to other services such as housing and the contact centre • Improve the onboarding process at service level • Promote continued progressional development and implement “grow your own” staff supports • Engage more with developers and agents Areas of collaboration The event was collaborative as all planning, building standards and technical support staff attended. Whilst faciliated by the service manager, individual groups discussed the issues and themes and reported back to the wider group. What was the overall result? The event was well received by attendees, noting “the high level of interaction and team building exercises as a bit of fun.” The event was extremely useful for the service manager and team leaders as it highlighted the good work already done or in progress and helped to identify areas for further improvement. The actions and feedback from this event have directly influenced service priorities and the National Planning Improvement Framework Improvement Actions. The event was followed up with a Microsoft Sway document outlining a summary of the event and what had been achieved so far and what was next. Highlights of actions that were noted as being underway at the time included: • Recruitment underway for vacant posts • Supporting officer attendance on the UWS planning course • Review of Enterprise tasks commenced • Early work on the review of the Scheme of Delegation • Review of both delegated and committee Report of Handling templates • New catch-up schedules with line managers • 4 weekly meetings with PBS&EH Manager and Princiapal Officers, Team Leaders and Co- Ordinator's • Progress with Business Case for full IDOX solution • prepatory work to support Civica extraction and IDOX integration • Sharing skills and knowledge events took place with Argyll and Bute and Stirling Council’s Page 102
Page 103
Lessons learned Please detail here what worked well and what did not work and on reflection what you would do in future under the following headings: Successes Officers felt listened to and it was beneficial to hear about what we do well and for self-identification of where we could improve Challenges Many of the desires of the team require a cost, whether that be a financial cost or staff time cost to implement, which is challenging in the current operating environment. Another challenge arising from the event is to manage expectations on how quickly identified improvements will happen and to ensure that these do not just “sit on a shelf” and to show regularly how improvements are being made, resulting from the event. Some areas of frustration were also expressed for matters that lay outwith the control of the service. Lessons Learned Overall, as the event was well received, it highlighted the determination and desire for change with the team, and it will be rerun in the future. From a leadership perspective, it also reinforced the positive benefit of learning from those that are doing the role and getting their collaborative input on how we could/should change, rather than a top-down approach to service improvement. What contribution will it aim to make towards delivering outcomes? Please tick all the outcomes below that this example aims to works towards. NPF4 ☒Sustainable places ☒Climate change and nature crisis ☐Climate mitigate and adaptation ☐Biodiversity ☐Natural Places ☐Soils ☐Forestry, woodland and trees ☐Historic assets and places ☒Green belts ☒Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings Page 103
Page 104
☐Coast development ☐Energy ☐Zero waste ☐Sustainable transport ☒Liveable places ☒Design, quality and place ☒Local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods ☒Quality homes ☐Rural homes ☐Infrastructure first ☐Heat and cooling ☐Blue and green infrastructure ☐Play, recreation and sport ☐Flood risk and water management ☐Health and safety ☐Digital Infrastructure ☐Productive places ☐Community Wealth Building ☐Business and industry ☐City, town, local and commercial centres ☐Retail ☐Rural development ☐Tourism ☐Culture and creativity ☐Aquaculture ☐Minerals Place and Wellbeing Outcomes ☒Movement ☒Spaces ☒Resources ☒Civic Page 104
Page 105
☐ Stewardship Contact/ Further details: Michael Mulgrew – Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Service Manager Michael.mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Page 105
Page 106
NPIF Good Practice template Which attributes of a high performing planning authority does this relate to: ☐Attribute 1: The Planning Authority has sufficient resources and skills to maximise productivity ☐Attribute 2: The Planning Authority has a valued and supported workforce ☐Attribute 3: This Planning Authority has embedded continuous improvement ☐Attribute 4: This Planning Authority has sound governance ☐Attribute 5: This Planning Authority has effective leadership ☐Attribute 6: This Planning Authority has a robust policy and evidence base ☒Attribute 7: This Planning Authority makes best use of data and digital technology ☐Attribute 8: This Planning Authority has effective and efficient decision making processes ☐Attribute 9: This Planning Authority has good customer care ☐Attribute 10: This Planning Authority has effective engagement and collaboration with stakeholders and communities ☐Attribute 11: This Planning Authority supports the delivery of sustainable, liveable and productive places ☐Attribute 12: This Planning Authority supports the delivery of consented development West Dunbartonshire Title: Open Space Audit Context Section 3 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, introduced a duty for planning authorities to publish an Open Space Strategy “set out a strategic framework of the planning authority's policies and proposals as to the development, maintenance and use of green infrastructure in their district, including open spaces and green networks.” One of the requirements of the strategy was that it was to contain an audit of Open Space. Planning Advice Note 65 recommends that planning authorities should audit sites over 2 hectares. An initial GIS analysis of Ordnance Survey data indicated that over 400 sites in West Dunbartonshire Council met this threshold. ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 4 Page 106
Page 107
Due to limited resources and the introduction of many new duties and requirements in the Planning Act, as well as new requirements for local development plans, there was a clear need for an efficient way to gather and analyse data. What happened? A desktop exercise to reduce the number of sites requiring audit was undertaken by the planning team's GIS officer. This exercise filtered from the audit sites with a single function, or sites that were not open to the public. For example, golf courses, playing fields that require a booking to use, or school playgrounds. This could mostly be done relatively quickly in GIS, using the ordnance survey open space data, which is classified by the PAN65 typology. A survey was produced using Arc GIS Field Maps. This tool combines map data with survey forms, allowing for map-based data collection in the field using a smartphone app. The survey was designed to collect data on various aspects of open space, such as connectivity and accessibility, function, condition and maintenance, placemaking, safety, and biodiversity. Planning officers carried out the survey by visiting a particular site, selecting it on the map in the Field Map app, and entering data into the survey form. The app could also be used to adjust site boundaries to better fit what was on the ground and add new sites that may have been not have been included in the map data. The data was analysed using the ArcGIS Pro Software. ArcGIS Pro provides numerous tools for data analysis and the ability to join it with other datasets. For example, the "Summarise Within" tool quickly produces statistical summaries of datasets within different geographical areas. This functionality allows for easy calculation of the area of open space in electoral wards (as required by the draft Open Space Strategy Regulations) or within Community Council areas or settlements, enabling insights at various geographical scales to be easily produced and shared. Areas of collaboration The Planning Team has a dedicated GIS Officer. Collaboration was needed between GIS and Planning officers to design and technically implement the survey to ensure data could be collected easily and accurately. The survey itself was based on a methodology developed by North Lanarkshire Council. Having the data clearly mapped also allowed for collaboration with other stakeholders. Additional information on the community involvement in different open spaces was collected through an event with the council’s Biodiversity Network using the maps. Page 107
Page 108
What was the overall result? Open space audit data was input directly into the council's GIS platform and ready for analysis with only minor adjustments needed to correct any inconsistencies within the data. The result was the creation of spatial data which enabled the qualities of open spaces to be visualised, spatially analysed and combined with other data sets. Lessons learned Successes The Field Maps Application allows users to input information directly into the GIS platform without the need for further manual data entry or manipulation. This enables the council to move seamlessly from data collection to data analysis without additional steps, saving valuable time. ArcGIS Pro allowed data analysis to be undertaken relatively quickly. Once the data was collected it could be combined with other data sets. For example, nature network or flood risk map data could be used to identify what open spaces provide multiple benefits, or have the potential to, and meeting the cross cutting aims of National Planning Framework 4. Challenges At the time of data collection, the government had not provided regulations or further guidance on Open Space Strategies. This gave some uncertainty to the methodology, however discussion with other planning authorities to compare methods was helpful in providing some confidence. A small error in setting up one of the survey fields meant that a workaround was needed to collect that piece of data. Lessons Learned Page 108
Page 109
The survey form was created in advance using an existing GIS map and it is important to check the survey form thoroughly and test it before data collection begins, as the form cannot be easily changed once data entry has started. Using tools like Field Maps can improve data collection and make it easier to create or add to spatial data sets. This saves time and allows for easy spatial analysis and combination with other data sets. What contribution will it aim to make towards delivering outcomes? Please tick all the outcomes below that this example aims to works towards. NPF4 ☒Sustainable places ☒Climate change and nature crisis ☒Climate mitigate and adaptation ☒Biodiversity ☐Natural Places ☐Soils ☐Forestry, woodland and trees ☐Historic assets and places ☐Green belts ☐Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings ☐Coast development ☐Energy ☐Zero waste ☐Sustainable transport ☐Liveable places ☐Design, quality and place ☒Local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods ☐Quality homes ☐Rural homes ☐Infrastructure first ☐Heat and cooling ☒Blue and green infrastructure ☒Play, recreation and sport Page 109
Page 110
☐Flood risk and water management ☐Health and safety ☐Digital Infrastructure ☐Productive places ☐Community Wealth Building ☐Business and industry ☐City, town, local and commercial centres ☐Retail ☐Rural development ☐Tourism ☐Culture and creativity ☐Aquaculture ☐Minerals Place and Wellbeing Outcomes ☐ Movement ☐ Spaces ☐ Resources ☐ Civic ☐ Stewardship Contact/ Further details: Cameron Clow – Planning Policy Officer Cameron.Clow@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Page 110
Page 111
NPIF Good Practice template Which attributes of a high performing planning authority does this relate to: ☐Attribute 1: The Planning Authority has sufficient resources and skills to maximise productivity ☐Attribute 2: The Planning Authority has a valued and supported workforce ☐Attribute 3: This Planning Authority has embedded continuous improvement ☐Attribute 4: This Planning Authority has sound governance ☐Attribute 5: This Planning Authority has effective leadership ☐Attribute 6: This Planning Authority has a robust policy and evidence base ☐Attribute 7: This Planning Authority makes best use of data and digital technology ☐Attribute 8: This Planning Authority has effective and efficient decision making processes ☐Attribute 9: This Planning Authority has good customer care ☐Attribute 10: This Planning Authority has effective engagement and collaboration with stakeholders and communities ☒Attribute 11: This Planning Authority supports the delivery of sustainable, liveable and productive places ☒Attribute 12: This Planning Authority supports the delivery of consented development West Dunbartonshire Council Title: Supporting High Quality Development and Places Context West Dunbartonshire Council is committed to create places for people, spaces for investment and destinations to enjoy – ensuring that all new development enhances and protects our great places, strengthens existing communities, as well as creating new and distinctive places. To support this aspiration, the spatial strategy is focused on the delivery of significant regeneration areas and other key sites within our already established urban areas. Sustainable and high quality placemaking is at the heart of this strategy and is a key priority for the Council. West Dunbartonshire Councils pre-application process and Place and Design Panel are other key tools which the authority uses to raise the quality of development proposals and deliver better outcomes for our communities. Through the pre-application process there is the opportunity to provide early placemaking advice to applicants and incorporate stakeholders concerns prior to the application being submitted. As well as raising the bar in terms of design this also front-ends development details, ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 5 Page 111
Page 112
reducing the need for conditions and reducing delays while discharging these so that development can get started more quickly once approved. The Council recognises the importance of continually improving its service offer, in order to take a more proactive role in supporting the delivery of high-quality developments. By acknowledging that early and effective consultation is essential to this aspiration, the Pre-Application Framework has been developed as a critical tool in helping to support applicants through this process. What happened? The Council recognises that developments can be uniquely complex and often involve different services from both within and outwith the Council. The Pre-Application Framework has been established in order to provide a bespoke pre-application process; one which reflects the changing needs of different applications. The options for pre-application have been simplified into two distinct routes – Pre-Application Advice and Pre-Application Framework. Upon receipt of a pre-application enquiry the Council recommends which route is most appropriate and provides relevant information and guidance to the applicant team based on the type, scale and complexity of the proposal. The Pre-Application Framework provides a realistic timeframe for planning and resourcing the pre- application discussions, with the aim of agreeing a submission date and facilitating a streamlined and effective planning application process. The Applicant and the Council agree that the timetable may be subject to change which is kept under review as the project moves forward. A designated member of the Applicant’s team, in conjunction with the Council Case Officer, convene meetings, organise agendas and produce minutes to be agreed by the Project Team. Information is shared between parties in good time in order to facilitate necessary input to the process as a whole. The Pre-Application Framework process does not give a guarantee of planning permission, and it does not prejudice the outcome of the planning application or the impartiality of the Council in exercising its statutory duties as local planning authority. Areas of collaboration Place and Design panel The Place and Design Panel was established in 2018 as an innovative vehicle to assist the Council in achieving better places and improving the design quality of the built environment in West Dunbartonshire. Since its inception, it has supported the progression of a number of key regeneration sites, playing a key role in raising the quality of development which embraces the Government’s place- Page 112
Page 113
based approach. The Place and Design Panel now sits within the new Pre-Application Framework as a key opportunity to provide additional expert advice to inform the planning process. By offering advice to applicants and council officers during the pre-application process, the panel supports planning officers and the planning committee in securing delivery of high-quality developments and the creation of exceptional places. It is vital for applicant teams and developments proposals to ensure that the Place and Design Panel are brought into the application discussion at the correct stage – the framework ensures that this is achievable and provides clarity to all involved. A report of the panel discussion is created with the necessary action points clearly defined in order to feed into the next phase of the Pre-Application Framework. Elected Members Briefing For some applications of a significant scale, complexity or of local interest an Elected Members briefing may be necessary as part of the Pre-Application Framework. The briefings are an important tool to allow early engagement by developers with Elected Members in order to identify key and significant local issues at an early stage of the planning process. It enables Elected Members to be better informed of developments that will subsequently be presented to the Planning Committee and helps to give a degree of certainty and confidence to applicants by identifying key and local issues earlier in the process. The Elected Members briefing is open to all Elected Members and not just Elected Members that sit on the Planning Committee. What was the overall result? Please provide details of the overall outputs and outcomes you hope to achieve and how this contributes towards improvement. The objective of the Pre-Application Framework is one of co-operation and consistency throughout the negotiation, and for discussion relating to the pre-application process to provide a degree of certainty of intended outcomes and improve the quality of the project, leading to an effective and efficient quality planning decision. The key benefits of using the pre-application framework are to enable the local planning authority and applicant to: • Set out an efficient, transparent and solution focused process for determining complex planning applications; • Agreement of relevant timescales, actions and resources for handling applications; • Enabling joint working between the applicant and local planning authority, including engagement strategies for other parties such as statutory consultees, Councillors, the Place and Design panel and other stakeholders. Page 113
Page 114
Lessons learned Successes The shift to a formalised framework provides a more structured, transparent and predictable process for applicants and officers alike, clearly setting out expectations from the outset. Integrating the Place and Design Panel into the process helps to ensure that the Panel can influence proposals at an early stage in the process, before key design decisions have been fixed. Applicants benefit from early identification of design constraints, technical considerations and stakeholder concerns, which reduces delays and uncertainty later in the planning process. Front loading the detail can also allow for a reduced number or scope of planning conditions allowing for quicker site starts following approval. Challenges Some applicants have been reluctant to engage with the process or seek to minimise their engagement with it, for example opting for the lower-cost pre-application advice when a full framework is recommended by officers. We will continue to communicate the value of early and full engagement with the pre-application process with applicants. While the process has improved outcomes, there is a considerable additional administrative burden placed on officers, brought about by the expanded and more formalised process. Current resourcing pressures throughout council services mean that stakeholder services are not always able to meet the timeframes required by the framework, or unable to meet with applicants to work through particular issues. Development of a consultation protocol is a key area of work which will help to facilitate stakeholder input in the future. Lessons Learned The introduction of the formal pre-application process and framework has had key benefits for applicants and officers in terms of producing better design and place outcomes for development. We will continue to refine the process and the operation of the place and design panel so that they can continue to provide the right balance of certainty and flexibility to meet the needs of applicants and officers. Development of a Stakeholder protocol and a membership and skills survey of the place and design panel will be key steps for improving this work. What contribution will it aim to make towards delivering outcomes? NPF4 ☒Sustainable places ☒Climate change and nature crisis ☒Climate mitigate and adaptation ☒Biodiversity ☐Natural Places Page 114
Page 115
☐Soils ☐Forestry, woodland and trees ☒Historic assets and places ☐Green belts ☐Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings ☐Coast development ☐Energy ☐Zero waste ☒Sustainable transport ☒Liveable places ☒Design, quality and place ☒Local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods ☒Quality homes ☐Rural homes ☐Infrastructure first ☒Heat and cooling ☒Blue and green infrastructure ☒Play, recreation and sport ☒Flood risk and water management ☐Health and safety ☐Digital Infrastructure ☒Productive places ☐Community Wealth Building ☒Business and industry ☒City, town, local and commercial centres ☐Retail ☐Rural development ☐Tourism ☐Culture and creativity ☐Aquaculture ☐Minerals Place and Wellbeing Outcomes ☒Movement Page 115
Page 116
☒Spaces ☒Resources ☒Civic ☒Stewardship Contact/ Further details: Mathew Spurway – Placemaking Co-Ordinator matthew.spurway@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Page 116
Page 117
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 6th August 2025 _____________________________________________________________ DC25/019/S36: Battery energy storage facility consisting of compound of batteries and associated electrical equipment, stores, access track, buildings, fencing, pond, bunds and new planting at Braidfield Road, Hardgate, Clydebank by Braidfield Battery Storage Limited 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 To agree the Council’s response to a consultation received from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit on behalf of the Scottish Ministers regarding a proposed battery energy storage system with a generating capacity of up to 100 megawatts. Given the nature of the proposal, this requires to be agreed by Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee agrees the position set out in Section 10 of this report and submit this report to the Scottish Ministers as presenting the Council’s full, formal response to the consultation advising of the Council’s objection based on the application submission as it stands. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 The Scottish Ministers have received an application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and operation of a battery energy storage system (BESS) with a generating capacity of up to 100 megawatts (MW) on a site at Braidfield Farm, Clydebank. The application site is located within the West Dunbartonshire local authority area however, the assessment of the submitted application is undertaken via the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit for the Scottish Ministers. In Scotland, any proposal to construct and operate an onshore electricity generating station with a capacity of over 50 megawatts (as is the case with this proposal) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act. Such applications are processed on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit. Due to the Scottish Ministers being the decision makers, representations from members of the public and other agencies are made directly to the Energy Consents Unit. The application is referred to under the project name of the Braidfield BESS. The location of the site is shown in Appendix 1. 3.2 A date of 12th September 2025 has been agreed with the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit for the submission of the Council’s consultation response. The application documents are available to view via the Energy Consents Unit website at www.energyconsents.scot and by searching the project name ‘Braidfield’. 3.3 The Council is a formal consultee in this process. In procedural terms, the Council as Planning Authority requires to provide a response to the Scottish Ministers. In this regard, the Council in response to the consultation can: ITEM 8 Page 117
Page 118
(i) Offer no objection to the Section 36 application as submitted; or (ii) Offer no objections subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and/or legal obligations it considers necessary to make the development acceptable; or (iii) Object to the application, stating the grounds on which objection is made. 3.4 Should the Scottish Ministers be disposed to grant a Section 36 consent for the proposed development, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act allows the Scottish Ministers to direct that planning permission for that development and any ancillary development shall be deemed to be granted. 4. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 4.1 The application site is situated to the to the east of Braidfield Farm, Clydebank and extends to approximately 2.13 hectares (excluding access track from Braidfield Farm). Whilst in close proximity to the urban area, the site itself lies within open countryside comprising part of the Green Belt as defined by both the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. To the west, the site is defined by an existing rough track which forms part of Core Path 150. To the north, south and east, the site adjoins existing grazing land. A private section of Braidfield Road leading from the existing steading to the development is also included within the application site. Excluding the access road, the site boundaries are defined by a combination of existing hedgerows and post and wire fencing. Currently the land is utilised as a paddock for grazing horses. The main part of the site (excluding the access road) is positioned around 150 metres from the farmhouse at Braidfield Farm and around 250 metres from the next closest residential properties at Braidfield Road, Braidfield Grove and Strathdee Avenue. The Antonine Wall is located 130 metres to the north of the site and the site itself lies wholly within the Antonine Wall buffer zone which is identified along much of the Wall, protecting its setting. 4.2 The proposal is for a 100MW Battery Energy Storage System facility and associated infrastructure. Whilst supporting documents reference the eventual decommissioning of the site, the expected operational period is not clear. The proposed development would comprise 108 battery units and 135 power convertors. The battery units will take the form of metal units not dissimilar in appearance to a shipping container and would be 8.5 metres by 1.7 metres by 1.8 metres high. They would be designed with vents for cooling. Power convertors would be sited by each group of batteries and take the form of a series of metal cabinets. Transformers would also be positioned adjacent to the power convertors and take the form of large items of electrical equipment to a height of around 3 metres. A total of 27 transformers are proposed. It is further proposed to erect a control room to house a variety of equipment. This would be designed with a flat roof and extend to around 13 metres by 6 metres by 4 metres high. The transmission area would feature a similar building together with an electrical transformer, electrical disconnector and associated equipment with a height of up to 7 metres. Two storage containers are also proposed to house spares and equipment. These will be 8.5 metres by 1.7 metres by 1.8 metres high. 4.3 The site will be enclosed by a two metre high weldmesh fence with barbed top and it is indicated that this would be situated behind a hedgerow. Security cameras to a height of 4 metres will be provided. No permanently illuminated nighttime lighting is proposed with external lighting indicated to be for use during maintenance in the hours of darkness only. Infrared security lighting will be provided but this is not visible to the eye. The site will be levelled and landscape bunds are proposed wrapping around the southern, western and northern boundaries of the compound. These are indicated to be between 1 and 3 metres in height. Drainage will be addressed via a sustainable Page 118
Page 119
drainage scheme (SuDS) employing a gravity based outflow to a nearby existing drainage ditch which subsequently drains to Cleddans Burn. The existing farm track from Braidfield Farm is included in the application site and it is indicated this will be refurbished in unbound material. Tracks within the site will be formed in aggregate. Parking and turning will be provided for any maintenance vehicles visiting the site. 4.4 New planting is proposed as part of the development with the applicant indicating that this will create new biodiversity habitat and also form a screening function which will compliment the existing retained hedgerows. It is indicated that this planting will comprise a mix of predominantly native hedgerow and broadleaf species together with areas of wildflower meadow. The applicant indicates that the final landscaping plan would be agreed with the Council prior to construction in the event that consent was granted. 4.5 The applicant sets out that a 50MW capacity facility was originally considered for the site, expecting to connect at the Kilbowie Grid Supply Point on Milton Mains Road, at the voltage of 33kV. However, the Distribution Network Operator could not accommodate this and an alternative 132kV connection was offered at Windyhill Substation around 1.5kms to the northeast of the site, and this dictated a change in site capacity to 100MW. It is indicated that the development would connect to Windyhill Substation via buried cables although the grid connection does not form part of this application. 4.6 The proposal is informed by a range of supporting documentation including a planning statement, design and access statement, landscape report with associated figures and viewpoints, drainage report, ecology report, biodiversity report, heritage report and noise assessment. 5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 The Council is a consultee in the Section 36 application process and therefore consultation by the Council is limited to Council Services. However, a summary of the wider consultation responses received by the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit is also included below, as these are also relevant to the assessment of the proposal to inform the response by the Council. West Dunbartonshire Council consultation replies: West Dunbartonshire Council (Roads Service) (roads, traffic and flooding matters) 5.2 No objections on roads or flooding grounds. The requirement for notification of the commencement of works, abnormal load movements and pre and post development inspections of the public road network are identified by Roads, together with the requirement to ensure road sweeping if required, that surface water is not discharged to the public road and that the access to the site is hard surfaced for the first 12 metres and that any gates are set back from the public road by at least 12 metres. West Dunbartonshire Council (Environmental Health Service) 5.3 No objections. A range of matters are recommended to be addressed by condition including a variety of matters relating to the construction phase inclusive of hours of works and also in respect of possible site contamination and ground conditions together with conditions relating to noise matters during the operational phase of the development. Page 119
Page 120
Biodiversity Officer 5.4 No objections. The applicant’s submissions, methodology and approach undertaken is accepted and it is specifically noted that additional caution has been taken in respect of the camera monitoring. A cautionary position in respect of watervole is recommended. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dating from 2022 is noted as being longer than is usually accepted sur such to remain accurate in its findings and it is recommended that the document is updated. The proposed biodiversity enhancements are accepted and welcomed. Scottish Government Energy Consent Unit consultation replies: West of Scotland Archaeology Service 5.5 The proposal would be located around 130m to the south of the line of the Antonine Wall itself but would be wholly located within the buffer area defined in relation to the monument in the World Heritage Site designation. It is agreed that the development would be unlikely to have direct impacts on the World Heritage Site, at least in terms of archaeological material present along the line of the wall itself, though there would be a clear potential for sub-surface archaeological material to survive in the area adjacent to the frontier. 5.6 The proposal would introduce a new modern element into the setting of the monument. There are concerns as to whether the visualisations submitted provide an adequate picture of the degree to which the proposal would be visible from the World Heritage Site. It is advised that the applicant should be asked to provide at least one additional visualisation taken from the line of the Antonine Wall in the area immediately to the north of the of the site. 5.7 In the event that the Energy Consents Unit intends to grant permission, a condition should be attached to secure completion of the programme of mitigation works set out in the Heritage Assessment Historic Environment Scotland 5.8 The application does not include an appropriate heritage-led analysis of the setting and potential impacts on the setting of the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site and scheduled monument Antonine Wall and fortlet, 950m W to 335m ENE of Cleddens (SM6836). It is recommended that a detailed appraisal of the setting of these historic assets and the key elements of this setting which contribute to the cultural significance of the historic assets is undertaken. This should consider how the whole development, including proposed tree planting, could impact the authenticity and integrity of the setting of the World Heritage site and its Outstanding Universal Values, and its scheduled monuments. Further visualisations should be provided to assist with the written assessment. 5.9 At present, there is insufficient information to adequately assess the impact of the proposals, and to allow advise to be provided that will in turn allow the Energy Consents Unit to reach a fully informed decision on the application. Therefore, there is an objection to the application because it may raise historic environment issues of national interest. NatureScot 5.10 No negative impacts on national or international protected areas are anticipated from the proposed development. With the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures recommended in the Preliminary Ecological Assessment and biodiversity report in place, the proposal will not give rise to adverse impacts on any natural heritage interests of national or international importance. Pre-construction surveys may be Page 120
Page 121
required to ascertain the presence of protected species. Further general advice is provided in the response. East Dunbartonshire Council 5.11 No objection. Glasgow City Council 5.12 No objection. Scottish Forestry 5.13 The site map shows that the development site is primarily an area of pasture surrounded by hedging with a few trees contained within. The proposal does not appear to include any permanent removal of trees. New woodland planting as proposed is welcomed. It is expected that all trees and woodland on the site be protected. If trees are to be permanently removed, conditions relating to compensatory planting are recommended. Coal Authority 5.14 There are no records of the presence of any coal mining features within the site which may pose a risk to surface stability. No objections Ministry of Defence (MOD) 5.15 No objections BT 5.16 This proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. No objections. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) 5.17 No objections. Scottish Water 5.18 No objections Office for Nuclear Regulation 5.19 No comments to make on the proposal HSE 5.20 The development is not located in any consultation zones and does not comprise hazardous substances. No further comments on the proposal. NATS 5.21 No objections. SGN 5.22 No objection. Transport Scotland 5.23 Based on the review undertaken, there is no objection to the development in terms of potential environmental impacts on the trunk road network. Conditions are required in respect of a variety of matters including matters relating to abnormal roads on the trunk road network and the requirement for a Construction Traffic Management Plan. Page 121
Page 122
Glasgow Airport 5.24 No objections subject to conditions relating to details of soft and water landscaping and a bird hazard management plan. Parkhall Community Council 5.25 The Community Council object to the proposal for a variety of reasons. These include fire risk, concerns regarding ground stability from historic mining, road access and use of residential streets to access the site, and that the route of the connector to the Windyhill Substation not having been finalised. Linvale and Drumry Community Council 5.26 The Community Council object to the proposal for a variety of reasons. These include the facility not being required and BESS applications being oversubscribed, safety concerns regarding hydrogen fluoride, fire safety concerns, noise and pollution to local residents, traffic, visual impact, impacts upon wildlife and local biodiversity. 6. REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 At the time of writing, the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit have advised that 315 representations have been received in connection with the proposal. 25 of these are in support and 290 are in objection. However, the Energy Consents Unit further advises that a number of these submissions were late and it will be up to the Scottish Ministers as to whether any late submissions are taken into account. Copies of these representations are provided on the Energy Consents Unit website case file however the point raised can be summarised as follows: In objection The proposal does not accord with the development plan There are no known grid stability issues that the proposal requires to address The development will adversely impact upon the Antonine Wall, the setting of the roman frontier and associated archaeology Loss of view would occur Impact upon good quality agricultural land Lithium battery storage systems are hazardous and present a fire risk with associated pollution. Safety hazards have not been fully considered There is no suitable access to the site for heavy vehicles The development of the site will cause two years of local disruption, Local businesses will see a drop in trade resulting from disruption associated with the development The development may prevent local inward investment No local employment will created during the operational period No community benefit is proposed The development is speculative The grid connection works will cause considerable local disruption The proposal is unacceptably close to local schools and residents Community health, safety and wellbeing will be adversely impacted upon The use of Core Paths will be lost during construction Supporting documents are inaccurate and misleading Press advertisements were not in prominent locations in the local press Neighbour notification was not undertaken The content of the consultations responses from SEPA and HSE are not acceptable Page 122
Page 123
Concerns regarding the integrity of the applicant In Support The development would be good for the area cheaper electricity may result Environmental benefits would occur The development would benefit the local community and support children’s futures The aim for sustainable places to be created will be supported The development will lower carbon impact and reduce the use of fossil fuels local authorities require to support renewable energy Jobs will be provided by the development The banking of renewable electricity generation energy should be supported 6.2 Whilst many of the points raised both in objection and in support are considered as part of the Council’s wider assessment of the proposal as set out in Section 8 below, it is for the Scottish Ministers as the determining authority to consider the representations submitted to them. 7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 7.1 NPF4 aims to create places in line with six overarching spatial principles, including the Just Transition and Rebalanced Development. The Just Transition directs development towards achieving the transition to net zero in a way that is inclusive and fair. Rebalanced Developments directs development to areas of past decline, which would include West Dunbartonshire, given the de-industrialisation that has taken place in the area. While these are high level principles, they are cross cutting and NPF4 contains a clear steer that outcomes of Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 11 and Policy 25 are interlinked. 7.2 Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure is a Scotland wide national development (National Development 3), making it a clear priority across Scotland. Regional Spatial Priorities for the Central Region also direct development to “provide net zero energy solutions” and to “build community wealth to overcome disadvantage”. These high level aims and connections between policies should be considered by the decision maker. 7.3 Policy 1 gives significant weight to the climate and nature crisis, with an intended Policy outcome of being zero carbon and nature positive. Renewables, including onshore wind and battery storage, are considered an important part of Scotland’s approach to meeting its carbon emission reduction targets. Policy 2 requires development to minimise the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of development as far as possible. A development that relates to renewable energy development draws strong support from these policies. 7.4 Policy 3 requires development to contribute to biodiversity enhancement, including the restoration of degraded habitat and improving connections between them. As a national development part b) of the Policy applies. Part d) of this Policy also applies, requiring the planning and design of development to minimise adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the development on biodiversity and the natural environment. The approach to biodiversity enhancement accords with this Policy. 7.5 Policy 4‘s intent is to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. Development which impacts upon landscape designations or Page 123
Page 124
nature conservation and protected species is not supported if significant effects would occur. It is concluded that the proposal does not conflict with this Policy 7.6 Policy 5 relates to soils and Policy 6 supports proposals that enhance, expand or improve woodland and tree cover. The development is considered acceptable with reference to these policies. 7.7 Policy 7 requires development with potential impacts on historic assets or place to be accompanied by an assessment of that asset or place, including cumulative impacts. With the potential to impact upon the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site part l) of the Policy is of particular relevance as this requires development proposals to protect and preserve the historic asset. There are serious concerns in terms of the impact upon the setting of Wall and the proposal cannot be held to be supported by this Policy. 7.8 Proposals within a Green Belt are covered in Policy 8. Development proposals within a Green Belt designated within the LDP will only be supported in a limited set of circumstances including for essential infrastructure. The proposal falls into the definition of essential infrastructure. However, it is not demonstrated that there are no sites outside the Green Belt for this development and that visual impacts are minimised. The proposal cannot be held to be acceptable with reference to this Policy. 7.9 Policy 11 relates to energy and the Policy intent is to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of renewable energy development onshore and offshore. This includes energy generation, storage, new and replacement transmission and distribution infrastructure and emerging low-carbon and zero emissions technologies including hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS). Part a) supports proposals for renewable technologies, including battery storage under section iii. 7.10 Part c) of Policy 11 requires renewable development to maximise economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits. Part e) of the Policy requires the project design and mitigation to address a number of issues. In considering the impacts significant weight is placed on the contribution of the proposal to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Impacts to be addressed are: i. impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including, residential amenity and visual. ii. significant landscape and visual impacts. iii. public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes. iv. impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording. v. impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. vi. impacts on road traffic and on adjacent trunk roads, including during construction. vii. impacts on historic environment. viii. effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk. ix. biodiversity including impacts on birds. x. impacts on trees, woods and forests. xi. proposals for the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration. xii. the quality of site restoration plans including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. xiii. cumulative impacts. Page 124
Page 125
Concerns arise in respect of a number of these criteria as fully assessed in Section 8 of this report. 7.11 Policy 12 requires development to reduce, reuse or recycle materials in line with the waste hierarchy. It also supports developments that enable materials and components to be disassembled and reused at the end of their life and Policy 13 supports development where it is demonstrated that transport requirements satisfactorily addressed. No concerns arise in respect of these policies. 7.12 Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale as per Policy 14. Development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported in accordance with Policy 14. As it is not demonstrated that visual impacts are fully addressed, the proposal cannot be considered to support the six qualities of successful places. 7.13 Policy 18’s intent is to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. Energy supplies and energy generation are included in the definition of infrastructure and Policy 22 relates to flooding. The development is acceptable with reference to these policies. 7.14 Policy 23 protects people and places from environmental harm, mitigates risks arising from safety hazards. Part e) notes that development proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. It is considered that no unacceptable noise impacts would occur. 7.15 Alongside part c) of Policy 11, Policy 25 makes community benefit a material consideration in planning decision. Part a) of the Policy sets out that community benefit can include “improving community resilience and reducing inequalities; increasing spending within communities; ensuring the use of local supply chains and services; local job creation; supporting community led proposals, including creation of new local firms and enabling community led ownership of buildings and assets.” The construction and decommissioning of the development presents supply chain opportunities for business and could potentially contribute to local economic activity. 7.16 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail in Section 8 below. Based on that assessment, it is concluded that the proposal is not in accordance with NPF4. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan (2010) 7.17 The application site is located in the Green Belt and Policy GB1 states that within the areas of Green Belt there will be a general presumption against development other than certain exemptions. This includes where there is a specific locational requirement and established need for the development and it cannot be accommodated on an alternative site. It has not been demonstrated that this development cannot be accommodated on an alternative site. 7.18 Policy DC6 relates to renewable energy proposals and states that development will be permitted where it can be established without unacceptable detriment to the landscape, natural and build heritage, sport and recreation interests and local amenity. With concerns regarding the impact upon the Antonine Wall World Heritage site and given it has not been demonstrated that the visual impacts have been minimised, the proposal is not supported by this Policy. Page 125
Page 126
7.19 Policy E1 states that the Council will further the conservation of biodiversity. Policy E3A states that the Council will seek to maintain and enhance the environmental resources of the Plan area by protection of habitats, species and natural features which are vulnerable and/or specifically protected, including Local Nature Conservation Sites. It also states that proposals should not have an adverse effect on the integrity or character of Local Nature Conservation Sites and that satisfactory arrangements for habitat creation/site enhancement elsewhere should be made to compensate where development would cause the total or partial loss of a Local Nature Conservation Site. Policy SUS1 states that all development should seek to conserve and enhance environmental resources and ensure environmental impact is minimised. Policy E9 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact upon landscape character. Given it has not been demonstrated that the visual impacts have been minimised, it cannot be concluded there is no impact upon landscape character at a local level and the proposal is not supported by Policy E9. 7.20 Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high quality of design and respects the character and amenity of the area. Again, the concerns regarding visual impacts not having been demonstrated to have been minimised result in conflict with this Policy. 7.21 Policy DC3 states that within the Glasgow Airport Safeguarding Zone, development which adversely affects the operational integrity or safety of the airport will not normally be permitted. No concerns arise in this respect. 7.22 Policy BE5 relates to Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other Archaeological sites. The Council will resist any development proposals that would have an adverse impact on or affect the setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument, or upon other nationally or locally important archaeological sites. Policies BE6A and BE6B, relating to the Antonine Wall and Antonine Wall buffer zone respectively, combine to presume against development which would have an adverse impact upon the Wall. With concerns regarding the impact upon the Antonine Wall World Heritage site and given it has not been demonstrated that the visual impacts have been minimised, the proposal is not supported by this Policy. 7.23 Policy GN1 seeks to promote, protect and improve the Green Network. It states that development which is detrimental to the green network will be considered contrary to the Plan, and that new development should contribute positively to the protection and improvement of the green network. No concerns arise in respect of this Policy. Policy RSA1 relates to conserving the landscape quality of the Kilpatrick Hills and again, no concerns arise. 7.24 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. There is a general presumption against development within the flood plain. The up-to-date development plan position in flooding is set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 which therefore has primacy in this instance. 7.25 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail in Section 8. Taking that assessment into account it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to adopted Local Plan. Page 126
Page 127
8. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 8.1 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, although it does not directly affect the development proposal under consideration. 8.2 Policy GB1 restricts development in the Green Belt to a limited number of circumstances. This includes with infrastructure with a specific locational need. It has not been demonstrated that this development cannot be accommodated on an alternative site. Policy RE1 requires renewable energy developments to be compatible with the surrounding area and for the development to met all other policy requirements. It cannot be held that the proposal us supported by this Policy. 8.3 Policy ENV1 sets the approach towards development in relation to nature conservation and biodiversity. Policy ENV2 relates to landscape character. Development proposals should be sited and designed to relate to the local landscape character of the area and ensure that the integrity of this landscape character is maintained and, where appropriate, enhanced. Policy ENV4 relates to forestry, trees and woodland. The loss or fragmentation of long-established woodland, high conservation value or areas covered by tree preservation orders will only be supported where any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by significant social or economic benefits. Given it has not been demonstrated that the visual impacts have been minimised, it cannot be concluded there is no impact upon landscape character at a local level and the proposal is not supported by Policy ENV2. Policy KH1 seeks to protect the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area but as the development is not within this designation, no matters arise in respect of this Policy. 8.4 Policy ENV5 mainly focusses on water courses and water bodies. Policy ENV8 requires minimisation or adequate mitigation of any air light and noise pollution resulting from development. Policies ENV9 and ENV10 address contaminated land and unstable land respectively. The development is acceptable in this regard. 8.5 Policy H4 of the LDP2 relates to residential amenity. The Policy states that the Council will protect, preserve and enhance the residential character and amenity of existing residential areas at all times. In this regard, there will be a general presumption against the establishment of non-residential uses within, or in close proximity to, residential areas which potentially have detrimental effects on local amenity or which cause unacceptable disturbance to local residents. No concerns arise in this respect. 8.6 Policy CON3 is not supportive of development which disrupts or adversely impacts on any existing or potential core path, right of way, bridle path, or footpath, including off- path access rights, used by the general public for recreational or other purposes. No core paths will be interrupted by the development. Visual impacts to core path users are assessed separately. 8.7 Policy BE1 states that unscheduled archaeological sites should be preserved in-situ where possible. Where not possible, provision should be made by the developer to undertake the excavation, recording analysis, publication and archiving of the Page 127
Page 128
archaeological remains. This Policy also advises that where a scheduled monument or the integrity of its setting would be adversely affected, permission would only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Policy AW1 does not support development that would have an adverse impact upon the Antonine Wall or its setting. With concerns regarding the impact upon the Antonine Wall World Heritage site and given it has not been demonstrated that the visual impacts have been minimised, the proposal is not supported by these polices. 8.8 Policy CP1 requires new development to take a design led approach to creating sustainable places which puts the needs of people first and demonstrate the six qualities of successful places. As it is not demonstrated that visual impacts are fully addressed, the proposal cannot be considered to support the six qualities of successful places. 8.9 Policy CP2 requires all development to demonstrate that green infrastructure has been integrated into the design approach from the outset. Development that would adversely impact on the operations of Glasgow Airport or would be adversely affected by aircraft noise will not be permitted in accordance with Policy E7. No concerns arise in respect of these policies. 8.10 Policies ENV5 and ENV6 are similar to the water environment and flooding policies of the adopted Local Plan, although in respect of flooding, the up-to-date development plan position is set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 which has primacy. 8.11 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail below. It is concluded that the proposal is not in accordance with proposed Local Development Plan 2. Renewable Energy Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan) Planning Guidance November 2016 8.12 This guidance is written in the context of proposed Local Development Plan 1 together with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), both of which no longer form a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications. The document does not address battery storage proposals and Policy 11 of NPF4 has primacy over this guidance. Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) Planning Guidance 8.13 This guidance sets out the approach and procedure for assessing development affecting the World Heritage Site and also the criteria which will be applied in determining applications for development along the line of, and within the setting and vicinity of the World Heritage Site. The Guidance sets out that the impacts of development may be physical upon the fabric of the monument, they may impact upon the setting of the wall where development will harm the character of the landscape around the world heritage site or be cumulative which adds to the existing negative effects of past or current developments thereby creating further and possibly greater adverse effects. 8.14 With concerns regarding the impact upon the Antonine Wall World Heritage site and given it has not been demonstrated that the visual impacts have been minimised, the proposal is not supported by this guidance. Principle of Development 8.15 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) sets out the long-term vision for the development of Scotland through the National Spatial Strategy. NPF4 aims to meet Scotland’s climate ambition which will require a rapid transformation across all sectors Page 128
Page 129
of the economy and society. This proposal constitutes a National Development as it supports renewable electricity generation, repowering, and expansion of the electricity grid under National Development 3: Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure. NPF4 recognises that additional electricity generation from renewables and electricity transmission capacity of scale is fundamental to achieving a net zero economy. Policy 1 states that there is a need to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis, whilst Policy 2 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. The electricity transmitted for storage within the proposed batteries will likely have come from a mixture of renewable and non-renewable sources with the purpose of the batteries to ensure there is always grid stability. As renewable energy becomes more prevalent, grid stability becomes a significant issue due to the intermittent nature of renewable energy generation. 8.16 Policy 11 a) iii of NPF4 specifically supports battery storage energy solutions. NPF4 does not question the nature of the technology or the level of need for it. This general support facilitates the deployment of renewable energy which in turn will assist in decarbonising the electricity network. Whilst it can be considered that the proposal could therefore be held to support the overarching aims of the NPF4 to achieve net zero targets and provide a stable domestic energy supply, the substantial planning policy support is not unconditional and it must be ensured that such development happens in the right place. There is thus a requirement in assessing any such developments to take into account all relevant considerations and policies. Therefore, it requires to be assessed if there are any potential adverse impacts arising from the proposed development which would be outweighed by any benefits. This assessment can be guided by Policy 11 e) of NPF4, which sets out in detail the matters for the project design and mitigation to address, together with any other relevant development plan policies. 8.17 The site is situated within the Green Belt as defined by the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. Policy 8 of NPF4 sets out the types of development that are supported within Green Belt locations. This includes essential infrastructure, and proposals that relate to the distribution and transmission of electricity grid networks fall under this definition. However, Policy 8 is clear that for development proposals in Green Belt locations the purpose of the Green Belt must not be undermined. Policy 8 goes on to require that the reasons why the Green Belt location is essential must be provided together with why the development cannot be provided on a site outwith the Green Belt. Policy GB1 of both the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan also provide qualified support for development in the Green Belt where a specific locational requirement is identified. 8.18 The applicant advises that the development requires to be sited where a suitable electricity connection can be made into a substation with sufficient available capacity. It is set out that the site has been chosen because it is located between the Kilbowie and Windyhill substations, has characteristics that make it suitable for development and is a site where the predicted impacts could be considered to be acceptable. In this case, the applicant has advised of an offer of a connection at the Windyhill substation which lies around 1.5km from the site and it is accepted that the closer the point of connection is, the more efficient the transmission would be and the cabling costs likely more viable. While this is accepted from a technical perspective, the applicant has not provided a site selection report or any detailed analysis of alternative options and why they were discounted. It therefore cannot be considered that the applicant has demonstrated that no other suitable sites are available in a location outwith the Green Page 129
Page 130
Belt and it cannot be concluded that the requirements of Policy 8 a) ii are met in this regard. 8.19 Policy 8 of NPF4 goes on to require that the purpose of the Green Belt at this location is not undermined by the proposal. The purpose of the Green Belt designation is to facilitate and promote compact urban growth and ensure that land around urban areas is used sustainably. It is to further ensure that new development is directed towards the urban area to support regeneration priorities and protect the risk of settlement coalescence. The Green Belt designation also supports the protection of landscape character around settlements. Whilst the proposal would represent an expansion of the developed area within the Green Belt, it is not considered that it would affect the strategy of compact urban growth, have an adverse impact on wider regeneration priorities or result in the settlement coalescence. However, it remains that the development must not have an adverse visual impact which is to the detriment of local landscape character and this is considered further below. Landscape and Visual Impact 8.20 Any development of this nature will have a visual impact and this is not in doubt. The assessment of landscape and visual effects arising from the development is set out in the applicant’s landscape and visual appraisal (LVA) which is based on a 2km study area. The geographical extent to which the development would be visible has been established by a ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’ (ZTV). This was created using mapping tools to calculate where the development will potentially be visible from in the surrounding area. The ZTV establishes the locations from which the development may potentially be visible and where there is no visibility, receptors are discounted from the assessment. ZTV mapping is presented in the applicant’s submission for the 2km study areas. Taking into account topography, existing woodland and settlements, theoretical visibility is likely from the immediate area surrounding the application site, Clydebank and District Golf Course, sections of the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site and Scheduled Monument, scattered fragments of the north-eastern and south-eastern neighbourhoods of Clydebank, Drumry Wood, the A82 corridor and the core path network, including adjacent to the site. The LVA identified five viewpoints which the applicant considered to be representative of the range of visual receptors considered within the study area. 8.21 The majority of the application site lies within the ‘Drumlin Foothills’ landscape character type (LCT 211) which the submitted LVA considers as the host landscape. A small part of the site extends into the ‘Urban’ landscape character type (LCT 0). The Drumlin Foothills comprises an undulating landform created by glacial deposition subsequently modified by fluvial erosion, small to medium scale landscape with caried views, human activities such as pastoral farming and golf courses, semi-natural woodlands along burns, farm woodlands and small plantations. These features all contribute to a predominantly rural character. The Urban landscape character type sees various components which typically comprise urban development forming the underlying character of the landscape. The applicant’s LVA identifies that the Drumlin Foothills LCT in general to be of medium susceptibility to change although within the immediate vicinity of the site it is considered to be of low susceptibility of change. The LVA does not conclude that the value to the landscape into which the development is proposed is high and it is thus considered that overall, the landscape has a medium sensitivity to the type of changes proposed. 8.22 The area immediately surrounding the site contains trees and pockets of woodland, grazing land, farm steadings, golf course and a variety of core paths providing for recreational walking routes. This results in an area which can be characterised as one which has a high amenity value with a variety of semi-natural views. This combination Page 130
Page 131
of land uses leads to an area that could be characterised as relatively quiet and of high amenity value. Despite this proximity to the urban area, the busy A82 Great Western Road and relatively high density residential areas, the location of the site feels quite different and separate from this urban area with a predominantly pleasant rural character. Whilst the site is not formally designated for its landscape character, it is clear that the area has a distinct local identity which is of high amenity value. 8.23 It is accepted that the proposed development would be unlikely to be seen over significant distances. It is accepted that both during the construction phase and the completed development before any proposed landscape mitigation matures has the potential to have moderate adverse effects. However, these effects will reduce over time as any landscape mitigation matures. It is accepted that the development would not be of significant across the Drumlin Foothills LCT as a whole. It is also accepted that whilst localised views of the site may occur from the urban area and whilst the site may be visible from elevated location such as the upper floors of the 12 storey flatted blocks to the south east, the development would not be of significance from these locations. Notwithstanding the above, the development would be sited within an existing field and locally, this would result in a significant change to the landscape pattern which requires further consideration. 8.24 Considering the local landscape impact, the immediately surrounding area is considered one of high amenity value which can be held to be sensitive to change from inappropriate development. In terms of mitigation for the visual impact of the development, the applicant proposes landscaping buffers within the site between the infrastructure and site boundary. Landscape bunds are also proposed to the north, west and south of the infrastructure. The proposed levels changes across the site will result in the equipment sitting below the existing ground level from some locations. A number of core paths traverse the area with Core Path 149 being located on the western boundary of the site and Core Path 150 extending from Braidfield Road to connect with Core Path 149 at the north-western corner of the application site. Core Path 149 continues north to connect with Core Path 148 which follows the line of the Antonine Wall from Cleddans Road. It is accepted that Viewpoint 02 from the applicant’s LVA demonstrates that there will be little notable impact from the westernmost point of Core Path 148 with no visibility of the equipment. Viewpoint 03 is taken from the Roman fortlet to the northeast of the site and to the south of Core Path 148 and again demonstrates little impact, albeit this view may change when trees are not in leaf. Viewpoint 01 looks north from Core Path 149 where it joins the A82. This shows that the landscape bund will be visible from this location and that this will in time be screened by new planting. No equipment is visible. Core Path C2 within the Glasgow City Council is also considered in Viewpoint 04 indicating glimpsed views prior to new planting maturing. Ther is no objection from Glasgow City Council on visual impact from the core path network within their area. The conclusions of the LVA that no significant effects occur and no moderate effects occur after the construction phase from the chosen viewpoints is accepted. 8.25 However, as noted above, Core Path 149 continues past the development site and is located on its immediate western boundary. Facing east, Core Path 148 travels towards the application site, with the site directly in view. Viewpoints from these Core Paths adjacent to the site are not provided. While no routes are physically interrupted by the proposal, there will be a visual impact to users of the routes and the character of the routes will be changed and the effect could be significantly. The Core Path at this location extends from the urban area and takes an attractive route through rolling grazing land with various trees and pockets of woodland within the wider landscape. The experience of the landscape by users of these sections of core path has the potential to change dramatically given the presence of a development of an industrial Page 131
Page 132
appearance adjacent to it. Whilst planting and mitigation is proposed, this is only detailed as a simple narrative in the supporting documentation and inclusion of the general layout on the proposed site plan. With the proposed native deciduous planting to screen the development, this would not provide a consistent level of screening across all seasons. This, together with the absence of any viewpoints being provided to demonstrate that no adverse effects occur adjacent to the site throughout the seasons, it cannot be satisfactorily concluded that the development would not have any adverse local landscape effects. 8.26 Overall, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would minimise landscape and visual impacts within the Green Belt as far as possible as required by Policy 8 a) ii of NPF4. It also cannot be not be concluded that the proposal is acceptable with reference to Policies GB1 of both the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan for the same reason, together with Policies DC6 and E9 of the adopted Plan and Policies ENV2 and RE1 of the proposed Plan Whilst Policy 11(e) ii accepts significant landscape and visual impacts, there is also an expectation of appropriate design mitigation for these impacts. The extent of the visual impact on the local landscape and the appropriateness of design mitigation cannot be fully determined and therefore it cannot be concluded that such impacts are addressed. Impact upon designated landscapes 8.27 In further assessing landscape and visual impact, consideration must be given to the potential for any effects on landscape designations. The Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area (LLA) lies around 2km to the northwest of the site. The applicant’s LVA considers that analysis of the ZTV indicates theoretical visibility would be possible from the southeast of the LLA. However, with the screening effect of the urban area which lies between the site and the LLA boundaries together with topography and existing vegetation, only an area around Loch Humphrey Burn is considered to provide visibility of the site. Given that the site is some distance from the designation boundary and visibility is expected to be low from the LLA, it is agreed that as per the assessment within the submitted LVA, any effects would be negligible. Drumry Wood Site of Special Landscape Importance which is situation approximately 400 metres to the east of the site within the Glasgow City Council area. Such sites have been identified by Glasgow City Council where they contribute to the quality of life of those who live or work in the City. They include parks, golf courses, countryside and other features that are important from a visual and landscape perspective. The ZTV identifies that the site will be theoretically visible from much of the northwest of the Site of Special Landscape Importance. The LVA predicts that the effects on the Site of Special Landscape Importance would be negligible. Glasgow City Council have not objected to the proposal and raise no concerns regarding any potential for impact on the Site. It is not considered that any concerns arise in respect of the potential for significant effects on this designation and the conclusions of the LVA are accepted in this regard. Built and Cultural Heritage 8.28 No listed buildings are located within the site or the surrounding area, nor are there any conservation areas or garden and designed landscape designations within the wider area. However, the line of the Antonine Wall lies to the north of the application site. The application site also lies wholly within the Antonine Wall buffer zone. 8.29 The Antonine Wall is the most substantial and important Roman monument in Scotland. Built on the orders of the Emperor Antoninus Pius in the years following 140 AD, it extends for some 60 kilometres across central Scotland from Bo’ness on the River Forth to Old Kilpatrick on the River Clyde, and marked the north-western frontier of the Roman Empire. The Antonine Wall is of great significance for a number of reasons. It represents one of many sections of a massive military system which Page 132
Page 133
stretched over 5000 km from northern Britain, through Europe to the Black Sea, and from there to the Red Sea and across North Africa to the Atlantic coast. This frontier helped to protect and define the Roman Empire. The Antonine Wall was the most northerly frontier of the Empire, the last of a series of planned frontiers built in the 2nd Century AD and, at the time, the most complex ever constructed by the Romans. Today the Wall continues to be subject to considerable development pressures and given its significance it is imperative that the remaining sections whether visible on the ground or not are safeguarded from inappropriate development. 8.30 The Antonine Wall is designated as both a Scheduled Monument and to the north of the site, the scheduled monument comprises the Antonine Wall and fortlet, 950m W to 335m ENE of Cleddens. In July 2008 the international cultural and archaeological importance of the Antonine Wall was recognised when the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO inscribed the site as Scotland’s fifth World Heritage Site (WHS). The Antonine Wall became an extension of the trans-national Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site which includes Hadrian’s Wall in England and the Upper Raetian German Limes. The intention is that the WHS will eventually include all surviving sections of the frontiers of the Romans in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. With World Heritage Site status comes a commitment to protect the exceptional cultural significance of the Antonine Wall and Outstanding Universal Values (OUV) for which the site was inscribed. The site lies approximately 135 metres to the south of the World Heritage Site and around 375 metres south west of the fortlet. 8.31 As noted in paragraph 8.28 above, the site lies wholly within the Antonine Wall Buffer Zone. The designation of the buffer zone seeks to protect the important landscape setting of the Antonine Wall. The Buffer Zone defines a zone where added protection to the immediate setting of the World Heritage Site is given. Development proposals within the buffer zone will be given careful consideration to determine whether it is likely to significantly detract from the Outstanding Universal Value authenticity or integrity of the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site. 8.32 The Council’s Planning Guidance on the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) sets out the approach and procedure for assessing development affecting the World Heritage Site and also the criteria which will be applied in determining applications for development along the line of, and within the setting and vicinity of the World Heritage Site. The Guidance sets out that the impacts of development may be physical upon the fabric of the monument, they may impact upon the setting of the wall where development will harm the character of the landscape around the world heritage site or be cumulative which adds to the existing negative effects of past or current developments thereby creating further and possibly greater adverse effects. 8.33 Considering the physical impact, the site is within the buffer zone and the appropriateness of this location must be assessed. The integrity of the setting of the WHS and how the Site is understood and appreciated in the landscape are identified as key aspects which must be considered together with the character of the landscape in which the World Heritage Site sits. The Guidance sets out a presumption against development within the Buffer Zone which would have an adverse impact on the WHS and its setting. Where development is proposed within the buffer zone, the Guidance sets out that site selection requires to avoid the most sensitive areas and views, be a well-considered layout of an appropriate design with high quality landscaping. 8.34 The application submission is supported by a Heritage Assessment. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) have assessed the proposal and in a consultation response to the Scottish Ministers they have considered the potential impact upon the World Heritage Site and Scheduled Monument. HES raise significant concerns Page 133
Page 134
regarding the assessment approach taken to address impacts upon historic assets. HES are concerned at the approach taken to the assessment of the impact upon heritage assets. HES advise that the assessment of impacts on setting from a proposed development on the historic environment, its structures and places, is not only about the character of the landscape in which they sit, but a more nuanced matter relating to the way that historic assets are understood, appreciated, and experienced. Setting can extend beyond the immediate vicinity of a historic asset into a much broader context and includes both tangible and less tangible elements. A full understanding of the setting of a historic asset should address all these matters in any assessment and should draw upon the contribution each element of an asset’s setting makes to its cultural significance. This would then set out how changes within the setting of a historic asset can impact on its cultural significance and provide informed and appropriate measures to address this. This is particularly important where a development has the potential to impact a WHS. HES are concerned that much of the setting assessment refers primarily to the landscape character of the area around Braidfield Farm and does not make an informed analysis of the setting of the WHS and scheduled monuments, and those elements which contribute to the cultural significance of these historic assets. This landscape-led approach which continues into the Heritage Impact Assessment introduces confusion into the approach to assessment, demonstrated in particular where the description of setting describes the change in landscape character in the modern period as a series of negative changes, a result of ‘human intervention and activities’ (HIA, section 6, page 17). This disregards the fact the Antonine Wall is part of this history of landscape change, with the Wall’s construction being the result of a major human intervention in the landscape. 8.35 As further set out by HES, the planned layout of the Wall is still apparent in, and has influences on, the modern landscape. An example of this is the linear route of Cleddans Road which largely follows the east-west line of the Wall, with Cleddans Farm located just to the east of the forlet site on the same plateau, as well as the line of hedgerow which follows the Wall route up to Castle Hill. The applicant’s Assessment considers that the high level of surrounding development has led to an inconspicuous setting for the Wall in this area. HES do not agree with this assessment. The World Heritage Site at Cleddans is located in an area of countryside, on an elevated position which affords the site superb views in every direction. These views are key to the cultural significance of the monument, and the outstanding universal value to the WHS are made possible by the rural and open nature of the setting of the WHS, currently protected by the buffer zone. 8.36 HES further highlight their significant concerns relating to the proposals to mitigate the impact of the development through landscaping comprising earthwork bunds and tree planting This would introduce substantial visual screening to a currently open area of the setting of the WHS which allows clear views in all directions. Views from, along, and into the WHS are important in allowing an understanding of its function in the historic landscape and to an appreciation of its international importance in the modern landscape. 8.37 Overall, HES consider that the application does not include an appropriate heritage- led analysis of the setting and potential impacts on the setting of the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site and scheduled monument and recommend that a detailed assessment and appraisal is undertaken. The assessment should consider how the function and meaning of the WHS relates to the landscape, how it can be understood. appreciated, and experienced, and particularly how this might impact the relationships between components of the WHS and related sites. In order to gain a thorough understanding of the impacts of the proposed development on the setting of the historic assets, further visualisations should be provided to assist with the written assessment. Page 134
Page 135
As HES consider that there is insufficient information to assess the impact of the proposals they object to the proposal because it may raise historic environment issues of national interest. 8.38 Whilst not objecting to the proposal West of Scotland Archaeological Service (WoSAS) highlight points in respect of the impact upon the WHS and that a new modern element would be introduced to the setting of the Wall. WoSAS go on to advise on the potential for sub-surface archaeological material to survive in the area. WoSAS consider, however, that the mitigation programme proposed in the applicant’s Heritage Assessment in respect of archaeology is in line with the approach that they would generally recommend in relation to greenfield developments of this type, and as a result, it would be acceptable from their perspective. It is recommended that the matter is addressed by condition should the Scottish Ministers be minded to grant consent. 8.39 It is clear that the proposed development would have the potential to impact upon the Antonine Wall WHS and Scheduled Monument. The serious concerns of Historic Environment Scotland in respect of the approach to the assessment and potential impact upon the historic asset are noted and HES object on this basis. Being guided by the position of HES, it cannot be concluded that the Antonine Wall WHS and Scheduled Monument, a key historic asset of national importance would not be adversely impacted upon and this therefore clearly of significant concern and cannot be considered acceptable. As it stands, the proposal cannot be considered acceptable with reference to policies 7 l) and 11 e) vii of NPF4, policies DC6, BE5, BE6A and BE6B of the adopted Local Plan, Policies BE1 and AW1 of proposed Local Development Plan 2 together with the Council’s Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) Planning Guidance. 8.40 The connection between the proposed site and Windyhill substation does not form part of this application. However, with the Antonine Wall lying between the site and the substation it is not clear how a connection could be achieved. The Scottish Ministers would require to satisfy themselves that a connection to the site could be achieved. Residential amenity 8.41 Residential amenity can be affected in a variety of ways. This includes noise from construction and operation of the proposed development together with other impacts which could arise during the construction phase. Any development will produce noise during the construction phase and this has to be accepted. Environmental Health raise the requirement to ensure that the site is managed in such a way during construction so as not to cause undue disturbance and this could be addressed by appropriate conditions if required, including relating to hours of work, construction noise, delivery vehicles and dust. Such an approach would address any short-term impacts during construction. 8.42 The proposed site is situated outwith the urban area as defined by the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 in a location with a predominantly rural character. The nearest noise sensitive receptor is the farmhouse at Braidfield farmhouse approximately 175 metres to the west of the main equipment compound within the application site. Within the nearby urban area, there are a variety of noise sensitive receptors including dwellinghouses on Braidfield Road and Strathdee Avenue approximately 260 metres from the main equipment compound. To the south, dwellinghouses on Morar Avenue and Morar Place are some 350 metres from the main equipment compound and also lie on the opposite side of the A82 from the site. St Peter the Apostle High School also lies to the opposite side of the A82 around 250 metres distant. Page 135
Page 136
8.43 Policy 11 (e) i of NPF4 requires that impacts on communities and individual dwellings including residential amenity, and noise are addressed. A noise impact assessment (NIA) has been submitted in support of the proposal. The NIA identifies a range of noise sources from the development including the energy storage units, power convertors and transformers. It is set out that the type of unit proposed would generate a typically broadband type of noise which is within strong tonal characteristics. It is set out that the transformers are tonal and are not predicted to be audible at nearby receptors. It is advised by the applicant that for procurement and engineering reasons, it may be necessary to vary the proposed equipment during or after the consenting process. In the event that alternative equipment is proposed that would give greater noise impacts at the receptors, then a full noise assessment would be undertaken and agreed prior to proceeding with that alternative equipment. 8.44 It is accepted that currently there is notable background noise arising from the busy A82 and general urban activity, as identified in the NIA. It is concluded in the NIA that the predicted noise arising from the proposed development at the locations set out in paragraph 8.42 above is below the background daytime noise level and no more than 3 dB above nighttime background levels. The NIA has been considered by the Council’s Environmental Health Service who conclude that the site could be developed without adverse impacts occurring. However, given the nature of the type of development, conditions are recommended in terms of noise at any dwelling or noise sensitive building not exceeding particular noise rating curves. A condition requiring a post development verification report to demonstrate that the projections as detailed within the NIA are achieved is also recommended. 8.45 Environmental Health further note the applicant’s position that for procurement reasons, the proposed equipment may be varied following the granting of consent. The NIA would therefore require to be updated in the context of the final choice of equipment if different from that which the current NIA is based on to ensure that no unacceptable impact occurs to residential properties. The requirement for an updated NIA based on the final choice and specification of equipment and undertaken in accordance with the relevant guidance could also be addressed by condition should the Scottish Ministers be minded to grant consent for this development. 8.46 Overall, it is concluded that the site could be developed without giving rise any unacceptable impacts to residential amenity or having any adverse impact upon the operation of the nearby high school arising from noise. Accordingly, the proposal would be considered acceptable with regard to Policies 11 (e) i and 24 of NPF4 together with policies the relevant policies of the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. Ecology and Biodiversity 8.47 Policy 3 of NPF4 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets, making best use of nature-based solutions. The Policy is primarily focused on designated areas including sites designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area. Policy 11 e) ix also requires biodiversity impact to be addressed. The applicant has submitted a preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) and biodiversity report in support of the proposal and these combine to assess impacts upon the proposed site. The application site comprises grazing land bound by a variety of hedgerows inclusive of a small number of trees. Two trees were identified as having good potential for bat activity, although no tree works are currently proposed. One mammal hole was identified within he survey area although no badger path to the entrance was recorded. To further determine possible use by badger, a camera trap was placed adjacent to the hole entrance. No badger activity was recorded although a Page 136
Page 137
pair of foxes were observed entering and exiting the hole and triggered the camera on 16 occasions. 8.48 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has considered the applicant’s submissions and accepts the methodology and approach undertaken, specifically noting the additional caution in respect of the camera monitoring. Whilst it is accepted that there are no watercourses within the site affected by the proposal, the Biodiversity Officer recommends a cautionary position in respect of watervole, noting that the PEA did not consider the possibility that watervole could be present in the wider area, including Cleddans Burn and marshes to the east which have historical records of watervole and the Hardgate burn to the north has recent surveys with field signs of watervole confirmed. Whilst there is nothing to suggest an adverse impact on ecology and protected species, concerns are raised by the Biodiversity Officer in respect of the PEA dating from 2022. This is longer than is usually accepted for a PEA to still remain accurate in its findings and it is recommended that the PEA is updated to re-determine the validity of the current report. This is especially important given the mobile nature of the potential wildlife using the site. It should be re-established that currently there is no badger activity on the site and watervole could also be considered. 8.49 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has also considered the biodiversity statement and notes that enhancement is proposed in respect of a number of habitat improvement works such as hedgerow gapping, tree retention and planting, wildflower areas, ponds and bunds, all of which offer potential for biodiversity improvement on the site. It is considered that these would also provide an extension to the existing woodland and wetland habitat to the south west of the site (just east of the Titan Hotel) which is known to be a biodiverse site. It would also provide further connectivity to the Cleddans Farm hedgerows, burn and woodland areas to the east. 8.50 Overall, it is concluded that no adverse impact on ecology, biodiversity and protected species would arise from the development subject to a requirement to update the PEA to include updated species surveys for bats, badger and watervole. The biodiversity enhancement measures are acceptable and would have a positive effect on biodiversity. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable with reference to Policies 3, 4(d) and 11(e)ix of NPF4 together with Policies E1 and E3A of the Local Plan and Policy ENV1 of the proposed Plan. Traffic, Transport and the Impact on the Road Network 8.51 Policy 11 e) vi of NPF4 requires the impacts on road traffic to be appropriately addressed, including during construction. Access to the site will be taken from Braidfield Road via Strathdee Avenue, Kilbowie Road (A8014) and Great Western Road (A82). No transport statement has been submitted by the applicant in support of the application. The applicant’s planning statement does, however, set out that the construction phase will involve bringing construction machinery to site, the delivery of aggregate for the site track, delivery of site components including the battery units and other equipment and materials. It is further advised that this will require a mixture of light commercial and HGV loads, together with a small number of abnormal loads which will be necessary for the main transformer delivery and cranes. No details of expected vehicle movements during the construction phase are provided nor is the expected approach to managing construction vehicles. It is, however, advised that a Construction Traffic Management Plan will be developed and agreed. This would include the timing of deliveries with respect to busy periods, school times, the routing of deliveries, measures to ensure the safety and convenience of road and core path users, appropriate signage, advance notice and contact details for any issues for residents, identification of a nominated person to whom issues can be referred, considerate driving, measures to protect the public road from deleterious material from Page 137
Page 138
the site, procedures to deal with inclement weather and breakdowns, and access for emergency services. 8.52 The Council’s Roads Service has considered the proposal and does not identify any issues or objections. The requirement for notification of the commencement of works, abnormal load movements and pre and post development inspections of the public road network are identified by roads, together with the requirement to ensure road sweeping if required, that surface water is not discharged to the public road and that the access to the site is hard surfaced for the first 12 metres and that any gates are set back from the public road by at least 12 metres. These matters can be addressed by condition or via a Construction Traffic Management Plan which can itself be addressed by condition. Transport Scotland have also considered the proposal and offer no objections subject to a variety of matters being addressed by condition including matters relating to abnormal roads on the trunk road network and the requirement for a Construction Traffic Management Plan addressing a range of matters. 8.53 While the concerns relating to roads and traffic matters highlighted in the objections to the Scottish Ministers are noted, subject to the matters set out above being addressed by condition in the event the Scottish Ministers were minded to grant consent for the development, there is thus no objection to the proposal on roads and traffic grounds and the proposal is acceptable. Flooding and Drainage 8.54 Considering matters relating to flood risk, a review of SEPA’s flood risk mapping concludes that the site is not at risk of flooding from watercourses and whilst localised areas of surface water flooding are identified on the land surrounding the site, the site itself it not at risk. A drainage assessment is submitted in support of the proposal and the development will incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to attenuate run off. The SuDS will comprise an attenuation pond which will discharge to the existing drainage ditch to the east of the site which itself drains to Cleddans Burn. This will ensure that no flooding occurs from the site up to and including the 1 in 200 year flood event plus climate change allowance. The Council’s Roads Service offer no objection to the proposal on flood risk grounds and in their consultation response to the Energy Consents Unit, SEPA also offer no objection on the grounds of flood risk. The proposal is considered acceptable with reference to Policy 22 of NPF4 which has primacy over the Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 in respect of the position on flooding. Aviation Safety 8.55 Concerns are raised in the objections to the Scottish Ministers in respect of aviation safety related issues. Glasgow Airport offer no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to soft and water landscaping and bird hazard management. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) also offer no objections to the proposal. It is therefore not considered that any concerns relating to aviation safety or the operation of Glasgow Airport arise. The proposal present no conflict with Policy 11 e) iv, Policy DC3 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy E7 of proposed Local Development Plan 2. Health and Safety 8.56 The applicant acknowledges that there are potential hazards associated with BESS facilities and that whilst it is not possible to eliminate all risk, it can be reduced and managed to an acceptable level and designed to limit the consequences of an event. No outline safety management plan or battery fire plan have been submitted by the applicant in support of the proposal although the proximity to Clydebank Fire Station it highlighted by the applicant. Page 138
Page 139
8.57 Concerns are raised in the public objections to the Scottish Ministers in respect of site safety and fire risk. Policy 23 of NPF4 addresses Health and Safety but this does not cover such developments specifically but rather sets out a requirement for new development to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. Therefore, whilst health and safety is a legitimate material planning consideration, in considering the development proposal the focus requires to be on locational, design and layout aspects of the proposal rather than any concern with the principle of using such technology or the technical design of equipment, which is controlled by other legislation and industry standards. 8.58 Whilst it is generally accepted that the safe operation of the site is not a planning consideration, it would be expected that the Scottish Ministers consult the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on the proposal and satisfy themselves that an unacceptable risk does not occur from the development. Notwithstanding this, it is concluded that a precautionary approach can be reasonably captured through a condition requiring a detailed Battery Fire Safety Management Plan which includes response, management and mitigation measures in the event of a fire should the Scottish Ministers be minded to grant consent for the development. Decommissioning 8.59 No details are provided by the applicant in respect of the length of the operational period of the development or the approach to decommissioning. Whilst the preference would be that the approach to decommissioning and site restoration to be provided upfront with the detail and implementation of the decommissioning and restoration scheme then addressed by condition, it is accepted that this is at odds with the established approach to other similar developments. It is therefore accepted that the decommissioning and site restoration can be secured by condition and any such condition(s) must be suitably robust to ensure the complete removal of all aspects of the development and the restoration of the landform within the site to its original profile. A further condition can also ensure early decommissioning should the site cease to export electricity to the grid for in excess of 12 months. A financial provision to provide sufficient funds for the decommissioning and restoration of the site should such be required must also be secured. With such an approach, it is considered the development meets the requirements Policy 11e) xi of NPF4. Community and Economic Benefit 8.60 Policy 11 c) of NPF4 sets out that development proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. Policy 25 addresses the approach to community wealth building. Battery energy storage makes an indirect but significant contribution to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, by increasing the productivity of renewable generators elsewhere on the grid. The provision of a secure electricity system brings economic benefits across the national economy. The construction and decommissioning of the development presents supply chain opportunities for business and could potentially contribute to local economic activity. Whilst the lack of direct community benefit is highlighted in the objections to the Scottish Ministers, the provision of a community benefit package is not a material planning consideration and therefore and therefore would not warrant an objection to the proposal. Ground conditions Page 139
Page 140
8.61 No site investigation has been submitted in support of the application and as such it has been recommended by Environmental Health that conditions be applied regarding site investigation. Further conditions in respect of the importation and reuse of soils are also recommended by Environmental Health. Concerns regarding former mining activity and associated ground conditions are raised in the objections to the Scottish Ministers. In a consultation response to the Scottish Ministers, the Coal Authority confirm that there are no records of any coal mining features within the site which may pose a risk to surface stability. It is noted that the site does adjoin an area of probably shallow coal workings but these do not extend to the site. Accordingly the Coal Authority offer no objection to the proposal. 9. CONCLUSION 9.1 This application has been submitted to the Scottish Government under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as it is development with a generating capacity of over 50MW. Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the application is made under the Electricity Act 1989 and therefore the Development Plan does not have the primacy in the determination of the application. It does, however, provide a basis for the assessment of this proposal and it is established practice to take the development plan into account in such decisions. The development plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 and adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan. Whilst not adopted, 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 9.2 The contribution of up to 100mw battery storage capacity in supporting renewable energy generating capacity, which in turn will assist in decarbonising the electricity network, draws strong support in term of renewable energy targets and supporting the overarching aims of NPF4 to achieve net zero targets. The site is situated within the Green Belt as defined by the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. Policy 8 of NPF4 sets out the types of development that are supported within the Green Belt locations. This includes essential infrastructure and proposals that relates to the distribution and transmission of electricity grid networks fall under this definition. However, Policy 8 is clear that for development proposals in Green Belt locations, the purpose of the Green Belt must not be undermined. Policy 8 goes on to require that the reasons why the Green Belt is essential must be provided together with why the development cannot be provided on a site outwith the Green Belt. Whilst it is acknowledged that such developments require to be sited where a suitable electricity connection can be made into a substation with sufficient available capacity, the applicant has failed to provide a site selection report or any detailed analysis of alternative site options and why they were discounted. It therefore cannot be considered that the applicant has demonstrated that no other suitable sites are available in a location outwith the Green Belt and it cannot be concluded that the requirements of Policy 8 a) ii are met in this regard. 9.3 Turning to visual impact, Policy 11e) ii of NPF4 explicitly accepts localised significant landscape and visual impacts and in this respect the position is thus weighted towards development’s contribution to renewable energy targets. However, this Policy requires such impacts to be addressed with appropriate design mitigation. Policy 8 a) ii also requires visual impact within the Green Belt to be minimised as far as possible. It is Page 140
Page 141
concluded that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would minimise landscape and visual impacts within the Green Belt as far as possible as required by Policy 8 a) ii of NPF4. With the potential adverse impact on landscape character at a local level it also cannot be not be concluded that the proposal is acceptable with reference to Policies GB1 of both the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan, together with Policies DC6 and E9 of the adopted Plan and Policies ENV2 and RE1 of the proposed Plan Whilst Policy 11 e) ii accepts significant landscape and visual impacts, there is also an expectation of appropriate design mitigation for these impacts. The extent of the visual impact on the local landscape and the appropriateness of design mitigation cannot be fully determined and therefore it cannot be concluded that such impacts are addressed. 9.4 Considering built and cultural heritage assets, having fully reviewed potential impacts and being guided by the position in the consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers, the serious concerns of Historic Environment Scotland in respect of the approach to the assessment of the impact upon the Antonine Wall to the north of the proposed development which comprises both a Scheduled Monument and World Heritage Site and the potential adverse impact on the integrity of the Wall and its setting are noted. Historic Environment Scotland object on this basis as the proposal may raise historic environment issues of national interest. The impact upon the setting of the world heritage site and scheduled monument, an internationally recognised asset, is therefore clearly of significant concern and with an objection from the government agency responsible for the care and promotion of Scotland’s historic environment, the impact cannot be considered acceptable and is therefore not supported by Policies 7 l) and 11 e) vii of NPF4, policies DC6, BE5, BE6A and BE6B of the adopted Local Plan, Policies BE1 and AW1 of proposed Local Development Plan 2 together with the Council’s Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) Planning Guidance. 9.5 All other matters raised, including those relating to residential amenity, ecology and biodiversity, impact upon designated landscapes, traffic, transport and the impact upon the road network, flooding and drainage, aviation, health and safety and ground conditions are considered to be satisfactorily addressed. None of these matters would have a significant impact or outweigh the substantial support that applies to renewable energy projects in national and local planning policy. 9.6 Overall, due to the above concerns relating to the Green Belt location of the development, visual impact and impact upon built and cultural heritage, based on the current application submission, it cannot be considered that the benefits of the proposed development outweigh any adverse impacts. 9.7 It must be noted that should the Planning Committee accept the recommendation to formally object to the proposed development, this will trigger a Public Local Inquiry in terms of Section 62 and Schedule 8 of the Electricity Act 1989 unless the Council subsequently withdraws its objection. 10. COUNCIL’S POSITION ON THE APPLICATION 10.1 It is recommended that this Committee Report is forwarded in full to the Scottish Ministers as presenting the Council’s full formal response to the consultation and that it is highlighted that the Council objects to the application for the following reasons: The Council objects to the proposal as it has not been demonstrated that no other suitable sites are available in a location outwith the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of Policy 8 a) (ii) of National Planning Framework 4. Page 141
Page 142
The Council also objects to the proposal as it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would minimise landscape and visual impacts within the Green Belt as far as possible as required by Policy 8 a) (ii) of NPF4 and the potential adverse impact on landscape character at a local level it cannot be not be concluded that the proposal is acceptable with reference to Policy 11(e) ii of NPF4, Policies GB1 of both the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan, together with Policies DC6 and E9 of the adopted Plan and Policies ENV2 and RE1 of the proposed Plan for the same reason. The Council also objects to the proposal as it could have a significant adverse impact upon the setting of the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site and Scheduled Monument and it would therefore be considered contrary to policies 7 l) and 11 e) vii of NPF4, policies DC6, BE5, BE6A and BE6B of the adopted Local Plan, Policies BE1 and AW1 of proposed Local Development Plan 2 together with the Council’s Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) Planning Guidance. 10.2 Finally it is recommended that, all matters arising in respect of any Public Local Inquiry are delegated to the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager. Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 6th August 2025 ______________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Service Manager Email: Michael.Mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: james.mccoll@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix 1: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application documents 2. Consultation responses submitted to the Scottish Ministers 3. Representations submitted to the Scottish Ministers 4. National Planning Framework 4 5. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 6. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended 7. Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) Planning Guidance 8. Renewable Energy Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan) Planning Guidance November 2016 Wards affected: Ward 4 (Kilpatrick) Page 142
Page 143
J370/059/26062024 Braidfield Energy Storage Location © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 Ordnance Survey 0100031673 © Copyright LoganPM Ltd 2024 Scale 1:10000 at A3 Drawing number Status metres Draft Project Site Land at Braidfield Farm, Braidfield Road, Clydebank G81 5RA Note that this area includes space for landscaping bund and new planting of trees. ITEM 8 - APPENDIX 1 Page 143
Page 144
Page 144
Page 145
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 6th August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Subject: DC23/223/S36: Proposed wind farm development comprising up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts (MW) each, with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m, and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW at the Site of the Proposed Vale of Leven Windfarm, Kilpatrick Hills, East of Alexandria by Vale of Leven Wind Farm Limited 1. Purpose 1.1 To agree an updated consultation response following the receipt of a revised proposal reducing the height of the proposed turbines together with updated supporting documents from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit, on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, in connection with a proposed wind farm development comprising up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts (MW) each, with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m, and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW at the Site of the Proposed Vale of Leven Windfarm, Kilpatrick Hills, East of Alexandria by Vale of Leven Wind Farm Limited. 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that this Committee Report is forwarded to the Scottish Ministers as presenting the Council’s updated response to the consultation and that it is highlighted that the Council maintains its objection to the application in respect of the reasons set out in paragraph 4.21 of this report. 2.2 As per Committee’s previous decision, it is further recommended that all matters arising in respect of any Public Local Inquiry are delegated to the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager. 3. Background 3.1 The Scottish Ministers received an application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and operation of windfarm of up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m as well as a battery storage system (BESS) with a capacity of up to 20 megawatts. The application site is located within the West Dunbartonshire local authority area however the assessment of the submitted application is undertaken via the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit for the Scottish Ministers. In Scotland, any proposal to construct and operate an onshore electricity generating station with a capacity of over 50 megawatts (as is the case with this proposal) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Sections 36 of the Electricity Act. Such applications are processed on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit. Due to the Scottish Ministers being the decision makers, ITEM 9 Page 145
Page 146
representations from members of the public and other agencies are made directly to the Energy Consents Unit. The application is referred to under the project name of the Vale of Leven Windfarm. The location of the site is shown in Appendix 2. 3.2 The proposal was considered by the Planning Committee on 7th August 2024 and the Council issued a consultation response to the Scottish Ministers on 9th August 2024. The Council recognised that the contribution of up to 70mw renewable energy generating capacity, with the potential for an additional 20mw if the applicant proceeds with the Battery Energy Storage System element of the proposed development, would draw strong support in term of renewable energy targets and supporting the overarching aims of NPF4 to achieve net zero targets. Notwithstanding this, by their very nature wind farms are major pieces of infrastructure which often require exposed upland sites which tend to be environmentally sensitive and relatively conspicuous within the landscape. In assessing this particular proposal, it was therefore necessary for the Council to consider whether the acknowledged impacts upon the environment and landscape were sufficiently great to outweigh the benefits of expanding renewable energy generation and/or any economic benefit which would be brought to West Dunbartonshire. 3.3 In previously considering the proposal, it was recognised that Policy 11 of NPF4 is one of the primary policies for the assessment of the development type proposed. Wind farms have the potential to impact on a wide range of features which is evident from the above assessment. The turbines proposed as part of the Vale of Leven wind farm were noted as being extremely large with a blade tip height of up to 250m. With a proposal of this scale, together with associated infrastructure inclusive of Battery Energy Storage System, significant adverse landscape and visual impacts were considered inevitable. However, Policy 11(e)ii. of NPF4 explicitly accepts localised significant landscape and visual impacts and in this respect the position is thus weighted towards development’s contribution to renewable energy targets. Notwithstanding this policy position, the Council considered that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape and the visual amenity of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area, and the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. It was not considered that the at the benefits of the development would outweigh these significant impacts. 3.4 In further considering the proposal, the Council assessed the potential for build and cultural heritage assets to be impacted upon and concluded that, subject to appropriate mitigation, there would not be significant detrimental impact on the majority of the designations and assets. However, the impact upon the setting of the scheduled monument of Dumbarton Castle/Rock, a national asset, was of significant concern and it was concluded that the impact cannot be considered acceptable. 3.5 The proposal has the potential to impact upon biodiversity matters including the designated sites, habitat, peatland, ecology, protected species and ornithology it was concluded that with suitable mitigation measures. A variety of habitats will be impacted including blanket bog and wet modified bog. It was considered that subject to suitable mitigation measures including a habitat management plan together with the following recommendations from NatureScot, notably with reference to peatland restoration, the impact of the proposal upon habitats would be acceptable. In terms of protected and other species, the Council expected that the Scottish Ministers in determining the application would fully consider the points highlighted by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer, ensure identified mitigation measures secured, follow the recommendations set out in NatureScot’s consultation response and require the implementation of a suitable Habitat Management Plan to ensure any effects of the development are Page 146
Page 147
minimised. Species protection plans would also be required. With this approach, the Council concluded the impacts of the proposed development upon protected species and wider ecology could be considered acceptable. Notwithstanding this, in terms of the consideration of the impact upon designated sites, the applicant failed to consider or assess local designations relative to the proposed site. It is identified that there are five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which would be impacted by the development, either directly or indirectly. It therefore could not be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites. 3.6 A wide range of other matters were considered as part of the assessment of proposal including residential amenity, impact upon tourism, aviation safety, electro-magnetic interference to communications systems, impact upon ttraffic, transport and the road network, health and safety and decommissioning. In respect of these matters, it was either concluded that no concerns arose or that any issues arising were matters for the Scottish Ministers should they be minded to grant consent for the development. 3.7 In submitting a full formal consultation response to the Scottish Ministers, the Council set out the following position: The Council objects to the proposal as the introduction of a wind farm into the Kilpatrick Hills could have a significant adverse impact upon the National Park / National Scenic Area together with the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be supported by Policies 4 and 11(e)ii and iii of NPF4 together with a range of policies within the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan including GN1, GD1, and DC6. The proposal is also not supported with reference to Policy KH1 of the Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. The Council also objects to the proposed windfarm as it could have a significant adverse impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle as a scheduled monument and it would therefore be considered contrary to Policies 7 and 11(e)vii of NPF4 together with Policy BE5 of the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and Policy BE2 of the proposed Local Development Plan. The Council further submits a holding objection to the proposal in respect of the failure of the applicant to consider or assess local nature conservation site designations relative to the proposed site. In the absence of this, it therefore cannot currently be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites in accordance with Policies 3, 4(d) and 11(e)ix of NPF4 together with Policy E3A if the Local Plan and Policy ENV1 of the proposed Plan. 3.8 The applicant has submitted a revised development proposal to the Scottish Ministers which sees the reduction in the tip height of the proposed turbines from 250 metres to 220 metres. No other alteration to the development is proposed by the applicant. In support of the amended proposal, the applicant has submitted an Additional Information Report (AIR) which it is advised should be read in conjunction with the original Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The AIR considers and assesses the difference between the environmental effects assessed in the EIA Report and sets out the changes to any likely significant effects resulting from the revised proposal. 3.9 The AIR comprises the following: Page 147
Page 148
Volume 1: Written Text – this provides a written update and comprises new assessment where applicable. It is not set out in the same chapter numbering format as the original 2023 EIA Report; Volume 2: Figures – updated and/or new figures; Volume 3: Additional Information Appendices – updated and/or new technical appendices to complement the assessments undertaken within Volume 1. Addendum to Design Statement. Updated Planning & Sustainable Place Statement. The application documents are available to view via the Energy Consents Unit website: https://www.energyconsents.scot and the following direct link: Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details . A date of 8th August has been agreed with the Energy Consents Unit for the submission of an updated response. 4. Main Issues 4.1 The application site is located in the western part of the Kilpatrick Hills between Bonhill and Gartocharn. The nearest settlement to the site is Bonhill, which is located just over 2 km to the west, of the nearest proposed turbine, and approximately 600m to the northwest of the site boundary and proposed access track. Alexandria and Dumbarton are approximately 4 km to the west and south-west of the site respectively. The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park and the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area (NSA) lie a minimum of 1.7 km and 3.5 km respectively to the north of the northern site boundary. 4.2 The site comprises part of Auchenreoch Muir to the east of Pappert Hill, and primarily consists of upland open moor which is currently used for sheep grazing. The topography within the site undulates, and it contains several hills including Knockshannoch and Hill of Standing Stones. These form part of a gently sloping ridge of land which drops down from the higher Doughnot Hill and Meikle White Hill (to the south of the site). This ridge forms the watershed between the Endrick Water (a tributary of the River Leven) and the River Leven itself. A number of small burns originate within the site, flowing northeast and west respectively. The surrounding land comprises open moorland with some patches of coniferous plantation, while Auchencarroch landfill site borders the site to the northwest. Dumbarton Muir Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), designated for bog habitats, is located to the east of the Site. Auchenreoch Glen SSSI, designated for its lowland calcareous grassland and springs (including flushes), lies to the south-west. 4.3 Except for the reduction in the height of the turbines by 30 metres from 250 metres to blade tip to 220 metres to blade tip, the development remains as set out in paragraphs 4.3 to 4.13 of the original Committee report (appendix 1). In assessing the amended proposal and additional and updated supporting documentation, it must be considered to whether the Council’s previous objections to the proposal have been addressed. The assessment therefore considers landscape and visual impact, impact on built and cultural heritage, and biodiversity and ecology. Landscape and Visual Impact 4.4 It remains that the application site is located around 1.7km from the edge of the National Park boundary, which is one of only two National Parks in Scotland. In their consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers, both the National Park Authority and NatureScot objected to the proposal. Both the National Park Authority and NatureScot considered that the location, size and scale of the proposed development represents Page 148
Page 149
a step change in respect of the proximity and prominence of wind farms to the National Park, and the scale of the wind turbines. 4.5 The AIR submitted by the applicant in support of the amended proposal concludes that the reduction in the height of the proposed turbines results in a reduction in the vertical impact of the turbines particularly when they are seen on the skyline and the proportion of the turbines seen rising above the skyline is reduced and this results in a lesser impact and improvement in overall appearance from a variety of viewpoints and visual receptors. It is accepted that any reduction in the height of the proposed turbines has the potential to reduce the visual impact of the development. However, any reduction in the impact is considered to be very slight and significant adverse visual effects would remain including from key viewpoints within the Park such as Conic Hill and from the Loch itself. It remains that the applicant’s AI identifies significant effects will remain in respect of two SLQ of the National Park, these being ‘wild and rugged highlands contrasting with pastoral lowlands’ ‘immensity of loch and landscape’. In their original consultation responses, both the National Park Authority and NatureScot consider the applicant’s assessment of the Special Landscape Qualities (SLQ) of the National Park underplays the significance of effects with concerns regarding potential significant effects on an additional eight SLQs highlighted across both consultation responses. 4.6 In an updated consultation response, the National Park is of the view that the reduction in the height of the turbines by 30 metres would only have a very negligible change to the landscape and visual effects of the proposal. The Park does not concur with the applicant’s assessment that there will be a considerable reduction in the vertical impact of the turbines, that there will be an improved relationship between the turbines and the landform a d there will be a reduction in the perceived scale of the turbines. The Park considers that the reduction in turbine height does not result in any reduced visibility from with the national park. NatureScot also note in their update consultation response that whilst there may be a very marginal reduction in visibility of the proposed development from within the park, significant adverse effects would remain on the following SLQs: Immensity of Loch and Landscape A world-renowned landscape famed for its rural beauty Wild rugged highlands contrasting with pastoral lowlands Settlement nestled within a vast natural backdrop Tranquillity The easily accessible landscape splendour 4.7 The applicant’s AIR concludes that the reduction in the height of the proposed turbines will lessen the visual impact and vertical impact of the turbines. The AIR advises that the significant effects on two of the Park’s SLQs as predicted by the original EIA would remain. Notwithstanding this and as concluded in the Council’s previous consultation response, it is considered that the actual impact will be far greater. This was a view strongly supported by both NatureScot and the National Park Authority in their objections to the Scottish Ministers, a position which both organisations advise they maintain. Being guided by the detailed assessment undertaken by both the National Park Authority and NatureScot, it is considered that the proposal will have a detrimental and unacceptable impact due to the significant adverse impacts on the landscape setting of the National Park and it is concluded that the potentially significant impacts on the Park resulting from the proposal are not addressed by the reduction in the height of the turbines by 30 metres. Page 149
Page 150
National Scenic Areas (NSA) 4.8 Loch Lomond NSA is located within National Park. Whilst it was previously accepted that the proposed wind farm would not be visible from large parts of the NSA, the Council’s previous consultation response concluded that would be highly visible from some of the most important, iconic and popular areas within the NSA. It was considered that due to the extent of the area that the wind farm will be visible from and the importance of these locations such as on the Loch itself, Balmaha Harbour and Luss within the NSA, the proposal would impact upon this area. With the concerns regarding the impact upon the National Park itself, it follows that there were also concerns regarding the potentially detrimental and unacceptable impact on the landscape setting of Loch Lomond NSA. As the significant adverse impacts on the landscape setting of the Park are not addressed by the amended proposal reducing the height of the turbines, it must be concluded that the concerns regarding the potentially detrimental and unacceptable impact on the landscape setting of Loch Lomond NSA remain. Kilpatrick Hills 4.9 The proposed windfarm is located within the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area (LLA) which will result in direct changes to the landscape. Within West Dunbartonshire, the following special landscape qualities of the Kilpatrick Hills are identified as being of special interest: Strong sense of remoteness, wildness and open horizons; Distinctive landforms; and A unique diversity of views. The proposed wind farm will be located within the Kilpatrick Hills LLA and will result in direct changes to the landscape. The site is readily visible from a wide area and the EIA concludes that there would be significant effects on these SLQs. Whilst the reduction in the height of the turbines may reduce the visibility of the turbines within the LLA, it is considered that this would be negligible. It remains that the turbines would continue to be located within the LLA and the visual impact would be significant. The AI acknowledges that significant effects on the SLQs of the LLA would remain despite the amended proposal. 4.10 Even with the 30 metres height reduction, the scale of the turbines proposed is such that there are no existing features in the landscape which are of a similar size or scale. At 220 metres in height, the proposed turbines will be a dominant feature within the LLA, particularly from areas close to the turbine locations. This includes Doughnot Hill where the turbines will remain a very significant feature. It remains that the overall experience of recreational receptors at Doughnot Hill and the surrounding area would be significantly changed by the development with the overall sense of isolation being lost. The AIR confirms that the significant effects at Doughnot Hill (viewpoint 1) remain despite the amended proposal. The Kilpatrick Hills are a key backdrop which help to define the identity of nearby settlements and provide a setting for the nearby nationally important landscapes. Given the Kilpatrick Hills are visible across a large part of the southern extent of the National Park and National Scenic Area and the contribution they make to the setting of these areas, it remains that locating a windfarm within the Kilpartick Hills would have a significant impact on their setting and the setting of nearby designations. Built and Cultural Heritage 4.11 It remains that no historic buildings or monuments are located within the site, although it does contain areas of archaeological interest. With the extension of Dumbarton Castle / Rock, whilst there is the potential for the development to impact upon a variety of scheduled monuments, category A listed buildings and Garden and Designed Landscapes which lie in the vicinity of the site, it was concluded that no impact where of such significance as to warrant an objection. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) in their original consultation response noted that the EIA recognises that the presence of turbines in views of Dumbarton Castle from the south would challenge the Page 150
Page 151
dominance of the monument. The EIA went on to suggest that views of the Castle from the south would only be impacted across a relatively small area and subsequently concludes that the proposed development would result in an adverse effect which is not significant. HES did not agree with this assessment and considered the impact to be underestimated. 4.12 The AIR further considers the impact upon Dumbarton Castle in detail and includes a new viewpoint from Westferry which lies approximately 1 mile to the east of Langbank. The applicant sets out that there are several historic images of Dumbarton Castle which depict views looking towards the monument from the south of the River Clyde, however, it is the view from Westferry that most closely resembles the portrayal of Dumbarton Castle in many of these illustrations, not the view in which the monument would be backdropped by the proposed turbines as it would appear from Langbank. Whilst it is accepted that there are locations and viewpoints where the turbines would not impact on the key views towards and the setting of Dumbarton Castle, it remains that that it is considered that proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the setting of the monument, adversely affecting key views from directly to its south with the turbines appearing above and being framed in wider views of monument. In some of these key views from the south the turbines would appear directly behind the monument creating a very large visual distraction and become the most dominant features in these views. The reduction in the height of the turbines does not address this impact. HES advise in their further consultation response that they do not consider that the revised proposal would mitigate the significant adverse impacts on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle and their objection is maintained. Being guided by the position of HES, the impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle as a scheduled monument and key historic national asset within West Dunbartonshire is therefore clearly remains of significant concern. Designated sites, habitat, ecology and biodiversity 4.13 Subject to suitable mitigation measures being secured in respect of a variety of matters, the Scottish Ministers ensuring that proposed biodiversity enhancement proposals are both secured and appropriate if minded to grant the proposed development and the expectation that the Scottish Ministers in determining the application will fully consider the points highlighted by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer, the Council was largely content that no adverse impacts would occur. However, the applicant failed to consider or assess local designations relative to the proposed site. It was identified that there are five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which would be impacted by the development, either directly or indirectly. These are Murroch Glen, Blairvault Burn and Pappert Muir, Auchenreoch Muir, Bonhill Muir and Pappert Hill, and West Dumbarton Muir. In the absence of any consideration of these sites, it therefore could not be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites. 4.14 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has considered the applicant’s additional and updated information which now includes an assessment of the effects on the five LNCS. Three were scoped out of the assessment as it was not considered there was any potential to be impacted with the remaining two sites (Auchenreoch Muir and West Dumbarton Muir), which cover the main footprint of the development and access route, being scoped in and their important ecological features examined. The assessment concludes that the effects for both sites are minor adverse and not significant. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer offers no disagreement with this conclusion. However, the Biodiversity Officer goes on to highlight that there are direct and indirect habitat losses to both LNCS including the loss of blanket bog on West Dumbarton Muir. The impact upon habitat including blanket bog was fully considered in the Council’s original assessment (paragraphs 8.59 to 8.64 of appendix 2) and it was concluded that subject Page 151
Page 152
to suitable mitigation measures including a habitat management plan together with the following the recommendations from NatureScot being followed, specifically with reference to peatland restoration, and the Scottish Ministers ensuring that the impact upon peatland is fully understood taking account of the comments of the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and minimised as much as possible, the impact of the proposal upon habitats would likely be acceptable. 4.15 It can therefore be concluded that the applicant has now adequately considered local designations, and it has been demonstrated that subject to suitable mitigation, adverse impacts would not occur. Conclusions 4.16 It was previously acknowledged that the contribution of up to 70mw renewable energy generating capacity, with the potential for an additional 20mw if the applicant proceeds with the Battery Energy Storage System element of the proposed development, would draw strong support in term of renewable energy targets and supporting the overarching aims of NPF4 to achieve net zero targets. Notwithstanding this, by their very nature wind farms are major pieces of infrastructure which often require exposed upland sites which tend to be environmentally sensitive and relatively conspicuous within the landscape. 4.17 In further considering the impacts it was previously concluded that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape and the visual amenity of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area, and the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Loch Lomond and the surrounding area is a landscape asset of national importance, which is currently relatively unspoiled by major man-made development within the landscape. Whilst it is proposed to reduce the height of the turbines by 30 metres, it remains that the turbines would be extremely large and occupy a prominent position within the setting of the National Park. Any reduction in the impact arising from the 30 metre height reduction is considered to be very slight and it remains that the proposal would result in the introduction of a significant man-made element on the horizon could significantly detract from the setting of the National Park / National Scenic Area, the Lomond and the Trossachs National Park being only one of two National Parks in Scotland. Both the National Park Authority and NatureScot continue to object to the proposal on this basis and do not consider that the amended proposal addresses their concerns. Despite the amended proposal, it is also considered that it remains the proposed wind farm would also detract from the sense of remoteness and wildness provided by the Kilpatrick Hills and locating a wind farm in this location would have a significant impact on their setting. The existing landscape affords the opportunity for recreational use and users of existing paths for example and the wider landscape will also experience a significant and adverse impact which is not addressed by the amended proposal. 4.18 The revised proposal is not considered to address the Council’s previous objection in respect of the significant impacts upon the National Park, National Scenic Area together with the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. It remains that it is not considered that the benefits of the development would outweigh these significant impacts. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be supported by Policies 4 and 11(e)ii and iii of NPF4 together with a range of policies within the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan including GN1, GD1, and DC6. The proposal is also not supported with reference to policy KH1 of the Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. Whilst Policy RE2 of the proposed Plan relates to the Spatial Page 152
Page 153
Framework for Wind Energy and would previously have been relevant, it conflicts with the approach set out in Policy 11 of NPF4. Policy 11 of NPF4 therefore has primacy. 4.19 The impact upon the setting of the scheduled monument of Dumbarton Castle/Rock, which is a national asset, was also previously of significant concern. Notwithstanding the revised proposal reducing the height of the turbines and the additional assessment of the potential impact upon the setting of the Castle/Rock, it remains that that it is considered that proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the Historic Environment Scotland advise in a further consultation response that they do not consider the reduction in the height of the turbines would mitigate the significant adverse impacts on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle. With a continuing objection from the government agency responsible for the care and promotion of Scotland’s Historic Environment, it remains that the impact cannot be considered acceptable and is therefore not supported by Policies 7 and 11(e)vii of NPF4 together with Policy of the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and Policy BE1 of the proposed Local Development Plan. 4.20 In terms of the previous concerns regarding the failure of the applicant to consider or assess local nature designations relative to the proposed site, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer has reviewed the additional information provided by the applicant and is satisfied that the AIR adequately considers local nature conservation designations and with suitable mitigation, any impacts can be considered acceptable. It can therefore now be concluded that the proposal is acceptable with reference to Policies 3, 4(d) and 11(e)ix of NPF4 together with Policy E3A if the Local Plan and Policy ENV1 of the proposed Plan. The previous holding objection in this regard is now addressed. The Council’s updated position on the application 4.21 It is recommended that this Committee Report is forwarded to the Scottish Ministers as presenting the Council’s updated response to the consultation and that it is highlighted that the Council maintains its objection to the application in respect of the following reasons: The Council maintains its objection to the proposal as the introduction of a wind farm into the Kilpatrick Hills could have a significant adverse impact upon the National Park / National Scenic Area together with the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be supported by Policies 4 and 11(e)ii and iii of NPF4 together with a range of policies within the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan including GN1, GD1, and DC6. The proposal is also not supported with reference to Policy KH1 of the Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. The Council also maintains its objection to the proposed windfarm as it could have a significant adverse impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle as a scheduled monument and it would therefore be considered contrary to Policies 7 and 11(e)vii of NPF4 together with Policy BE5 of the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and Policy BE2 of the proposed Local Development Plan. 5. People Implications 5.1 None. 6. Financial and Procurement Implications Page 153
Page 154
6.1 Financial implications may arise in respect of costs associated with defending the Council’s position at a Public Local Inquiry. 7. Risk Analysis 7.1 No risks have been identified. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) 8.1 Not required. 9. Environmental Sustainability 9.1 Matters relating to environmental sustainability are fully considered via the application assessment. 10. Consultation 10.1 Responsibility for wider consultation on the submitted application rests with the Scottish Ministers and Energy Consents Unit as part of the application process. 11. Strategic Assessment 11.1 The following strategic priorities of the Council are relevant: Our Communities - Resilient and Thriving Our Environment - A Greener Future Our Economy - Strong and Flourishing Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 6th August 2025 Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Service Manager Email: Michael.Mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: James.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix 1: Report to Planning Committee dated 7th August 2024 Appendix 2: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application documents 2. National Planning Framework 4 3. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 4. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended Page 154
Page 155
5. Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area – Statement of Importance 6. Renewable Energy Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan) Planning Guidance November 2016 7. Naturescot - Decommissioning and Restoration Plans for Wind Farms Guidance 8. Scottish Government Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity 9. Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal Wards affected: Ward 2 (Leven) Page 155
Page 156
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Planning Committee: 7th August 2024 _____________________________________________________________ DC23/223/S36: Proposed wind farm development comprising up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts (MW) each, with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m, and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW at the Site of the Proposed Vale of Leven Windfarm, Kilpatrick Hills, East of Alexandria by Vale of Leven Wind Farm Limited. 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 To agree the Council’s response to a consultation received from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit on behalf of the Scottish Ministers regarding a proposed wind farm development comprising up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts (MW) each, with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m, and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW. Given the nature of the proposal, this requires to be agreed by Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee agrees the position set out in Section 10 of this report and submit this report to the Scottish Ministers as presenting the Council’s full, formal response to the consultation advising of the Council’s objection. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 The Scottish Ministers received an application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and operation of windfarm of up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m as well as a battery storage system (BESS) with a capacity of up to 20 megawatts. The application site is located within the West Dunbartonshire local authority area however the assessment of the submitted application is undertaken via the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit for the Scottish Ministers. In Scotland, any proposal to construct and operate an onshore electricity generating station with a capacity of over 50 megawatts (as is the case with this proposal) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Sections 36 of the Electricity Act. Such applications are processed on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit. Due to the Scottish Ministers being the decision makers, representations from members of the public and other agencies are made directly to the Energy Consents Unit. The application is referred to under the project name of the Vale of Leven Windfarm. The location of the site is shown in Appendix 1. 3.2 A date of 12th August 2024 has been agreed with the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit for the submission of the Council’s consultation response. The application documents are available to view via the Energy Consents Unit website via the following link: Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details. 3.3 The Council is a formal consultee in this process. In procedural terms, the Council as Planning Authority, requires to provide a response to the Scottish Ministers. In this regard, the Council in response to the consultation can: ITEM 9 - APPENDIX 1 Page 156
Page 157
(i) Offer no objection to the Section 36 application as submitted; or (ii) Offer no objections subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and/or legal obligations it considers necessary to make the development acceptable; or (iii) Object to the application, stating the grounds on which objection is made. 3.4 Should the Scottish Ministers be disposed to grant a Section 36 consent for the proposed development, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act allows the Scottish Ministers to direct that planning permission for that development and any ancillary development shall be deemed to be granted. 4. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 4.1 The application site is located in the western part of the Kilpatrick Hills between Bonhill and Gartocharn. The nearest settlement to the site is Bonhill, which is located just over 2 km to the west, of the nearest proposed turbine, and approximately 600m to the northwest of the site boundary and proposed access track. Alexandria and Dumbarton are approximately 4 km to the west and south-west of the site respectively. The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park and the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area (NSA) lie a minimum of 1.7 km and 3.5 km respectively to the north of the northern site boundary. 4.2 The site comprises part of Auchenreoch Muir to the east of Pappert Hill, and primarily consists of upland open moor which is currently used for sheep grazing. The topography within the site undulates, and it contains several hills including Knockshannoch and Hill of Standing Stones. These form part of a gently sloping ridge of land which drops down from the higher Doughnot Hill and Meikle White Hill (to the south of the site). This ridge forms the watershed between the Endrick Water (a tributary of the River Leven) and the River Leven itself. A number of small burns originate within the site, flowing northeast and west respectively. The surrounding land comprises open moorland with some patches of coniferous plantation, while Auchencarroch landfill site borders the site to the northwest. Dumbarton Muir Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), designated for bog habitats, is located to the east of the Site. Auchenreoch Glen SSSI, designated for its lowland calcareous grassland and springs (including flushes), lies to the south-west. 4.3 The proposal would involve the following works: 10 wind turbines up to 250m to blade tip and each with an output of approximately 7 megawatts (MW), giving a total output of up to 70 MW; Hardstanding areas at the base of each turbine, with a total permanent area of approximately 7,800 sqm; Site entrance and access track up to 9.2km in length from the south-west, via a new road through Murroch Farm, accessed from a new junction on the A813 Stirling Road, adjacent to the Aggreko Lomondgate facility in Dumbarton; Sub- station / control building with parking and welfare facilities; A network of on-site access tracks and up to 4 associated watercourse crossings: Transformers and underground cables to connect the turbines to the onsite substation; Telecommunications equipment; Temporary construction compounds and laydown area; Three borrow pits which take the form of small quarries used to obtain rock for construction of the wind farm; Page 157
Page 158
Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW. 4.4 The ten proposed turbines would be three bladed, horizontal axis turbines, each with a nominal rated capacity of 7MW and a rotor diameter of 172m. All of the turbines would be located on ground at elevations of between 220m and 304m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The solid, tubular towers would be constructed from steel and the blades would be made from reinforced composite materials such as fibreglass, all finished in a mid-grey tone consistent with more recently constructed turbines. 4.5 Each turbine would sit on a concrete base roughly 28m in diameter with a circular or octagonal plan shape. Should geotechnical investigations demonstrate that the required bearing capacities are not achievable, then a piled foundation design is proposed to be adopted using the same overall design footprint. For the purposes of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, a maximum (worst-case) scenario for turbine foundations of a 3 – 4m depth has been assumed. Adjacent to the foundation, an area of hardstanding of approximately 80m by 40m with a 6m wide track running along the length of the hardstanding would be required adjacent to each turbine as a platform for cranes to lift the turbine components into position. In addition to the hardstanding for the main assembly crane, up to two additional temporary crane pads may be required for crane assembly. Each turbine would be expected to have an associated transformer, located either internally or externally to the turbine. External transformers are proposed to be located within weather-proof housing, which would have indicative dimensions of 5.5m by 5.5m by 3m. Transformer housing would be colour finished to blend in with the surrounding landscape. 4.6 The entrance to the proposed development site for vehicles delivering both construction materials and turbine components, such as tower sections and blades, would be from a new road, via Murroch Farm, to the south-west of the Site. The road would be accessed from a new junction on the A813 Stirling Road, roughly opposite the Aggreko Building. From A813, the access track would be approximately 2 km in length until reaching the first wind turbine. Internally to the site, access tracks are proposed to be generally unpaved (stone surface) and of a minimum of 5.5m running width, with a 1m shoulder verge to either side and 2:1 side slopes. The tracks could be up to 7m wide on bends. Approximately 9.2km of new access track would be required for construction. Five turning heads of sufficient size to accommodate articulated vehicles would are also proposed. Some further widening would be necessary along the access track route to allow for passing places/temporary lay down areas, with the locations subject to detailed design post-consent. In general terms, the construction method would see topsoil, including peat, being removed and stored adjacent to the construction area until required for reinstatement. The requirements for access track drainage would be determined at detailed design stage and onsite during construction. The access tracks would have a suitable cross-fall to drain run-off and, where gradients are present, lateral drains would intercept any flow along the road. Where ground conditions are of a permeable nature, swales would be utilised alongside the access tracks to allow natural filtering of surface water into the ground. Where areas are less free draining, land drains or drainage ditches would be installed as topography and ground conditions dictate. Drainage filters would be installed at suitable locations to remove silts from the run-off. Post construction, the vegetated turf layer would be used for reinstatement. This would allow re-establishment of natural vegetation to the area. 4.7 The proposed development would require a total of 92,622 cubic metres of aggregate to construct new tracks, hardstanding areas for cranes and to lay the turbine foundations. This is expected to be won from up to three onsite borrow pits. However, the Environmental Impact Assessment assesses a worst-case scenario and considers the scenario where 50% of the track and hardstanding aggregate would be brought in Page 158
Page 159
from off-site sources, such as local quarries. Locations for up to three borrow pits have been sited in areas with low peat measurements and rock exposure. It is not proposed to retain any of the new proposed borrow pits post-construction. Materials are available locally so any requirement for rock aggregate during the operational phase would be met from those sources. Rock extraction from borrow pits by means of blasting operations is not anticipated. 4.8 The sub-station compounds will be split into two separate compounds with a separate control building in each compound. The substation compounds would measure approximately 100m x 75m and be enclosed by palisade type fencing. 4.9 It is further proposed to co-locate a battery energy storage facility in the position of one of the construction compounds and this would remain for the lifetime of the development. Whilst only indicative details are provided at this stage, it is anticipated this element of the proposal will comprise a lithium-ion battery technology solution, with modular elements comprising circa 14 battery housings such as standard ISO containers measuring 2.6 metres by 16.1 metres with associated heating, ventilation and air-condition systems together with associated inverters, transformers, switchgear and metering. Given only indicative designs have been provided, the final design would require to be agreed. 4.10 The construction phase of the development is estimated to take approximately 21 months. The proposed development will have an operational life of 40 years, after which it would be decommissioned, and the turbines would be dismantled and removed. During decommissioning the turbines would be dismantled and removed, along with any associated above ground electrical equipment. Underground cables and access tracks would be left in place and foundations would be removed to a depth of 0.5m below ground level to avoid environmental impacts from deeper removal. 4.11 In terms of the planning history of the site, in 2012 planning permission (reference DC12/028) was applied for the erection of ten wind turbines (max hub height 79m and max blade tip height 120m) with a total installed capacity of around 20MW and associated works including the erection of a meteorological mast, control building, ancillary infrastructure, temporary ground works and construction compound. In 2013 the West Dunbartonshire Council’s Planning Committee refused permission for the application which is sited within the same area as the current proposal but with a different access route. Reasons for refusal were due to the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the Kilpatrick Hills Regional Scenic Area/Local Landscape Area, the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the setting of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park and the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area and a conflict with aviation safeguarding criteria which could endanger aviation safety. 4.12 In order to more accurately gauge the wind speed and direction at the application site, an anemometer mast of up to 100m in height was approved for a period of 5 years by the Council’s Local Review Body in February 2024. 4.13 The proposal is informed by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) together with a range of associated supporting documentation. This addresses a range of matters including Landscape and Visual Impact, Ecology, Ornithology, Geology, Hydrology and Peat, Archeology and Cultural Heritage, Traffic and Transport, Noise, Socio Economics, Aviation, Shadow Flicker and Population and Human Health. Page 159
Page 160
5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 The Council is a consultee in the Section 36 application process and therefore consultation by the Council is limited to Council Services. However, a summary of the wider consultation responses received by the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit is also included below, as these are also relevant to the assessment of the proposal to inform the response by the Council. West Dunbartonshire Council consultation replies: West Dunbartonshire Council (Roads Service) (roads, traffic and flooding matters) 5.2 The location appears acceptable subject to conditions relating to the proposed junction design, gates, surface water, mechanical brush, wheel washing facilities, signage, the design, location and construction of the relocated bus bay and pre and post development inspections of the A813 from its junction with the A82 to Lionsgate Roundabout. 5.3 The location of the proposed development is at the source of several watercourses and tributaries. Two of these have been identified on the SEPA flood maps as medium to high risk for fluvial flooding within West Dunbartonshire. These are the Carrochan Burn and Gruggies Burn which have both flooded downstream of the site in recent years. It is also within the catchment for the Loch Lomond via the Gallangad Burn. If permission is given the applicant would need to prove that the proposed development would not increase the flood risk downsteam along the watercourses mentioned. West Dunbartonshire Council is currently promoting a Flood Alleviation Scheme for the Gruggies Burn. West Dunbartonshire Council (Environmental Health Service) 5.4 It is highlighted that predictions of the operational noise levels have been based on the candidate turbine being the Vestas 172.2MW but the test results for this specific turbine are not yet available and representative noise data has been adopted from similar Vestas V136 turbine. Environmental Health would request that any noise impact assessment is updated based on the actual wind turbines proposed. Full details would be required on the Battery Energy Storage Facilities (BESS) to allow full comments to be provided. If blasting was proposed, further detailed information will be required prior to any blasting on site. 5.5 Conditions are recommended relating to updating the report that determines the impact of noise from the turbines on nearby dwellings and any noise sensitive premises, the investigation of noise complaints, construction hours, delivery vehicles times, submission of a noise control method statement, noise attenuation for plant and machinery and shadow flicker. Biodiversity Officer 5.6 A variety of matters are highlight with reference to the proposed development. It is noted that protected and sensitive habitats which have been recorded on the site of the windfarm including blanket bog, wet modified bog, acid neutral flush and wet heath. There is no mention or consideration made to the five local designation on the proposed site. No specific species protection plans are included for the 15 species recorded within the vicinity of the proposed development as part of the mitigation proposals. There are Breeding snipe close to proposed locations of turbines 1,2,5 and 6. Black Grouse lek site is only 300m from proposed battery storage area and this is against the recommended distance of at least 500m. A number of raptor species have been identified using the site through the ornithology studies. Page 160
Page 161
5.7 It is considered that a peatland restoration programme on the vast swathes of class 2 peatlands would be more impactful in terms of the net zero commitments and would provide an abundance of biodiversity benefit whilst keeping the landscape character of the Kilpatrick Hills intact. There is no data for the 0.5m – 1m depth which is the national standard set by Naturescot to determine deep peat. The developer has instead only given peat depths of over 1m. T2 is on class 2 peat, T4 on class 1 peat. Extensive hard standing turbine footprints removing habitat. Naturescot estimate of 18% habitat loss –regardless of mitigation / enhancements. 5.8 There are large swathes of natural priority habitat types that are untouched. It is the value of the habitat and the vast open space of the Kilpatrick Hills that allows it to host such valuable species, many of which are of conservation concern. Opening up of access over this land will change the recreational value of this site. This additional disturbance could include additional walkers, cyclists, trail bikes and dogs onto the site which would reduce its value as an open habitat and breeding site for ground nesting birds. 5.9 In terms of enhancement, 90ha of peatland restoration is offered by developer but it is noted that the Naturescot response requires nearer to 200ha to fit current guidance. The peatland action grant system could offer biodiversity benefit without loss of the 18% habitat and therefore the proposed development is not the only route to provide improved peatland habitat enhancements. Native woodland planting areas are proposed outside of development site boundary and could also lead to self-seeding on the adjacent SSSI which should remain as calcareous grassland. The proposed new blocks of woodland planting could be detrimental to proposed calcareous grassland management - seem to be on wetland flush areas. The Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan should include detailed management plan for all protected species on site. 5.10 West Dunbartonshire Council (Economic Development) The sensitivities around visual impact and the adjacency to the National Park are understood but it is believed they are countered by the positive environmental and economic impacts both locally and wider. West Dunbartonshire Council has a statutory duty to deliver on the Scottish Government’s target of Net Zero by 2045. Significant investment both in resource and funding is required to achieve this. There is limited budget within the public sector to deliver actions at the pace and scale required and other investment, such as that from the private sector, will be essential for success. 5.11 The Vale of Leven windfarm proposal has the potential to provide significant funding through two channels, Community benefit packages; and/or Shared ownership. 5.12 Although community benefit is not a mandatory requirement, during initial discussions the developer had indicated that they would provide this at or above the minimum recommended by the Scottish Government. This would equate to £350,000 per year. Where and how the funds are invested is the decision of the local affected community and has the potential to have a significant impact. 5.13 In addition to community benefit, although more complex to set up, shared ownership is a further potential revenue stream that could benefit the local community and provide much needed funding for Climate Change Action Plan and Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy initiatives. Following initial discussions, the developer has indicated that up to 15% could be available for shared ownership. Page 161
Page 162
Scottish Government Energy Consent Unit consultation replies: West of Scotland Archaeology Service 5.14 Construction of the turbines and their associated infrastructure is likely to have both a direct impact on heritage features present within the development area itself, and an indirect effect on the settings of sites present in the surrounding landscape. 5.15 Direct impacts are generally concluded within the EIA to not be significant, a position that appears to have been reached on the basis that all of these features can be considered to be of negligible or minor importance. There are a number of features that are present within the 50m micrositing tolerance of the proposed development, including a burial cairn, an enclosure, an area of lime kilns and a turf structure. The EIA considers all of these assets to be of low or local importance and therefore concludes that any adverse effects on them resulting from physical impacts during the construction phase would not be significant. The exception to this is the burial cairn, which is considered to be of medium or regional importance; and states that without mitigation, any adverse effect resulting from a physical impact during construction- phase may be of up to moderate significance. 5.16 It is difficult to see how the effect of the proposed wind farm on the settings of sites in the surrounding landscape could be reduced or mitigated without substantial redesign to the location of the development or the height of the turbines. Recommend that any granting of permission should include a condition relating to a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation within the red line boundary. BT 5.17 The project indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. Joint Radio Company (JRC) 5.18 No potential problems foreseen based on known interference scenarios and the data provided. Met Office 5.19 The proposal falls within the 20 km consultation zone of our meteorological radar at Holyhead. The turbines in the design freeze layout are below the beam of the radar and will not have any adverse impact. Ministry of Defence (MOD) 5.20 Subject to a variety of conditions, the MOD has no objection to the proposed development. Glasgow Prestwick Airport 5.21 The airport no longer has any safeguarding concerns over Vale of Leven Wind Farm and would have no objection to the development. Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) 5.22 No comment on this proposed development as it does not lie within a consultation zone around a GB nuclear site. Scottish Water 5.23 No objection to the proposed development; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. Page 162
Page 163
Crown Estates Scotland. 5.24 The assets of Crown Estate Scotland are not affected by this proposal and we therefore have no comments to make. East Dunbartonshire Council 5.25 No objection to the proposed development. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) 5.26 It is agreed that there will be no significant impact on of the Loch Lomond Special Protection Area, and the Endrick Mouth and Islands SSSI in terms of protected bird species. 5.27 If the application is to be consented, the RSPB recommend the finalised Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan and corresponding biodiversity net gain should be secured by suitably worded conditions. SEPA 5.28 Based on the information available, SEPA have no objection. However, it is advised that if consent is to be given, this should be subject to conditions relating to a finalised Peat Management Plan, a finalised Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan, a final Construction Environmental Management Plan, and micro siting. If these will not be applied, then this response would require to be considered as an objection. Peat management (Consultant Response) 5.29 The results of the likelihood assessment show the significant majority of site to be of negligible likelihood of peat slide (72% of probe locations) with only 1% recording medium likelihood and no areas of high likelihood. 5.30 Communities have been discounted as being at risk of peat landslide due to distance from infrastructure and there are no roads/dwellings/other infrastructure within influencing distance. Four areas at a medium risk of peat instability were considered to have a potential impact on the proposed development’s infrastructure but were downgraded to Insignificant following more detailed review. 5.31 Mitigation is provided in section 7.0 of the PLHRA document. There is no extensive evidence for past peat instability on-site therefore a more generic and infrastructure specific mitigation and best practice is provided. This is supported by discussion of mitigation for each area of medium “risk” considered to influence the development. Overall, the mitigation presented is considered appropriate. Scottish Forestry 5.32 It is clear that the proposed development will have a direct, though limited, impact on woodland interest. The access track for the proposed development will impact a small area (approximately 0.06ha) of woodland, resulting in the felling of up to 28 mature/semi-mature beech (Fagus sylvatica) hedgerow trees and 3 mature Downy Birch (Betula pubescens) to facilitate construction of the track. Conditions are recommended relating to compensatory planting. Transport Scotland 5.33 It is noted that the use of a blade lifter is identified at the start of the Transport Assessment, but it appears that the swept paths have been run with a standard trailer. The use of a scissor lift adaptor is identified as being required at certain locations to elevate the blade tip to allow loads to over sail various obstructions without the need for intrusive ground works. In addition, it should be noted that if Blade Lifter technology/scissor lift technology is to be utilised on the trunk road, significant work Page 163
Page 164
will be required in order to satisfy Transport Scotland that the proposals can work technically, and do not represent any risk to the safe and efficient operation of the trunk road network. Transport Scotland will require a detailed methodology to be provided, with a technical approval process followed thereafter (with no guarantee of approval). This is to include a risk assessment, method statements and additional information as requested by Transport Scotland. Conditions and informatives are recommended for any granting of permission. Inverclyde Council 5.34 Whilst the Scottish Government is keen for more renewable developments to be established to meet the target of net zero emissions by 2045, they do have to be in the right location and at the right scale to ensure that other assets are not lost in the process. The views outwards from Inverclyde are important to both tourists and residents alike. They are an environmental and scenic tourism resource. Inverclyde Council would wish to see these views retained and is concerned the proposed development would impact on them to their detriment. The turbines that are proposed are more than twice the size of those at Corlic Hill above Greenock and would, be out of scale with the surrounding topography to the extent it would impact negatively on the views from Inverclyde and from the Firth of Clyde. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) 5.35 Object until mitigation proposals become more mature. The developer states (13.6.21) that the development “would be likely to cause false plots to be generated” on the radars at Lowther, Cumbernauld, Glasgow NASR-10 and Terma. Whilst NATS could take issue with the classification of this impact as “moderate” they are pleased to note the intention (13.7.4) to “agree appropriate means of technical mitigation of the proposed development’s effects” and NATS will continue to work with the applicant with the goal, which is seen as realistic. Glasgow Airport 5.36 The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and could conflict with safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, a more detailed assessment requires to be undertaken regarding the potential impact on Glasgow Airport. Glasgow Airport therefore, submit a holding objection until they are able to advise of the results of their investigations. Scotways 5.37 This application should not be considered as suitable for what is an open moorland landscape in the vicinity of a National Park. They have grave concerns regarding the direct impact on recreational amenity both within, and in the vicinity of, the application site and the change in the character of the landscape that this proposal would bring. On this basis, and for positioning of a turbine in close proximity to a core path Scotways objects to this development. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) 5.38 HES object to the development because the proposals would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle scheduled monument. These impacts would be of a severity that raises issues of national interest. The proposals therefore do not align with national policy as set out in the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) and the National Planning Framework (NPF4). NatureScot 5.39 The location, size and scale of the proposed development represents a step change in proximity and prominence of wind farms on the southern area of the Loch Lomond Page 164
Page 165
and Trossachs National Park. NatureScot consider that the proposal would have significant adverse effects on six of the Special Landscape Qualities (SLQs) of the National Park and as such that the objectives of the designation and overall integrity of the area would be compromised. NatureScot advise that the proposed development may therefore not meet Policy 4 (c) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) due to the adverse impact upon the National Park and National Scenic Area. In NatureScot’s view these effects cannot be readily mitigated. NatureScot therefore object to this proposal. 5.40 NatureScot agree with the applicant’s assessment that various designated sites, including European sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), will not be adversely affected. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 5.41 The National Park Authority objects to the proposal for a variety of reasons as follows. Given the extremely large turbine size, the proposed development would often appear dominant or very prominent in the backdrop to the southern part of Loch Lomond and its associated rural setting. With a very intrusive and industrial appearance, the turbines would considerably detract from, contrast with and often compromise a very large number of Special Landscape Qualities and key characteristics that are integral to defining this iconic part of the National Park. The views and visual amenity of a very large number of visitors and residents of several settlements would be subject to widespread significant visual effects. Parts of at least (approximately) 75km of nationally important recreational routes would be subject to significant visual impacts. The proposed development would compromise the objectives of the National Park designation and its overall integrity. The proposed development would conflict with national and local landscape-related policy. Kilmaronock Community Council (KCC) 5.42 The Community Council object to the proposal for a variety of reasons. These include that the energy that could be generated is insignificant to the national strategy as detailed in UK’s Energy Security Plan. The scale of the development is too high for its location and will result in an adverse visual impact. The proposal will result in the destruction of nationally designated peat bogland and have a negative impact on biodiversity (especially during construction). Biodiversity enhancement would not result from the proposal. The proximity to housing and impact upon property values is raised as is light pollution from the aviation lights. Balloch and Haldane Community Council 5.43 The Community Council object to the proposal due to the proximity to the National Park. This is contrary to the policy position within NPF4. 6. REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 A review of the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit website case file for this application has shown that 49 representations have been received from third parties, 39 are in objection, 8 are in support and 2 which highlight points of concern but do not specifically express either being in objection or in support of the proposal. Representations have been received from local residents, visitors to the area, Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs, the Woodland Trust, Strathavan Airfield Ltd, Pam Gosal MSP and Jackie Baillie MSP. Page 165
Page 166
6.2 The letters of objection raise issues relating to the summarised points as follows: Visual impacts Concerns over landscape and visual impacts, noting the scale of turbines would dominate the landscape and skyline and would also require visible aviation lighting. The height of the turbines makes them amongst the tallest proposed for an onshore wind farm in the UK. Concerns regarding the spatial density of the proposed windfarm Particular concerns regarding the detrimental impact on the setting of the National Park. Residential visual amenity impact. Impact upon Heritage Heritage impacts including on Dumbarton Castle. Aviation matters Proximity to Glasgow Airport flightpaths. Concern on impact on Glasgow Airport’s SVFR corridor and that a typical light aircraft in bad weather, using SVFR, at 60 knows would be just 15 seconds flying Serious concern raised about the turbulence plume. Trees and woodland There will be a loss of two veteran beech trees noted as alongside loss of 0.06 hectares (ha) of Barr Wood an area of woodland designated on NatureScot’s Ancient Woodland Inventory Concerns about potential indirect impacts on Lang Craigs and other areas of ancient and long-established woodland in the locality that may be subject to increased recreational pressures and resulting deterioration. Residential amenity Concerns regarding noise impacts. Concerns regarding shadow flicker. Concerns for potential vibrations being emitted. The development ignores the 2km separation guidelines between windfarms and residential properties. Health and safety Safety concerns in relation to the BESS including fire risk. Concerns regarding the impacts on physical and mental health. Ecology and biodiversity Damage done to habitats of animals. All except T5, T8 and T9 appear to be on areas of peat. Other matters There is no benefit to community. The developer is from Ireland and therefore the “profits” will not be in the local area. Tourism is one of the main employers and will be compromised. Precedent will be set for further development. The output is small compared to the need for energy generation. Page 166
Page 167
No need for the proposal given the constrained operation of wind farms currently and economic costs to consumers through constraint payments. 6.3 The letters of support raise issues relating to the summarised points as follows: Energy generation benefits The proposal will maximise renewable energy sources. Land-based wind power and energy storage systems are the cheapest and most readily available technologies for rapidly decarbonising the atmosphere and improving the country’s energy security. The National Park area possesses a unique combination of advantages for renewable energy production, storage and distribution. The project will produce enough electricity to power approximately 50,000 average UK homes. The project will make a significant contribution to UK and Scottish Government emission reduction targets. It a highly suitable wind turbine site. Access improvements Improved access would lead to an increase in recreational use. Economic and community benefits “Community Benefit” funds which may arise from such developments being applied to help provide for the preservation, promotion and appreciation of the special qualities of the Parks and their surrounding areas, thereby benefiting nature, visitors, communities and businesses. The proposed wind farm will create jobs for the local area. Other matters These turbines will in no way detract from their surroundings. They will not in any sense impact on the majority of people’s enjoyment of the area. There are various measures being proposed to improve the environment on the moorland area which will have further local benefits. The proposed site for the windfarm on bleak moorland and is currently seldom visited as it has poor access. People are also very adaptable and quickly get used to new features. 6.4 Whilst many of the points raised both in objection and in support are considered as part of the Council’s wider assessment of the proposal as set out in Section 8 below, it is for the Scottish Ministers as the determining authority to consider the representations submitted to them. 7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 7.1 NPF4 aims to create places in line with six overarching spatial principles, including the Just Transition and Rebalanced Development. The Just Transition directs development towards achieving the transition to net zero in a way that is inclusive and fair. Rebalanced Developments directs development to areas of past decline, which would include West Dunbartonshire, given the de-industrialisation that has taken place in the area. While these are high level principles, they are cross cutting and NPF4 contains a clear steer that outcomes of Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 11 and Policy 25 are interlinked. Page 167
Page 168
7.2 Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure is a Scotland wide national development (National Development 3), making it a clear priority across Scotland. Regional Spatial Priorities for the Central Region also direct development to “provide net zero energy solutions” and to “build community wealth to overcome disadvantage”. These high level aims and connections between policies should be considered by the decision maker. 7.3 Policy 1 gives significant weight to the climate and nature crisis, with an intended policy outcome of being zero carbon and nature positive. Renewables, including onshore wind and battery storage, are considered an important part of Scotland’s approach to meeting its carbon emission reduction targets. Policy 2 requires development to minimise the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of development as far as possible. An important element in the case of this development is the location of the turbines and infrastructure, and borrow pits, relative to the location of peat and other carbon rich soils. 7.4 Policy 3 requires development to contribute to biodiversity enhancement, including the restoration of degraded habitat and improving connections between them. As a national development part b) of the policy applies. Part d) of this policy also applies, requiring the planning and design of development to minimise adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the development on biodiversity and the natural environment. 7.5 Policy 4‘s intent is to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. Part a) of the policy does not support development where the type, location or scale will have a significant effect on an unacceptable effect on the natural environment. Part b) of the policy, sets out a requirement for an appropriate assessment. Part c) of the policy sets out the limited criteria in which development will be acceptable where it will affect a National Park, National Scenic Area, SSSI or National Nature Reserve. While the proposal is not within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park it will be visible from the National Park. Part d) of the policy identifies the limited circumstances where development within local landscape designations and nature conservation sites are acceptable. Which are: i. The objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the areas will not be compromised; or ii. Any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance. 7.6 Policy 5 relates to soils. Part a) of this policy addresses the need to avoid and minimise, in line with the mitigation hierarchy, disturbance to soil and undeveloped land to protect it from erosion, compaction and sealing. Part c) ii. of this policy enables the development of renewable energy generation on carbon rich soils where it optimises the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Part d) of this policy requires developers to undertake assessments of the depth, condition and quality of carbon rich soils, effects of development on the peatland and the net effects on climate emissions and loss of carbon. Policy 6 supports proposals that enhance, expand or improve woodland and tree cover. Part b) of the policy states that loss of ancient woodland, veteran trees, or woodland of high biodiversity value is not supported. 7.7 Policy 7 requires development with potential impacts on historic assets or place to be accompanied by an assessment of that asset or place, including cumulative impacts. There are a number of non-designated heritage assets within the site boundary, including archaeological remains meaning that part o) of the policy applies. At a Page 168
Page 169
distance of up to 20km from the site are listed buildings, historic battlefields, Gardens and Designed Landscapes. This means that parts i) and j) also apply. 7.8 Proposals within a greenbelt are covered in Policy 8. The access track for the development Is located within the green belt. Development proposals within a green belt designated within the LDP will only be supported in a limited set of circumstances including for essential infrastructure. The proposal falls into the definition of essential infrastructure. 7.9 Policy 11 relates to energy and the policy intent is to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of renewable energy development onshore and offshore. This includes energy generation, storage, new and replacement transmission and distribution infrastructure and emerging low-carbon and zero emissions technologies including hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS). Part a) policy supports proposals for renewable technologies, including wind farms under part i. and battery storage under part iii. Wind farm proposals are not supported in National Parks as stated in part b). The proposal is not within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. 7.10 Part c) of the policy requires renewable development to maximise economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits. Part e) of the policy requires the project design and mitigation to address a number of issues. In considering the impacts significant weight is placed on the contribution of the proposal to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Impacts to be addressed are: i. impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including, residential amenity and visual. ii. significant landscape and visual impacts. iii. public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes. iv. impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording. v. impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. vi. impacts on road traffic and on adjacent trunk roads, including during construction. vii. impacts on historic environment. viii. effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk. ix. biodiversity including impacts on birds. x. impacts on trees, woods and forests. xi. proposals for the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration. xii. the quality of site restoration plans including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. xiii. cumulative impacts. 7.11 Policy 12 requires development to reduce, reuse or recycle materials in line with the waste hierarchy. It also supports developments that enable materials and components to be disassembled and reused at the end of their life. 7.12 Policy 13-part b) supports development where it is demonstrated that transport requirements are considered within the sustainable travel and investment hierarchies and sets out a list of criteria development should comply with. In order to meet these policy requirements the design of the junction will be required to meet par iv of the policy, by being designed to incorporate safety measures, including safe crossings and the reducing the number and speed of vehicles. Part g) of this policy states that Page 169
Page 170
proposals that have the potential to impact the Strategic Transport Network (which includes trunk roads in the definition provided in NPF4s glossary) will be fully assessed with regards to capacity and safety. 7.13 Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale as per Policy 14. Development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported in accordance with Policy 14. 7.14 Policy 18’s intent is to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. Energy supplies and energy generation are included in the definition of infrastructure. Part a) of the policy states that development proposals which provide (or contribute to) infrastructure in line with that identified as necessary in LDPs and their delivery programmes will be supported. 7.15 Policy 22-part a) states that Development proposals at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported in a limited set of circumstances, including for essential infrastructure where the location is required for operational reasons. 7.16 Policy 23 protects people and places from environmental harm, mitigates risks arising from safety hazards. Part e) notes that development proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. 7.17 Alongside part c) of policy 11, Policy 25 makes community benefit a material consideration in planning decision. Part a) of the policy sets out that community benefit can include “improving community resilience and reducing inequalities; increasing spending within communities; ensuring the use of local supply chains and services; local job creation; supporting community led proposals, including creation of new local firms and enabling community led ownership of buildings and assets.” 7.18 Policy 32 is relevant due to the borrow pits included to construct the development. Part d) of this policy sets out the circumstances under which the sustainable extraction of minerals will be supported. Part e) of the policy sets out where borrow pits are supported. This includes that they are time limited, that they comply with the other criteria within the minerals policy in part d) of the policy, and appropriate restoration proposals are enforceable. 7.19 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail in Section 8 below. Based on that assessment, it is concluded that the proposal is not in accordance with NPF4. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan (2010) 7.20 The application site is located within the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Whilst at the time of writing Policy RSA1 related to the former Regional Scenic Area, the overarching position with remains relevant in conserving the high-quality landscape of the Kilpatrick Hills as an important Area. There is a general presumption against proposals that would have an adverse impact on the landscape quality, character, visual amenity, or nature conservation value of the area. 7.21 Policy DC6 relates to renewable energy proposals and states that development will be permitted where it can be established without unacceptable detriment to the landscape, natural and build heritage, sport and recreation interests and local amenity. Development should be considered against the following criteria: visual impact and Page 170
Page 171
effect on landscape character, including the landscape character of the Kilpatrick Hills RSA; nature conservation interests; the historic environment and its setting, including scheduled ancient monuments; local amenity such as noise, traffic or broadcast interference; and any cumulative impact. 7.22 Policy E1 states that the Council will further the conservation of biodiversity. Policy E2A lays out the requirement for development that are likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. Policy E2B sets out the circumstances in which development that affects a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) may be permitted. Policy E3A states that the Council will seek to maintain and enhance the environmental resources of the Plan area by protection of habitats, species and natural features which are vulnerable and/or specifically protected, including Local Nature Conservation Sites. It also states that proposals should not have an adverse effect on the integrity or character of Local Nature Conservation Sites and that satisfactory arrangements for habitat creation/site enhancement elsewhere should be made to compensate where development would cause the total or partial loss of a Local Nature Conservation Site. There are five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which could be impacted by the development, either directly or indirectly Policy E5 relates to development affecting trees and states that Development proposals should take account of trees at the beginning of the design process. Policy SUS1 states that all development should seek to conserve and enhance environmental resources and ensure environmental impact is minimised. Policy E9 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact upon landscape character. 7.23 Policy GB 1 - Green Belt The proposal takes access through a section of Green Belt as designated in both the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 and as such Policy GB 1 applies. This policy states that within the areas of Green Belt there will be a general presumption against development other than certain exemptions. This includes where there is a specific locational requirement and established need for the development and it cannot be accommodated on an alternative site. 7.24 Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high quality of design and respects the character and amenity of the area. Policy DC3 states that within the Glasgow Airport Safeguarding Zone, development which adversely affects the operational integrity or safety of the airport will not normally be permitted. 7.25 Policy BE2 seeks to ensure the setting of listed buildings is not adversely impacted upon and Policy BE5 relates to Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other Archaeological sites. The Council will resist any development proposals that would have an adverse impact on or affect the setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument, or upon other nationally or locally important archaeological sites. Policy BE7 further seeks to ensure that Gardens and Designed Landscape designations are not adversely impacted upon. 7.26 Policy GN1 seeks to promote, protect and improve the Green Network. It states that development which is detrimental to the green network will be considered contrary to the Plan, and that new development should contribute positively to the protection and improvement of the green network. The Kilpatrick Hills are recognised as an important green network resource in West Dunbartonshire owing to their landscape value, the habitats and species found there and the outdoor recreation opportunities they offer. 7.27 The Council will encourage responsible pedestrian, cycle and horse-riding access, access to inland waterways, and will pursue opportunities to establish additional paths in accordance with Policy R5. Page 171
Page 172
7.28 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail in Section 8. Taking that assessment into account it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to adopted Local Plan. 8. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 8.1 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, although it does not directly affect the development proposal under consideration. 8.2 Whilst Policy RE2 of the proposed Plan relates to the Spatial Framework for Wind Energy and would previously have been relevant, it conflicts with the approach set out in Policy 11 of NPF4. Policy 11 of NPF4 therefore has primacy. 8.3 Any development proposed within the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area must; protect and enhance the landscape character; protect and enhance the integrated network of habitats and important geological features; and protect and enhance the Hills as an accessible recreation resource in accordance with policy KH1. Policy GB1 restricts development in the green belt to a limited number of circumstances. This includes with infrastructure with a specific locational need. 8.4 Policy ENV1 sets the approach towards development and designated sites. Policy ENV2 relates to landscape character. Development proposals should be sited and designed to relate to the local landscape character of the area and ensure that the integrity of this landscape character is maintained and, where appropriate, enhanced. Policy ENV3 restricts development resulting in the disturbance, drainage or excavation of peat, with the exception of renewable energy where a balance of advantage in terms of climate mitigation is achieved. Policy ENV4 relates to forestry, trees and woodland. The loss or fragmentation of long-established woodland, high conservation value or areas covered by tree preservation orders will only be supported where any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by significant social or economic benefits. 8.5 Policy ENV5 mainly focusses on water courses and water bodies. Hydrology is important to the upland and peat habitats and so could be considered part of the water environment. Part d) of the policy addresses minimising pollution of all waterbodies and ground water resources. Policy ENV8 requires minimisation or adequate mitigation of any air light and noise pollution resulting from development. 8.6 Policy H4 of the LDP2 relates to residential amenity. The policy states that the Council will protect, preserve and enhance the residential character and amenity of existing residential areas at all times. In this regard, there will be a general presumption against the establishment of non-residential uses within, or in close proximity to, residential areas which potentially have detrimental effects on local amenity or which cause unacceptable disturbance to local residents. Page 172
Page 173
8.7 Policy CON3 is not supportive of development which disrupts or adversely impacts on any existing or potential core path, right of way, bridle path, or footpath, including off- path access rights, used by the general public for recreational or other purposes. 8.8 Policy BE1 states that unscheduled archaeological sites should be preserved insitu where possible. Where not possible, provision should be made by the developer to undertake the excavation, recording analysis, publication and archiving of the archaeological remains. Policy BE2 and BE7 take the same position in relation to Listed Buildings and Garden and Designed Landscapes as the adopted Plan. Development that would adversely impact on the operations of Glasgow Airport or would be adversely affected by aircraft noise will not be permitted in accordance with Policy E7. 8.9 The borrow pits would constitute mineral workings and proposals for new mineral workings will only be supported under Policy MIN1 where it is demonstrated that there would be no significant negative impact, either individually or cumulatively, from mineral workings on: a) The natural environment, including habitat networks, peat and other carbon rich soils; b) The green network, including path networks; c) Landscape, including visual impact; d) Built heritage, particularly Scheduled Monuments and other archaeology; e) Residential amenity and the operation of other businesses; f) Trunk and Local Road Networks. 8.10 Policy CP1 requires new development to take a design led approach to creating sustainable places which puts the needs of people first and demonstrate the six qualities of successful places. Policy CP2 requires all development to demonstrate that green infrastructure has been integrated into the design approach from the outset. 8.11 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail below. It is concluded that the proposal is not in accordance with proposed Local Development Plan 2. Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area – Statement of Importance 8.12 This Statement of Importance explains the reasons why the Kilpatrick Hills have been selected for the designation. The special qualities of the Kilpatrick Hills are identified as being: Strong sense of remoteness, wildness and open horizons; Distinctive geomorphology and topographical features; and A unique diversity of views. 8.13 The impact of the proposed development on these special landscape qualities of the Kilpatrick Hills is assessed below, and it is concluded that the proposal would significantly detract from the special qualities of the Local Landscape Area. Renewable Energy Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan) Planning Guidance November 2016 8.14 This guidance is written in the context of proposed Local Development Plan 1 together with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), both of which no longer form a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications. This document provides guidance on planning for wind energy including a Spatial Framework and guidance on the factors that will be considered in assessing wind energy proposals. The spatial framework applies to “wind farms” which are defined by the Council as: Any development containing a turbine of 50m and above to tip height; or Page 173
Page 174
Any development of 3 or more turbines, containing a turbine of 30m above to tip height. 8.15 As this proposal is for ten turbines and 250m to blade tip it would have fallen within the threshold for assessment under the spatial framework. However, the Spatial Framework conflicts with the approach set out in Policy 11 of NPF4. Policy 11 of NPF4 therefore has primacy over this guidance. 8.16 Notwithstanding the above, many of the matters for which guidance is provided remain relevant to the assessment of a proposal of this nature. This includes considering matters pertaining to landscape character, forestry and woodland, the water environment, the path network, built heritage, aviation, residential amenity in respect of noise, shadow flicker and visual intrusion, economic benefit, contribution towards renewable energy targets, effect on soils, impact on the road network and decommissioning. These matters are fully assessed in detail below. Scottish Government Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity 8.17 This guidance sets out the Scottish Ministers’ expectations for implementing NPF4 policies which support the cross-cutting NPF4 outcome ‘improving biodiversity’. Core principles which can be followed when designing development so that nature and nature recovery are an integral part of any proposal are laid out within the document. Biodiversity matters are fully assessed below. Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal 8.18 This policy provides a strategic framework for appropriate woodland removal. Whilst there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting Scotland’s woodland resources it is also noted that woodland removal, with compensatory planting, is most likely to be appropriate where it would contribute to a list of outcomes including helping Scotland mitigate and adapt to climate change. No specific concerns arise with reference to this policy, and this is a document for the Scottish Ministers to consider in detail with reference to the proposal. Principle of Development 8.19 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) sets out the long-term vision for the development of Scotland through the National Spatial Strategy. NPF4 aims to meet Scotland’s climate ambition which will require a rapid transformation across all sectors of the economy and society. This proposal constitutes a National Development as it supports renewable electricity generation, repowering, and expansion of the electricity grid under National Development 3: Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure. NPF4 recognises that additional electricity generation from renewables and electricity transmission capacity of scale is fundamental to achieving a net zero economy. Policy 1 of NPF4 states that there is a need to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis, whilst Policy 2 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. The electricity generated will be from a renewable source with the additional battery storage element of the proposal additionally ensuring grid stability given the intermittent nature of renewable energy generation. 8.20 Whilst it can be considered that the proposal could therefore be held to support the overarching aims of the NPF4 to achieve net zero targets and provide a stable domestic energy supply, it must be ensured that such development happens in the right place. There is thus a requirement in assessing any such developments to take into account all relevant considerations and policies. Therefore, it must be assessed if there are any potential adverse impacts arising from the proposed development which Page 174
Page 175
would be outweighed by any benefits. This assessment can be guided by Policy 11(e) of NPF4 which sets out in detail the matters for the project design and mitigation to address. Landscape and Visual Impact: Considerations 8.21 The construction of ten wind turbines each to a height of 250m together with the associated infrastructure, works and battery storage facility at this location will have a significant visual impact, and this is not in doubt. The applicant sets out in their submission that most apparent effects of the development in terms of the visual impact arise from the presence of the wind turbines which are indicated to be temporary. The applicant’s position is therefore that the impact is reversible as the turbines would be removed on decommissioning. However, given that it is anticipated that the operational lifespan of the development is 40 years, the impacts that will occur are considered to be long term. 8.22 The geographical extent to which the wind farm would be visible has been established by a ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’ (ZTV). This was created using mapping tools to calculate where the wind farm will potentially be visible from in the surrounding area, taking account of topography. The ZTV establishes the locations from which the turbines may potentially be visible and where there is no visibility, receptors are discounted from the assessment. ZTV mapping is presented in the applicant’s submission with both 45km and 20km study areas in order that both the local and wider context of the proposal can be considered. The ZTV demonstrates that the wind farm, or parts thereof, would be visible from an extensive area including Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven, Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, Dunoon, Balfron, Luss and Ben Lomond. 8.23 As part of the EIA, the assessment of landscape and visual effects is informed by a series of viewpoints that represent visibility from a variety of different vantage points. These include recognised viewpoints, designated landscapes, settlements and travel routes. Vantage points within the settlements of Dumbarton and Alexandria, together with other vantage points within the Authority area including Dumbarton Rock and Doughnot Hill are assessed as are vantage points which are within the West Dunbartonshire part of the National Park such as Balloch Castle and a location on the John Muir Way to the east of Balloch. A range of viewpoints are also provided from the wider area including south of the River Clyde at Langbank and Port Glasgow as well as Luss, Conic Hill, Ben Bowie, Beinn Dubh and Ben Lomond. The visibility of the windfarm from all these locations indicates potential widespread visual impact. It is acknowledged that photomontages can be influenced by weather conditions, the position of the camera and the particular details of the lens used, but they are nevertheless representative overall in terms of the scale and position of the proposed turbines relative to the landscape and the skyline. The photomontages focus on the impact arising from the turbines themselves and do not include associated details such as the access tracks and battery storage facility. Landscape and Visual Impact: Impact adjacent to the site 8.24 Doughnot Hill is a high point situated within the Kilpartick Hills, within the Kilpartick Hills Local Landscape Area (LLA). It is clear from the visuals submitted that the proposed turbines will be a very significant feature when viewed from this location, with the application documents noting that they will be approximately 1500m from the summit (from where the viewpoint is taken) and extend across 47 degrees of the view. Doughnot Hill and the surrounding landscape features popular recreational walking routes extending from Overtoun House. These initially follow the core path network before extending across open countryside and generally gaining in height. The landscape is characterised by sweeping moorland together with forestry plantations and Doughnot Hill provides a local destination for the experience of wilderness and Page 175
Page 176
because of the views from the summit. Panoramic views are provided from this location across the Kilpatrick Hills and towards the National Park. The applicant recognises that this viewpoint has a high susceptibility to change as those who experience this view would be engaging in outdoor recreation and are likely to have a specific focus on the scenery and surrounding landscape. The EIA identifies that the combination of the high susceptibility to change of the view and its medium-high value results in a high sensitivity for this viewpoint. 8.25 The proposed turbines would, on the basis of the applicant’s submitted visuals, comprise an extremely dominant feature within the landscape at this location. They will impact upon the views over the local landscape and most notably compromise the views to the northwest towards Loch Lomond and the wider National Park area. The overall experience of recreational receptors at Doughnot Hill and the surrounding area would be significantly changed by the development with the overall sense of isolation being lost. Whilst not included in the visuals, in addition to the turbines themselves, the network of tracks together with the battery storage site would introduce further visual man-made clutter which is not presently experienced in the natural landscape. It is likely that that similar impacts would be experienced from elsewhere within the Kilpatrick Hills 8.26 Within the wider landscape, a variety of core paths are found, and these facilitate recreational use. Many of these extend out from the built-up area where usage is likely to be high with those from the urban area utilising paths close to home and the magnitude of change experienced by users is likely to be substantial and the visual impact high. Scotways objects to application noting the adverse impact on the recreational amenity of the area. Landscape and Visual Impact: Impact upon residential properties and settlements 8.27 The applicant identifies 12 residential properties that lie within 2km of the development site, the closest of which is Braeburn Cottage at 1.77kms. A Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) has been provided by the applicant in respect of these properties. All but one of these properties are located along Auchencarroch Road to the northwest of the proposed site. The final property is Highdykes Farm which is accessed from Broomhill Crescent to the southwest of the site. Properties would experience varying degrees of visual impact as a result of the proposed wind turbines. Some properties would experience impacts limited to only a small number of turbines, or parts of turbines including hubs and some blades whilst other properties, most notably Highdykes Farm despite not being the closest residential property at 1.86kms away, would experience views of all turbines and sometimes viewing much of the structures themselves with limited screening. Properties would also experience nighttime visual impacts from the visible aviation lighting required on account of the height of the proposed turbines. 8.28 The RVAA indicates that seven of the 12 properties included are likely to experience a significant visual effect as a result of the proposed development. Of these seven properties, one would have a high magnitude of change (Highdykes Farm). The RVAA found that the effect on this property would not reach the Residential Visual Amenity Threshold due to the location of the turbines in a peripheral aspect of the view, so that the key open view from the property would not be directly affected. It has therefore been concluded that despite the effect of views of the turbines together with the impacts associated with the visible aviation lighting, this property, as well as others in West Dunbartonshire, will not experience such impacts as would be described as exceeding the threshold of residential visual amenity. The battery storage and other ancillary developments are not of a scale and nature likely to result in any notable impacts on residential visual amenity. Page 176
Page 177
8.29 Turning to the impact upon settlements, it is clear that the proposed turbines would have a visual impact from the built-up area within West Dunbartonshire. Viewpoint 3 considers the impact from a location beside the A82 near Lomondgate on the north- western edge of Dumbarton. In the submitted EIA, the applicant sets out that the proposed turbines are 3.8 kms away from this viewpoint and that the urban edge is characterised by woodland. The majority of nearby views, including views from properties, are likely to have some degree of screening by vegetation. The EIA identifies that the effect on this view would be major and significant. This is due to a combination of the factors that lead to the medium-high magnitude of change on the view and the high sensitivity of the viewpoint. The proposed turbines would be very readily apparent at reasonably close proximity with some turbines seen at nearly full height on the skyline, increasing their vertical impact. The turbines would not be seen in the context of the elevated and distinctively upland landscape of the Kilpatrick Hills, but appear at a lower elevation, with the hill landform screened by intervening woodland. This has the potential to result in a perceived lack of separation, whereby the turbines appear to be seen in the same context as the viewpoint. 8.30 Viewpoint 5 considers the impact within the Vale of Leven at a location on the A811 in Alexandria / Balloch and here, the proposed turbines are identified as being 4.3kms away. This urban area is characterised by trees and woodland, and the majority of nearby views, including views from properties, are likely to have some degree of screening or filtering by vegetation as shown in the photomontage. The EIA identifies that the effect of the turbines on this view would be major and significant due to a combination of the factors. The Kilpatrick Hills currently provide an undeveloped backdrop to the largely urban outlook and the proposed development would introduce large-scale development into this backdrop. The turbines would be seen in the context of foreground residential development, with which scale contrasts may arise. 8.31 For the previous planning application proposal considered in 2013 it was concluded that the whilst the location of the wind farm is such that it will be visible from residential areas of West Dunbartonshire, including Balloch, Alexandria and Dumbarton the impact on these settlements was not considered to be unacceptable, The current proposal sees turbines within largely the same location but to a height more than double that previously proposed (250m compared to 110m previously). It is likely that for receptors within these settlements, attention will be drawn to the turbines on the hill to the north and the impact will be notable. Given the height of the turbines now proposed, it is considered that the scale of the proposal will comprise a considerable feature which has the potential to impact upon a considerable number of receptors including both residents together with those visiting and passing through these towns. 8.32 In their consultation response which objects to the proposal, The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority highlight that the settlements of Balmaha (viewpoint 17), Croftamie, Drymen (viewpoint 14), Gartocharn and Balloch would be subject to significant effects. The impact upon the National Park is considered in detail in paragraphs 8.38 to 8.46 below. Whilst not objecting to the proposal, Inverclyde Council have expressed significant concern regarding the proposal noting that views outwards from Inverclyde are important to both tourists and residents alike. They are an environmental and scenic tourism resource. It is such outlooks that assist Inverclyde in attracting tourists, both day-trippers and passing through. The views have helped the area to stage major events such as The Tall Ships Race and provide a backdrop for the many tourists arriving on cruise ships at Ocean Terminal travelling on to Glasgow. Inverclyde Council therefore set out the desire for these to view to be retained and is concerned the proposed development would impact on them to their detriment. The potential impact upon the timber ponds at Parklea is raised as a Page 177
Page 178
concern as would the significant impact on the skyline when viewed from Port Glasgow (viewpoint 18) and Greenock (viewpoint 25). It is concluded by Inverclyde Council that the proposal would be out of scale with the surrounding topography to the extent it would impact negatively on the views from Inverclyde and from the Firth of Clyde. 8.33 Overall, it is considered that the proposal has the potential to result in wide ranging significant and adverse visual impact from a variety of locations. Landscape and Visual Impact - Landscape Character 8.34 Landscape character is the distinctive pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a landscape leading to the way that it is perceived. Landscape sensitivity is concerns with the inherent character of the landscape and the likelihood that this character would be changed by the introduction of development. Landscape capacity refers to the degree to which a particular landscape type or area is able to accommodate change without significant effects on its character, or overall change of landscape character type. As the ZTV for the proposed development would extend over a wide area, it would have an impact on numerous different landscapes. The NatureScot 2019 dataset divides the landscape into tracts that are referred to as landscape character types (LCTs). Ten LCTs are included in the detailed assessment within the EIA due to level of influence and visibility of the proposed development. The EIA identifies the vast majority of the proposed development lies within Rugged Moorland Hills LCT. This designation covers the southern part of the Kilpatrick Hills, as well as parts of the Campsies/Kilsyth Hills and Renfrewshire Heights. The proposal would be seen as a new man-made element within the open hills and may affect the sense of scale of the landscape. 8.35 The applicant’s EIA sets out that the effects on the Kilpatrick Hills element of Rugged Moorland Hills LCT would vary. The effect on southern and south-eastern parts are considered not to be significant due to lack of or very limited visibility and influence of the proposed development. The EIA does highlight that there would, however, be a major or major/moderate and significant effect on the Site area itself and the areas in closer proximity that gain visibility of the majority of the proposal. Whilst the EIA contends that the “sense of apparent naturalness, wild character and remoteness” of the northern part of the Kilpatrick Hills has been affected by the Auchencarroch Recycling and Resource Management Facility, which lies approximately 500m to the north of the nearest turbine in the proposed development, the Council considers that this facility does not form a prominent feature within the landscape which impacts upon the Kilpatrick Hills beyond its immediate setting and the topography of the site reduces its impact. 8.36 In further considering the range of LCT assessed within the EIA, significant effects within part of the area are identified within Lowland Hill Fringes – Central, Lowland Loch Basin – Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, Lowland Loch Basin – Islands, Open Ridgeland – Glasgow and Clyde Valley, River Valley Farmland and Estates, Rolling Farmland – Glasgow and Clyde Valley and Rolling Farmland - Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. In their consultation response, the National Park Authority also highlight Highland summits and Steep Ridges and Hills LCT noting that as illustrated in Viewpoint 29 from Ben Lomond the turbines would appear very noticeable in the lower- lying backdrop to Loch Lomond. The introduction of large-scale industrial infrastructure would detract from the appreciation of several key characteristics that exhibit a semi- natural, natural and/or wild and rugged character. Significant effects are predicted on open parts, including from Ben Lomond. 8.37 It is considered that there would be potential for a significant impact on the character of the landscape. The scale of the turbines proposed is such that there are no existing Page 178
Page 179
features in the landscape which are of a similar size or scale. The development comprises extremely large turbines which are more likely to be suited to areas where they may benefit from separation distance between communities and sensitive receptors without exerting an inappropriate influence on the sensitivities of the Kilpatrick Hills. Inappropriately scaled and sited turbines have the potential to diminish the apparent scale of landscapes to the detriment of landscape character, and also to impinge upon the appreciation of the landscape from viewpoints valued for their scenic qualities. Landscape and Visual Impact - Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 8.38 The application site is located around 1.7km from the edge of the National Park boundary, which is one of only two National Parks in Scotland. In their consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers, both the National Park Authority and NatureScot object to the proposal. The Park note that it was consulted on the previous proposal for a wind farm in the Kilpatrick Hills, raising an objection due to the predicted significant adverse visual impact. The Park specifically note that the turbines now proposed would be up to 250m to blade tip height which is more than double the height of the previous proposal. Currently, the closest operational windfarm to the southern boundary of the National Park, is Corlic Hill/Inverclyde which is 14km southeast and has 8 turbines which are 110m high to blade tip. Both the National Park Authority and NatureScot consider that the location, size and scale of the proposed development represents a step change in respect of the proximity and prominence of wind farms to the National Park, and the scale of the wind turbines (being more than twice the size of the closest operational wind farm). 8.39 Although the National Park is not itself a landscape designation, the landscape is one of the main reasons for which the Loch Lomond and Trossachs area is designated as a National Park. National Parks are defined as extensive areas of the very highest value to the nation for their scenery and wildlife, and their cultural value. The Park is valued for the scenic quality of its landscape due to its diverse landscape character. Some of the special qualities identified in the Park include diverse landscapes and diverse experiences, mountains and moorlands. Whilst the Kilpatrick Hills are outwith the National Park boundary, they contribute to the landscape setting of the National Park, appearing as a natural landscape boundary close to its southern edge. NatureScot notes that the size of the proposed turbines and their anticipated prominence in southward views on the skyline formed by the Kilpatrick Hills would conflict with the current expansive large scale of the landscape where human elements are currently small in scale. 8.40 In the consultation response from the National Park Authority it is highlighted that the Special Landscape Qualities of Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Report 2010 commissioned by NatureScot defines special landscape qualities as the characteristics that, individually or combined, give rise to an area’s outstanding scenery. The general special landscape qualities which apply to the entire National Park are: • A world renowned landscape famed for its natural beauty; • Tranquillity; • Wild and rugged highlands contrasting with pastoral lowlands; • Settlements nestled within a vast backdrop; • Famous through routes; and • The easily accessible landscape splendour. 8.41 The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) predicts significant effects on two Special Landscape Qualities (SLQ) within the National Park. The first of Page 179
Page 180
these is Wild and rugged highlands contrasting with pastoral lowlands where it is set out that the proposal would have some effect on the perceived wildness of upland landscapes. The second is Immensity of loch and landscape where the applicant judges the effect to significant as while the majority of this SLQ would not be affected, in areas where they are clearly apparent the turbines can lead to scale comparisons that alter the baseline perception of the “Immensity of loch and landscape”. 8.42 Both the National Park Authority and NatureScot consider the applicant’s assessment of the Special Landscape Qualities of the National Park underplays the significance of effects. In the consultation response, it is set out that National Park Authority’s Landscape Adviser predicts significant effects on these and an additional eight of the Special Landscape Qualities as follows: • A world-renowned landscape famed for its rural beauty • Settlements nestled within a vast natural backdrop • Famous through routes/ The easily accessible landscape splendour • Tranquillity • Two lochs in one • A multitude of beautiful islands • Ben Lomond, widely known, popularly frequented • Banks of broadleaved woodland 8.43 The Park Authority’s consultation response goes on to set out that with a very intrusive and industrial appearance, the proposed turbines would significantly detract from, contrast with and often compromise a very number of Special Landscape Qualities and key characteristics that are integral to defining this iconic part of the National Park. “Settlements nestled within a vast natural backdrop” is highlighted as an example in the response including the southern setting of Loch Lomond and the surrounding rural landscape. This area has a long and rich history of habitation with houses and other structures confined to lower-lying land. These settlements are often small-scale, nestled within the backdrop of vast landforms of mountain, hill, glen and loch. This gives a strong sense of surrounding, all-enveloping nature which would be fundamentally compromised by the introduction of highly intrusive turbines. This includes the settlements of Balmaha, Croftamie, Drymen, Gartocharn and Balloch which would be subject to significant effects. 8.44 Similarly, “Immensity of loch and landscape”, with Loch Lomond being the largest expanse of freshwater in Britain with surrounding mountains and hill ranges, the landscape and sense of place is expansive and large-scale. By comparison, human made elements appear small and modest, they are barely discernible against the larger backdrop and substantial horizontal landmass. With the introduction of highly intrusive turbines, the naturally majestic surroundings where human made elements appear small and modest would be fundamentally compromised, as would the enjoyment of the highly scenic setting provided by the wide range of recreational infrastructure around the loch, affecting the experience of a very large number of people. NatureScot are also concerned at the impact upon this Special Landscape Quality noting that the size of the proposed turbines and their anticipated prominence in southward views on the skyline formed by the Kilpatrick Hills would conflict with the current expansive large scale of the landscape where human elements are currently small in scale. The effect would be significant within the southern area of the Park. NatureScot go on to consider that a further five SLQs would experience significant effects as follows: A world-renowned landscape famed for its rural beauty Wild rugged highlands contrasting with pastoral lowlands Page 180
Page 181
Settlement nestled within a vast natural backdrop Tranquillity The easily accessible landscape splendour 8.45 The National Park Authority recognise the key strategic role that renewable energy development has to play in addressing the climate crisis but consider the proposal to present a significant visual intrusion, including on some of the most iconic views enjoyed by visitors and our communities. Both the National Park and NatureScot consider that there would be significant adverse effects on the Special Landscape Qualities of the National Park and the Landscape Character Types which define what is so unique about the National Park. The Park Authority also consider that the proposal will have a significant detrimental effect on a number of settlements in the National Park and the experience of views of walking routes, road routes and viewpoints popular with both visitors and residents in the Park. NatureScot go on to conclude that they consider that the adverse effects from the proposal are unlikely to be overcome through re-design or removal of turbines. 8.46 Whilst it is accepted that the proposed turbines will not be visible or prominent from large parts of the Park due to its location and the distances involved, it will be extremely visible from some of the most important, iconic and popular areas such as from the Loch itself, Luss, Conic Hill and parts of the West Highland Way. Although the EIA concludes that only two of the Special Landscape Qualities of the Park will be significantly affected, it is considered that the actual impact will be far greater and this view is strongly supported by both NatureScot and the National Park Authority in their objections to the Scottish Ministers. Being guided by the detailed assessment undertaken by both the National Park Authority and NatureScot, it is considered that the proposal will have a detrimental and unacceptable impact due to the significant adverse impacts on the landscape setting of the National Park and it is concluded that the potentially significant impacts on the Park resulting from the proposal are not in doubt. Landscape and Visual Impact - National Scenic Areas (NSA) 8.47 NSAs are defined as areas of outstanding scenic value in a national context. There are three NSAs within the 45km ZTV. These are: Kyles of Bute NSA, Loch Lomond NSA and The Trossachs NSA. The Kyles of Bute NSA lies at least 37km to the west of the proposal and is shown to gain no theoretical visibility. The Trossachs NSA is at least 23.5km north-north-east and is shown to gain minimal theoretical visibility, restricted to localised high points, including Ben Venue (Viewpoint 31). These two locations are not assessed any further in the EIA and there is no objection to this approach. Loch Lomond NSA is located within National Park. 8.48 Whilst it is accepted that the proposed wind farm would not be visible from large parts of the NSA, it would be highly visible from some of the most important, iconic and popular areas within the NSA. It is considered that due to the extent of the area that the wind farm will be visible from and the importance of these locations such as on the Loch itself, Balmaha Harbour and Luss within the NSA, With the concerns regarding the impact upon the National Park itself, it follows that there are also concerns regarding the potentially detrimental and unacceptable impact on the landscape setting of Loch Lomond NSA. Landscape and Visual Impact - Kilpatrick Hills LLA 8.49 The Kilpatrick Hills stretch from Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven in the west to Strathblane in the east. The rugged upland landscape provides a stunning backdrop to the settlements which fringe them, including Balloch, Bonhill and Dumbarton. To the Page 181
Page 182
north of the hills lies the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. The Kilpatrick Hills form a distinctive rugged upland landscape, inextricably linked with their surroundings: ‘borrowed’ views, unique and relatively accessible panoramas, and a plethora of high-quality vistas, both to and from the Kilpatrick Hills, make the area key to defining the identity of nearby settlements and in providing a setting for nationally important landscapes. The local landscape identity of the Kilpatrick Hills is focused around prominent hills, escarpments, plateau moorland and the abrupt transition from surrounding urban areas and farmed lower slopes. There is a high perceived quality of wildness and sense of apparent naturalness and remoteness, particularly in the central areas of the Kilpatrick Hills, derived in part from the limited visual influence of modern development, in contrast to nearby urban areas. 8.50 Within West Dunbartonshire, the following special landscape qualities of the Kilpatrick Hills are identified as being of special interest: Strong sense of remoteness, wildness and open horizons; Distinctive landforms; and A unique diversity of views. The proposed wind farm will be located within the Kilpatrick Hills LLA and will result in direct changes to the landscape. The site is readily visible from a wide area and the EIA concludes that there would be significant effects on these SLQs. In relation to the first two SLQs, the influence of the proposal is identified as being more apparent in the north-western part of the LLA, where the proposal is located and from where it has the highest level of visibility. In the case of views towards the LLA, views from the area around the north-western part of the LLA would be most affected. In the case of the third SLQ, the accessibility of the routes themselves would not be physically affected, but views from the specific routes would be affected. 8.51 The scale of the turbines proposed is such that there are no existing features in the landscape which are of a similar size or scale. The proposed turbines will be a dominant feature within the LLA, particularly from areas close to the turbine locations. It is therefore likely that the LLA designation, based on the scenic attributes of the area, will be compromised. The Kilpatrick Hills form a distinctive rugged landscape, inextricably linked with their surroundings. They are relatively accessible, providing panoramas and a number of high-quality vistas, both from the LLA including Doughnot Hill (Viewpoint 1) and to other locations such as the National Park and the Loch Lomond NSA. They are a key backdrop which helps to define the identity of nearby settlements and provide a setting for the nearby nationally important landscapes. The wind farm would detract from the sense of remoteness and wildness provided by the Kilpatrick Hills. It is considered that locating a wind farm within the Kilpatrick Hills would have a significant impact on their setting and detract from their uniqueness. Landscape and Visual Impact - Regional/Country Parks 8.52 Balloch Castle Country Park is situated around 4km from the proposed site. Viewpoint 4 considered the visual impact from the Country Park. The EIA notes that the strong westwards orientation of landform and extensive woodland cover within the main part of the Park greatly limits visibility of the proposal with the chosen viewpoint being from the access road as it will be a view gained by a large number of visitors. The visual impact from the proposal development at this location is identified as having a significant effect due to a combination of the factors that lead to the medium-high magnitude of change on the view and the high sensitivity of the viewpoint. It is noted that visibility from the main part of the park is identified as being limited. The potential for impact upon the Balloch Castle Garden and Designed Landscape is discussed separately at paragraph 8.90. 8.53 The Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park is situated approximately 13km from the proposed site. Whilst the proposed wind farm may be visible from the Regional Park including from Misty Law (viewpoint 28), it is concluded in the EIA that the proposal would not Page 182
Page 183
have direct effects within the Park and would not significantly affect the priorities and objectives of the Park. It is agreed that it is not considered that there would be any significant or detrimental impact on the setting or character of the Regional Park. 8.54 The impact upon Mugdock Country Park around 10 km from the proposed site is considered in the EIA and it is concluded that a combination of limited theoretical visibility and screening by woodland and forestry within and around the Park would ensure that actual visibility is likely to be very limited. A viewpoint location was sought but could not be identified due to lack of visibility. Gleniffer Braes Country Park is some 18km from the application site and is not considered in the EIA. Due to the distance, it is not considered there would be any potential for any significant impact. Landscape and Visual Impact – Cumulative Impacts 8.55 The proposal would be the first wind farm development to be located in the Kilpatrick Hills, so there would be no localised cumulative impacts. The LVIA concludes that there would be no significant cumulative effects arising either from the combined effects of all wind farms, including the proposal, or from the addition of the proposal to other wind farms, and as a result, it would not lead to a perception that views or landscape character are defined by the presence or influence of more than one wind farm. It is considered that the site is physically and visually well separated from other large scale wind farm developments. Overall, no cumulative change of significance is identified in respect of the Kilpatrick Hills, although the proposal could set a precedent and could have future cumulative consequences for the Kilpatrick Hills and/or the National Park through wind turbine developments. Designated sites 8.56 Whilst there are no statutory nature conservation designations within the site, the proposed site lies within 100m of two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). These are Dumbarton Muir SSSI to the east and the smaller Auchenreoch Glen SSSI to the southwest. The EIA sets out that Auchenreoch Glen SSSI is located 68m from the site boundary and 98m from the route of the proposed access track. Given the distance to the SSSI and the nature of construction works on the site access, it is not expected there would be any adverse effects on the qualifying features of this SSSI which comprise lowland calcareous grassland, and springs (including flushes) and it is scoped out of the assessment. Dumbarton Muir SSSI is designated for its blanket bog and raised bog habitats. This SSSI is 75m from the application site and the closest proposed infrastructure to the SSSI is the turning head to for turbine 4 located 94m away. The EIA concludes that it is not expected there would be any adverse effects on the qualifying features of this SSSI. Both SSSIs are scoped out of further assessment. NatureScot are satisfied that these sites will not be adversely affected by the proposal. 8.57 Five other SSSIs are identified in the EIA as being locations within 5km of the application site however it is considered that there is no connectivity between t these designated sites and as such they are scoped-out of the assessment. Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC), classified for its salmon, river lamprey and brook lamprey populations, is 6.8 km downstream of the Proposed Development with partial hydrological connectivity. Given the distances from the Site the EIA does not anticipate that any potential effects would materialise on these designated sites, and as such they are scoped-out of the assessment. NatureScot concludes that they consider it unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests either directly or indirectly. 8.58 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that the applicant fails to consider or assess local designations relative to the proposed site. It is identified that there are five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which would be impacted by the Page 183
Page 184
development, either directly or indirectly. These are Murroch Glen, Blairvault Burn and Pappert Muir, Auchenreoch Muir Bonhill Muir and Pappert Hill, and West Dumbarton Muir. It therefore cannot be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites. Habitat 8.59 The proposed site comprises primarily open upland habitats, with blanket bog and marshy grassland predominant and accounting for over 73% of the application site. The remaining area is made up of smaller proportions of many other habitat types such as wet dwarf shrub heath, wet modified bog, acid grassland, flushes and bracken. Direct impacts upon habitats are those which would arise from the land taken for the development (i.e. the habitats lost to create turbine bases, tracks, borrow pits etc.), whereas possible indirect impacts might include changes to hydrology due to site drainage, pollution of watercourses from spillages or run-off, and fragmentation of habitats as a result of track construction. The EIA identified that over 10.3 ha of various habitat types would be directly lost as a result of the proposed development. For the majority of habitat types, no concerns arise in respect of the potential impact and these are scoped out. 8.60 One area of ancient woodland falls within the application boundary, and this is identified as an important ecological feature. The woodland in question is where the site access is proposed to pass through a narrow strip of woodland known as Barr Wood. The EIA identifies 0.06hn direct habitat loss to access track infrastructure. The EIA sets out that the area of ancient woodland to be directly impacted by the development is primarily comprised of beech with some Scots pine, some immature birch and a single oak. Due to grazing, there is no underscrub vegetation or regenerating trees/saplings present. The loss of a narrow of woodland is not considered by the EIA to lead to any notable potential fragmentation effects. Overall, the EIA concludes the effect on Ancient Woodland to be minor adverse to not significant. 8.61 Blanket Bog and Wet Modified Bog are also identified as important ecological features. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that Blanket Bog is a priority habitat for conservation on the Scottish Biodiversity list and also a UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat for conservation. Blanket bog vegetation coverage is also essential for the peat development underneath. The proposed development would result in direct and indirect habitat loss for blanket bog and wet modified bog habitats. Direct loss would occur in areas where permanent infrastructure such as access tracks, turbine foundations, and hardstandings are sited on these habitat types. The excavation of these habitat types for temporary infrastructure would also lead to the losses of blanket bog and wet modified bog due to the long-term effect on the ecological and hydrological structure and function of these habitat types. In addition, there may be indirect losses as a result of drainage around infrastructure and disruption to hydrological flows and the Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that blanket bog is particularly susceptible to changes in hydrology and any impact for foundations and access should be approached cautiously. NatureScot consider the loss of blanket bog and wet modified bog and makes recommendations in respect of the proposed levels of restoration to achieve offsetting. 8.62 The EIA is informed by a detailed review of the distribution and depth of peat at the site and the site design has largely avoided areas of deep peat. Where peat would be encountered by the proposed development, the EIA details that this can be readily managed and accommodated within the layout without significant environmental impact. A Peat Management Plan has been submitted by the applicant and this details how peat and carbon rich resources on site can be safeguarded. No surplus peat would Page 184
Page 185
be generated, and the limited volumes of peat generated from the proposed excavations would be used to reinstate track verges, turbine bases, crane hardstandings and restoration of onsite borrow pits. 8.63 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer further considers peatland habitat and notes that a peatland restoration programme on the vast swathes of class 2 peatlands would be more impactful in terms of net zero commitments and would provide an abundance of biodiversity benefit whilst retaining the landscape character of the Kilpatrick Hills. The Biodiversity Officer goes on to highlight that there is no data provided by the applicant for 0.5m to 1m depth which is the national standard for determining deep peat. Only peat depths of over 1m have been provided. It is noted that Turbine 2 is to be situated on Class 2 peat and Turbine 4 on Class 1 peat. An estimate of 18% habitat loss is noted, regardless of mitigation or enhancements. Nature Scot also highlights the requirements for greater ambition in terms of the extent of proposed peatland restoration and make a variety of recommendations in this respect. It is noted that 90ha of peatland restoration is offered by the applicant but NatureScot highlight that a figure of 200ha should be sought. 8.64 Overall, it is considered that subject to suitable mitigation measures including a habitat management plan together with the following the recommendations from NatureScot being followed, specifically with reference to peatland restoration, and the Scottish Ministers ensuring that the impact upon peatland is fully understood taking account of the comments of the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and minimised as much as possible, the impact of the proposal upon habitats would likely be acceptable. Protected and other ecological species 8.65 Informed by an initial desk study, a protected species field survey has been undertaken. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that the survey work focusses on ornithology and the various surveys highlight the wealth of the species found within the Kilpatrick Hills and demonstrate the importance of the vast open habitat that the species recorded require to support them. No field signs of water vole, pine martin or red squirrel were found on site. Seven features with the potential for use as holts by otter were recorded. None of these features fell within 200m of the application boundary. Several of the burns within the survey area were found to have good suitability for otter, with trees and gullies providing shelter. Four badger setts were identified, two outlier setts and two larger ones for which the status could not be determined. None of the badger setts or signs recorded are within 100m of the application boundary. Potential feeding signs were recorded within woodland in Gllangad Glen and along Finland Burn. Pathways used by badgers were recorded in woodland around Finland Burn and on the edge of Nobleston Wood. A variety of features offer good suitability for badgers. Turning to reptiles, two common lizard sightings were recorded, all in the southern part of the survey area. Twelve potential hibernacula features were also recorded. These were mostly attributed to dry stone wall features and rock piles. Several of the potential hibernacula features recorded were within the application boundary. Two mammal holes, one within and one outwith the application boundary, were identified but no specific signs of protected species signs were identified, as well as two well-used mammal pathways. 8.66 Considering bats, a preliminary bat roost assessment was undertaken in July 2020 and March 2022. There were 42 features recorded with potential suitability for roosting bats, all being tree features. No key features that could support maternity roosts and significant hibernation and/or swarming sites were recorded within 200m plus rotor radius of a proposed wind turbine location. Page 185
Page 186
8.67 In further considering bats, once operational there is a known risk of commuting and foraging bats colliding with turbine blades and for bats to be affected by barotrauma when flying in close proximity to moving turbine blades. Bat detectors at 13 locations within the site were deployed from May to September in 2020 over a total period of 42 days, with bats detected on all of the 42 nights. A total of four bat species and two genera were recorded for these locations. Clearly bat activity exists within the area and it is set out in the EIA that mitigation to avoid collisions will include the feathering of blades whilst idling. The EIA concludes that with proposed mitigation, the effect significance of bat collision risk is considered minor adverse and not significant. 8.68 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that a variety of bat species have been recorded in the area in the last 15 years. NatureScot also consider bats in their consultation reply and welcome the proposed mitigation. They note there is no mention of the standard 50m buffer between blade tips and high-value bat habitats, however, and they recommend that it would be helpful to obtain clarification on whether this this form of mitigation is also included. NatureScot also recommend that a detailed post- construction bat monitoring plan should be submitted to and approved by the planning authority prior to development commencing. Subject to following the recommendations of NatureScot, the impact upon bats would be considered acceptable. 8.69 Watercourses within the application boundary form tributaries to Murroch Burn to the south, which feeds into the River Leven and the Clyde estuary, and Gallangad Burn to the north, feeding into the Endrick Water. The applicant’s protected species survey noted that consultation with the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust (LLFT) undertaken as part of the 2011 Merkins Wind Farm Environmental Statement suggested that although the watercourses in the north of the Site have connectivity to the River Endrick, waterfalls in the Finland Burn and the upper reaches of the Catter Burn are likely to act as a barrier to Atlantic salmon and lamprey. LLFT suggested that only resident brown trout populations are likely to be present. The River Endrick is over 6.8 km from the proposed development. 8.70 The Murroch Burn was surveyed and contains populations of both brown trout and salmon. It is considered that subject to good practice measures to prevent pollution and changes to hydrology it is considered that the impact on fish life within and downstream of the site would be minimal. Deer are likely to use the area but effects on deer are also scoped out of the assessment. With no deer fencing proposed as part of the development, deer may use and pass through uninhibited with the only potential disturbance being during the construction phase. 8.71 Considering ecological species in general, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer notes that the open moorland has been shown by the relevant species surveys to be valuable wildlife habitat that supports a number of protected ground nesting birds, raptors, mammals. It is the nature of the undisturbed open ground that contributes to making the habitat suitable for these species. The suite of upland habitat types found in the Kilpatrick Hills and the habitat connectivity to the wider landscape is the reason for the wealth of species found here. Although much of the area has previously been modified for agriculture and forestry, there are still large swathes of natural priority habitat types that are untouched, and these must be protected from inappropriate development. It is the value of the habitat and the vast open space of the Kilpatrick Hills that allows it to host such valuable species, many of which are of conservation concern. Opening up of access over this land will change the recreational value of this site. It is likely to be easier to access from both the main access route and from the northwest in from Pappert Wood. This additional disturbance, could include additional walkers, cyclists, trail bikes and dogs onto the site which would reduce its value as an open habitat and breeding site for ground nesting birds. Page 186
Page 187
8.72 Overall, it is expected that the Scottish Ministers in determining the application will fully consider the points highlighted by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer, ensure identified mitigation measures are taken forward, follow the recommendations set out in NatureScot’s consultation response and require the implementation of a suitable Habitat Management Plan to ensure any effects of the development are minimised. The Councils Biodiversity Officer also specifically highlights the requirement for species protection plans and these would be expected. With this approach, the impacts of the proposed development upon protected species and wider ecology could be considered acceptable. It remains, however, that as highlighted in paragraph 8.58 it cannot currently be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites Any potential impacts upon ecology within these would require to be suitably considered and addressed. Ornithology 8.73 In order to determine baseline conditions to inform the ornithology impact assessment, field surveys were undertaken following NatureScot guidance between March 2019 to August 2022. Data collected between September 2008 to August 2009 for the Merkins Windfarm proposal was also considered as part of the baseline. A wide range of species were scoped out from further assessment for a range of reasons where it was concluded that adverse effects were considered very unlikely. Osprey, Goshawk and Black Grouse were identified as having potential for significant effects from the proposal and these were further assessed. In terms of ornithological impact relating to designated sites, The EIA advises that it was agreed during consultation with NatureScot that all designated sites, with the exception of the Loch Lomond SPA/ Ramsar site and Endrick Mouth and Islands SSSI can be scoped out due to a lack of potential connectivity. It is further set out that NatureScot advised that the breeding capercaillie designated feature of the Loch Lomond SPA should also be scoped out, leaving the remaining designated feature, non-breeding Greenland white-fronted goose, to be assessed. 8.74 The habitat within and directly surrounding the proposed development comprises mainly blanket bog and heather moorland without waterbodies, which is considered to be of limited suitability to foraging geese. It is also assessed as being likely that the Loch Lomond SPA and Ramsar site population is relatively sedentary throughout the winter, and as such, connectivity with the application site, and therefore displacement, barrier effects or collision impacts are very unlikely. it can be reasonably concluded that there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of Loch Lomond SPA / Ramsar site, and no further consideration is required. 8.75 Two pairs of ospreys are identified as breeding in forestland 2.5 km northeast from all proposed infrastructure. As no turbine locations or infrastructure is situated within 750m of either nest location, construction disturbance will not directly affect osprey nesting. A BBPP would be in place to ensure that any future osprey breeding activity is undisturbed during the construction phase. A pair of goshawks are also found to breed in forestland 2.9 km northeast from all proposed infrastructure. At this distance the EIA considers it is unlikely that this breeding location would be significantly affected by construction disturbance. As goshawks breed and forage in woodland, and the habitat within the Site is primarily composed of blanket bog and heather moorland without forested areas, it is not likely that goshawk would be directly affected by habitat loss during construction. 8.76 Baseline surveys in 2009 recorded one black grouse lekking area within the 1.5 km study area with one lek of up to six males and one female recorded at Auchenreoch ruins approximately 560m from the nearest proposed turbine (T8) and 300m from the Page 187
Page 188
proposed construction compound. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises that the Black Grouse lek site is only 300m from proposed battery storage area and this is against recommended disturbance of a minimum of 500m. Surveys in 2019 recorded a pair of black grouse flying over Auchenreoch ruins in November and a single male flying over the site in May, but no lekking birds were recorded in either 2019 or 2022. The EIA considers that on balance it is likely that the local lek is now extinct, although it is possible that the site is still occasionally used by foraging or dispersing birds. Proposed mitigation includes pre-construction surveys and restriction measures within a BBPP which would avoid disturbance to any lekking or breeding birds, should pre- construction surveys record them within 750m of planned construction activities, including the construction compound. 8.77 Considering collision potential during the operational phase, the collision risks for the three species were assessed as follows: • Osprey – One bird every 47 years • Goshawk – One bird every 88 years • Black Grouse – No collision risk identified 8.78 These risks are statistically insignificant in terms of the bird populations concerned. No notable concerns are identified in respect of potential displacement although Black Grouse could be impacted by noise from the sub-station. The EIA advises that there is little evidence to indicate that any species would be significantly impacted by wind turbine aviation lighting requirements Overall, the effects are identified as not being significant. 8.79 NatureScot in their consultation response do not raise notable concerns regarding Ornithology but make recommendations in respect of Black Grouse and the sub- station. It is noted that the RSPB offer no objections to the proposal, noting the biodiversity net gain proposals and recommend that the finalised biodiversity enhancement management plan is secured by condition. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises that a range of ornithological species are round within the area including black grouse, goshawk, golden plover, hen harrier, herring, gull, osprey, pink footed goose. Moorland breeding birds including curlew, snipe and lapwing were also recorded. Breeding snipe have been recorded close to the positions of turbines 1, 2, 5 and 6. Breeding ground habitat suitability for merlin and hen harrier were also identified. 8.80 Overall, subject to appropriate mitigation and protection plans being secured in conjunction with the position set out in paragraph 8.72 above, it is considered that the impact of the development upon ornithological interests would be acceptable. Biodiversity Enhancement 8.81 It is expected that wide ranging biodiversity enhancements are embedded into the final detail of the proposal, if approved. Points with regard to enhancements from peatland restoration are addressed in paragraphs 8.63 and 8.64 above. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that as part of proposed enhancements native woodland planting areas are proposed outside of development site boundary and this could lead to self-seeding on the adjacent SSSI which should remain as calcareous grassland. Woodland block proposals could also be detrimental to proposed calcareous grassland management and may also impact upon wetland flush areas. A Biodiversity Management Plan should further include a detailed management plan for all protected species on site. The Scottish Ministers should ensure that proposed biodiversity enhancement proposals are both secured and appropriate, if minded to grant the proposed development. Page 188
Page 189
Hydrological & Hydrogeological Impact 8.82 It is indicated by the applicant in the EIA that the proposed wind farm layout has been designed to minimise impacts upon geological, hydrological and hydrogeological constraints identified, with a variety of design iterations having been considered to avoid or minimise likely effects. The impacts upon watercourses are considered within the EIA with proposed mitigation to minimise impact including maintaining a 50m buffer zone between watercourses and other development. It is set out that in addition to good construction practices and methodologies, detailed design and construction practices would need to consider the particular ground conditions and the specific works at each location throughout the construction period. An experienced and qualified engineering geologist/geotechnical engineer would also be appointed as a supervisor. The EIA indicates that measures for dealing with pollution / sediment and flood risk during construction will be addressed via a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and a site specific drainage plan would be produced. Water quality monitoring during the construction phase would be undertaken for the surface water catchments to ensure no adverse impacts. This monitoring scheme would also allow the quality of water draining toward Dumbarton Muir SSSI and Auchenreoch Glen SSSI to be assessed and quantified. 8.83 The proposal will incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to attenuate run off and intercept sediment prior to run off entering watercourses. Due to the underlying geology of the site, there is relatively low infiltration and relatively high run off rates at present and over the whole of the site the new areas of hardstanding would cover a minimal proportion of the ground, so it is not considered that there is any likelihood of causing flooding. Various mitigation measures are proposed to avoid pollution and sedimentation of the water environment. SEPA do not object to the proposal, provided that in the event of planning permission being granted, a condition is attached which requires the submission of a surface water management plan. The Council’s Roads Service also do not raise an objection on flooding grounds but advise that if permission is given the applicant would require to demonstrate that the proposed development would not increase the flood risk downstream. Four new watercourse crossings are required and it is indicated that the crossings would be designed to pass the 200 year flood event. During the operational phase routine maintenance of infrastructure is expected such as maintaining access roads and drainage and carrying out maintenance of turbines. Should any maintenance be required onsite during the operational life of the project which would involve construction activities; mitigation measures would be adhered to along with the measures in the final CEMP to avoid potential effects. The EIA concludes that no significant residual effects on soils and peat, geology, surface water or groundwater receptors are predicted during the construction and operational periods of the development. Overall it is considered that with appropriate mitigation and the Scottish Ministers addressing a variety of matters by condition, the impact on hydrology and hydrogeology would be acceptable. Management of Peat/Soil 8.84 Works within peat bog areas can cause instability within the surrounding peat and result in peat slides, which seriously degrade peatland habitat. A Peat Landslide and Hazard Risk Assessment has been prepared by the applicant to assess and show how peat landslide risk is mitigated. The Assessment sets out the complicated inter- relationship between all the aspects that have an effect on the stability of peat. The overall conclusion regarding peat stability is that there are minimal areas of medium risk of peat instability across the proposed development and most have been avoided during the design process. Four medium risk areas are identified and for these, a hazard impact assessment was completed and this concluded that with suitable mitigation measures, all of the areas can be considered as an insignificant risk. Page 189
Page 190
Additional mitigation measures are further proposed in the areas where hazards are identified, despite these hazards being insignificant. This will further reduce the risk. to further reduce the risk of potential hazards occurring. Mitigation includes an experienced geologist/geotechnical engineer being appointed to supervise and provide advice during the setting out, micrositing and construction phases of the proposed development. Drainage measures which seek to avoid saturation of peat would also be implemented. The Energy Consents Unit commissioned Ironside Farrar Ltd to technically assess the Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment and this assessment concludes the approach is sufficiently robust in all respects and although some recommendations may be made for clarity, no further revisions are required. Based on the information within the EIA Report and taking account of the view Specialist Consultants, it would appear risk of peat landslide is not likely to be high and the Council would accept the recommendations made as appropriate and do not raise any concerns regarding peat landslide hazard risks. It is therefore considered that subject to the implementation of suitable preventative measures, there should be no significant impacts on peat stability. Borrow Pits 8.85 The proposed development would require crushed stone to construct new tracks, create hardstanding areas for the cranes and lay the turbine foundations. To avoid the need to bring significant amounts of material to site from elsewhere, which would greatly increase construction traffic, and includes a proposal to form a number of borrow pits within the site. Borrow pits are small quarries used to obtain rock for construction of the wind farm, primarily in the formation of the access tracks. It is not proposed to retain any of the proposed borrow pits post-construction. Materials are available locally so any requirement for rock aggregate during the operational phase, which would likely be minimal, would be met from those sources. The EIA sets out that it is anticipated that there would be a planning condition imposed upon consent with a requirement to agree the approach to restoration. 8.86 The application submission does not identify precise locations for the borrow pits at this stage. It is set out in the application submission that locations for up to three borrow pits have been identified within identified search areas which have been chosen due to their low peat measurements and rock exposure. The precise siting and size of borrow pits could be dealt with by way of a planning condition, but as they are a significant part of the overall wind farm development proposal it is appropriate to consider their likely environmental impacts. 8.87 In terms of landscape and visual impacts, this is considered in detail in paragraphs 8.21 to 8.55 above for the development overall. Focusing on the borrow pits, each borrow pit would cover a relatively small area and it is likely that their visibility would be reduced by localised screening, topography, the muted colours of the rock, and horizon effects (i.e. when seen close to the horizon they would be hard to make out against the bright skyline). It is considered unlikely that there would be any impact on long-distance views of the site, and the visual impact of the borrow pits would be relatively minor compared to that of the wind turbines. Whilst the borrow pits could be visually intrusive depending on the final details on location and size, they would be most visible during construction, but over time any remaining exposed rock in the borrow pits would weather and vegetation would become re-established, making the borrow pits less prominent and more difficult to make out from the access track and surrounding land. The borrow pits would be seen in the context of other infrastructure works associated with the wind farm development such as access tracks. Whilst they would be visible, they would be seen as part of the overall site construction rather than Page 190
Page 191
as separate developments. The restoration of any borrow pits required on site could be dealt with by way of a planning condition. Overall, it is considered that the visual impact of the borrow pits would be acceptable. The ecological and habitat implications of the development as a whole is already assessed above. Built and Cultural Heritage 8.88 No historic buildings or monuments are located within the site, although it does contain areas of archaeological interest. In their consultation response to the Scottish Ministers, West of Scotland Archaeological Service advises that the construction of the turbines and their associated infrastructure is likely to have both a direct impact on heritage features present within the development area itself, and an indirect effect on the settings of sites present in the surrounding landscape. WOSAS consider that it is difficult to see how the effect of the proposed wind farm on the settings of sites in the surrounding landscape could be reduced or mitigated without substantial redesign to the location of the development or the height of the turbines. They go onto recommend that any granting of permission include a condition relating to a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation within the red line boundary. It is considered that the Scottish Ministers require to satisfy themselves that an appropriately robust approach is taken to securing the required archaeological works. 8.89 There are a number of scheduled monuments in the vicinity of the site, but there would be no direct impact on these from construction or operation of the wind farm. There would be a potential impact upon the setting of the Knockupple, long cairn and the Lang Cairn, chambered cairn and cairn at Gallangad Muir which are 1.2 km to the east of the nearest turbine, but whilst noting the potential adverse impact, Historic Environment Scotland have not objected to the proposal on this basis and it is not considered that the impact on these scheduled monuments would be unacceptable. 8.90 The wind farm would be visible from the category A listed Balloch Castle and associated garden and designed landscape which lies 4.28kms from the nearest turbine and locations which also have views of Balloch Castle such as Duck Bay. However, it is not considered that there would be a significant detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building or its associated designed landscape. The category A listed Overtoun House and associated garden and designed landscape is located 2.5 km south of the nearest proposed turbine. Whilst the wireframe diagrams indicate that the turbines would potentially be visible from this location, the photomontage indicate that at ground level these views are entirely screened by existing established landscape features. However, from the first floor of the building, in which there are principal rooms, the woodland screening would become less effective and there may be more visibility of the wind farm. The potential impacts on any important views from principal rooms has not been considered in the submitted EIA and the Scottish Ministers would require to satisfy themselves that the potential impacts are understood. 8.91 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) have considered the proposal and in a consultation response to the Scottish Ministers they have considered the potential impact upon a variety of scheduled monuments, category A listed buildings and Garden and designed landscapes in the vicinity of the proposed development on which the proposals may have an impact. Having taken into account the information provided in the EIA Report, the supplied visualisations and HES’s own assessment, with the exception of Dumbarton Castle, the impacts of the proposed development are not considered to be of such significance as would warrant an objection from Historic Environment Scotland. HES’s position in this regard is accepted. Page 191
Page 192
8.92 Considering the impact upon Dumbarton Castle, HES note that the EIA recognises that the presence of turbines in views of Dumbarton Castle from the south would challenge the dominance of the monument. The EIA goes on to suggest that views of the Castle from the south would only be impacted across a relatively small area and subsequently concludes that the proposed development would result in an adverse effect which is not significant. HES do not agree with this assessment and consider the impact to be underestimated. It is considered that proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the setting of the monument, adversely affecting key views from directly to its south. As demonstrated by the visualisations provided in support of the application, the turbines would appear above and be framed in wider views of monument. In some of these key views from the south the turbines would appear directly behind the monument. the turbines would create a very large visual distraction and become the most dominant features in these views. Consequently, HES consider the development would significantly and adversely impact on the ability to experience, understand and appreciate this key feature of the setting of the monument. The scale of impacts would significantly adversely affect the integrity of the setting of the monument when viewed from the south and would be of a magnitude to raise issues of national interest. HES consider the proposed Vale of Leven Wind Farm to be contrary to national policy as set out in the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland and NPF4 because of its adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle. Accordingly, they object to the proposed development. 8.93 It is clear that the proposed development would have the potential to impact upon a variety of built and cultural heritage designations and assets. Having fully reviewed this potential and being guided by the position of Historic Environment Scotland and West of Scotland Archaeological Service, it is considered that there would not be significant detrimental impact on the majority of the designations and assets. However, the serious concerns of Historic Environment Scotland in respect of the adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle are noted and HES object on this basis. Being guided by the position of HES, the impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle as a scheduled monument and key historic national asset within West Dunbartonshire is therefore clearly of significant concern and cannot be considered acceptable. Residential Amenity 8.94 Residential amenity can be affected in a variety of ways. This includes noise from construction and operation of the proposed windfarm and associated development, shadow flicker from individual turbines as they rotate and impacts on air quality affecting adjacent residential areas. 8.95 In first considering air quality, this was scoped out of the EIA as it was not considered that there was any potential for adverse impacts upon air quality. The Council’s Environmental Health Service offer no disagreement with this approach. In the event permission was granted, it would be expected that a Construction Environmental Management Plan would address any short-term impacts during construction. 8.96 Any development will produce noise during the construction phase and this has to be accepted. Environmental Health raise the requirement to ensure that the site is managed in such a way during construction so as not to cause undue disturbance and this could be addressed by appropriate conditions if required, including relating to hours of work and construction noise. Considering noise from the operation of the windfarm itself, there are two distinct types of noise sources within a wind turbine; the mechanical noise produced by the machine and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the air. Noise impact has been assessed in the EIA and supporting documentation. Noise level monitoring to collect background noise levels was completed at two properties; Gallangad Lodge 2.4kms from the closest Page 192
Page 193
turbine and Highdykes Farm 1.8 kms from the closest turbine. A noise monitor at a third property was removed at the request of the occupants. Informed by this data, noise modelling of the proposal predicts a negligible impact at noise sensitive receptors; the effects of the proposals are therefore negligible and not significant. Therefore, the EIA concludes that the operation of the proposed development would cause no significant effect and no mitigation would be required. 8.97 The Council’s Environmental Health Service does not object to the proposal but identifies a number of matters to be further considered and addressed. It is noted that predictions of the operational noise levels have been based on the candidate turbine being the Vestas 172.2MW but the test results for this specific turbine are not yet available and representative noise data has been adopted from similar Vestas V136 turbine. Environmental Health advise on the requirement for the noise impact assessment to be updated based on the actual wind turbines proposed. 8.98 Environmental Health further consider that an updated report that determines the impact of noise from the turbines proposed at the development on nearby dwellings and any noise sensitive premises taking cognisance of the Scottish Government document Planning Advice Note 1/2011 Planning and Noise and using the principles set out in the document “The Assessment and rating of Noise from Wind Farms (ETSU- R-97) is provided. It is identified that the applicant shall ensure that noise associated with the proposed development shall not exceed 35dB, measured as LA90.10min or the prevailing background noise level +5dB, during the daytime period and shall not exceed 43dB measured as LA90.10min or the prevailing background noise level +5dB, during the nighttime period. It is further advised that the applicant will require to consider the cumulative effects of any nearby wind turbine developments. Environmental Health go on to advise that where the tonal noise emitted by the development exceeds the threshold of audibility by between 2dB and 6.5dB or greater, then the acceptable noise specified in above, shall be reduced by the penalty level identified within section 28 of 'The Assessment and rating of Noise from Wind Farms- ETSU-R-97’. The definition of audibility for the purposes of this condition shall be as described in ETSU-R-97. The penalty shall only apply at properties where the tonal noise is measured and shall only relate to the wind speeds at which the tonal noise occurs at. Environmental Health further consider that a noise assessment to specifically determine the impact of noise from the proposed Battery Energy Storage Facilities on nearby dwellings and any noise sensitive premises is required. 8.99 Environmental Health also highlight the requirement for an agreed approach for assessing noise complaints noise complaint assessment, logging wind speed, wind direction and power generation data shall be continuously logged and a nominated person have been submitted in writing to the Planning Authority for the development who will act as a point of contact for local residents. 8.100 Turning to shadow flicker, it is accepted that if adequate separation is provided between turbines and nearby dwellings shadow flicker should not be a problem. The Council’s Environmental Health Service highlight the requirement for a shadow flicker assessment. The EIA sets out that in line with the Scottish Government guidelines on shadow flicker assessments, 10 rotor diameters (1.7km) from each proposed wind turbine has been established as the shadow flicker Study Area. The assessment identified that no residential dwellings fall within the shadow flicker Study Area and, therefore, no shadow flicker effects are anticipated on any residential receptors within the vicinity of the proposed development. 8.101 Overall, subject to the Scottish Ministers ensuring that all matters raised in respect of noise impact are addressed in the event that they were minded to grant consent, the Page 193
Page 194
impact upon residential amenity will be acceptable and there are no objections to the proposal on the impact upon residential amenity. Impact upon Tourism 8.102 The degree to which wind turbines influence the tourism industry is difficult to quantify. Some people are not concerned about the appearance of wind farms, with some people actively liking their appearance, and where wind farms open up public access to previously inaccessible parts of the countryside, they can themselves generate visits by walkers and cyclists. On the other hand, some people dislike the appearance of wind farms either in general or within specific locations, and the construction of a wind farm may reduce the enjoyment of their visit to the area and make them less likely to visit again. 8.103 Whilst the precise impact of wind farms on tourism is not known, it is clear that appropriately sited and scaled developments with limited consequences for landscape character, scenic quality or major tourism assets have much less potential to influence the decisions of potential visitors than an inappropriately scaled and sited development. 8.104 As highlighted above in paragraphs 8.24 and 8.25, Doughnot Hill for example provides a local destination for the experience of wilderness and because of the views from the summit. Panoramic views are provided from this location including across Kilpatrick Hills and towards the National Park. The development of an electricity generating station on the site will change the very nature of the experience of the landscape that presently attracts visitors. The applicant’s submission also demonstrates that the wind farm would be visible from important areas within the National Park, including Conic Hill, areas around Luss, the Loch itself and Balmaha Harbour. The National Park designation is an important visitor and tourist attraction and one of only two National Parks in Scotland. It is reasonable to conclude that the scenic value of the wider area around West Dunbartonshire, Loch Lomond and the National Park, is significant in terms of scenic value and tourism importance. It is to be expected that there will be significant implications for the tourism value of the surrounding area should the proposal be implemented, given that a significant number of visitors in Scotland are attracted by the scenic value of the natural landscape. Accordingly, inappropriately scaled man-made structures and development in a wider panoramic landscape is not considered to be in the interests of tourism. Whilst there is not a specific objection on the grounds of tourism impact, it is expected that the Scottish Ministers would require to satisfy themselves that no adverse impact was to occur and it is expected that this would be fully considered with reference to the objection from the National Park Authority. Aviation Safety 8.105 Aviation related issues are considered in the EIA and it is stated that the applicant is in dialogue with the relevant stakeholders about appropriate mitigation measures. Prestwick Airport and the Ministry of Defence offer no objection to the proposal in their consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers. Glasgow Airport advise that the proposal could conflict with safeguarding criteria and that a more detailed assessment requires to be undertaken regarding the potential impact on Glasgow Airport. They have submitted a holding objection in this respect. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) object until mitigation proposals become more mature. The Scottish Ministers would require to satisfy themselves that there was no potential for impact upon aviation safety and the objection from NATS is addressed and that any potential for impact upon Glasgow Airport is fully assessed should they be minded to grant consent. Electro-Magnetic Interference to Communications Systems Page 194
Page 195
8.106 BT, the Joint Radio Operators and the Met Office offer no objection to the proposal and there is nothing to suggest that there would be any impacts on any telecommunications assets. Traffic, Transport and the Impact on the Road Network 8.107 The proposed development will be accessed via a new access road from the A813 Stirling Road, located immediately to the south of the access junction to Murroch Farm. The access will take the form of a priority junction which is designed to accommodate all predicted loads and traffic for both the construction and operational phases of the development. Considering the impact upon the road network and infrastructure, the EIA sets out that with the exception of the turbine components, most traffic would be normal construction plant and include grading tractors, excavators, high-capacity cranes, forklifts and dumper trucks. Most of this would arrive at the site on low loaders. It is expected that equipment, cabling and also the battery storage components will also arrive by HGVs. Whilst it is anticipated that on-site borrow pits will be able to meet up to 100% of the aggregate requirements, it is indicated any deliveries associated with concrete materials, such as cement powder, water and sand/aggregates will be sourced from local concrete suppliers. 8.108 The turbine components will be delivered on a variety of road transport platforms. In addition to the turbine deliveries, up to two high-capacity erection cranes would be needed to offload a number of components and erect the turbines. The cranes are likely to be mobile cranes with a capacity up to 1,000 tonnes that are escorted by boom and ballast trucks to allow full mobilisation on site. It is anticipated that turbine components will be delivered by ship to Clydebank with all abnormal load traffic leaving from Cart Street, Clydebank before travelling to Kilbowie roundabout and then westwards on the A82 to Lomondgate roundabout before turning onto the A813 Stirling Road to the site entrance. Whilst an alternative routing, detail and delivery access is noted in the accompanying Transport Assessment, it is assumed that this does not reflect the most up-to-date proposal as set out in the EIA itself. It would be expected the Scottish Ministers to clarify and satisfy themselves of the correct routing, ensuring up-to-date supporting documents are submitted. 8.109 The peak of construction in terms of vehicular movements is indicated to be up to 116 daily round trip journeys (40 Car/Lights and 76 HGV journeys). This is estimated to occur in five of the months of the overall 21-month programme. Construction traffic is generally expected to travel from the south of the site via the A82 and onto the A813 at Lomondgate. The distribution of construction traffic on the road network is indicated to vary depending on the types of loads being transported. Traffic mitigation measures identified during the construction period include the preparation of a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan. An Abnormal Load Transport Management Plan, On-site Path Management Plan and Staff Travel Plan will also be prepared. The EIA concludes that any impacts relate solely to the peak of construction activities and that the construction period is short lived and the effects transitory in nature. Both Transport Scotland and the Council’s Roads Service have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions regarding a variety of issues. There is thus no objection to the proposal on roads and traffic grounds. Health and Safety 8.110 Nothing arises in the consultation responses undertaken by the Council or received by the Energy Consents Unit to suggest that any concerns regarding health and safety arise. It is for the Scottish Ministers to satisfy themselves that an unacceptable risk does not occur from the development. With reference to the battery storage element of the proposal, it would be expected that the Scottish Ministers consult Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Page 195
Page 196
Decommissioning 8.111 Should the Scottish Ministers determine to grant planning permission for this proposal, it would be expected that a requirement for decommissioning and site restoration would be expected to be included in the conditions and suitable mechanism for site restoration, which will be triggered by either the expiry of the permission or if the project ceases to operate for a specific period. It would be expected that at the end of the proposal’s operational life the turbines would be decommissioned and principal elements removed; the site restored to its former use leaving little if any visible trace of the turbines; the foundations, tracks and hardstandings; the electrical substation building removed and the battery storage area fully restored with all infrastructure removed. The approach would be expected to follow the Naturescot - Decommissioning and Restoration Plans for Wind Farms Guidance Community and Economic Benefit 8.112 The Applicant is proposing a Community Benefit Fund although full details have not been provided other than a commitment to offering £5,000 per MW per year in community benefits across seven Community Council areas. The community benefit offer from the proposal is indicated to be equivalent to £0.4 million annually, or £14.4 million during a 40-year operational lifetime. The suggested benefit would be in line with the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments which notes the Scottish Government’s continued promotion of community benefits to the value equivalent to £5,000 per MW per annum index linked for the operational lifetime of the development. Notwithstanding this, a community benefit package is not a material planning consideration as clarified within the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Development. 8.113 The Council’s Economic Development Manager has stated in a consultation response that if funding was reinvested into energy efficiency and clean heat initiatives in line with the Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy (LHEES), alternative income streams such as this will help address fuel poverty at local level. It is accepted, however, that the use of community benefit funding will be determined by local communities. The Applicant is also committed to offering shared ownership of the proposed wind farm, allowing the community the opportunity to invest in and have a share of the wind farm. The Economic Development Manager has stated in their consultation response that the developer has indicated that up to 15% could be available for shared ownership. 8.114 The EIA indicates that the proposed will generate economic benefits, both during its construction, and during the operation and maintenance phase. During construction the economic benefits that are expected are £4.2 million Gross Value Added (GVA) and 54 years equivalent employment in West Dunbartonshire and £20.7 million GVA and 322 years equivalent employment in Scotland. The operation and maintenance of the development would bring lesser benefits with £0.4 million GVA and 2 jobs in West Dunbartonshire and £1.6 million GVA and 17 jobs in Scotland. 8.115 The Council’s Economic Development Manager further advises that that there is the potential for the Vale of Leven windfarm project to play an important role in decarbonising West Dunbartonshire and tackling fuel poverty. Ultimately the net economic benefits would be dependent upon the success or otherwise of the development and any initiatives and investments made by the Applicant. However, it is concluded that it likely that the proposed development will provide a net economic benefit to the local area although this would require to be balanced with any potential for loss of tourism income. Page 196
Page 197
9. CONCLUSION 9.1 The approach to the assessment of this proposal reflects the fact that the Council is not the determining authority but rather a consultee under The Electricity Act 1989. 9.2 This application has been submitted to the Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as it is a development with a generating capacity of over 50MW. Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the application is made under the Electricity Act 1989 and therefore the Development Plan does not have the primacy in the determination of the application. It does, however, provide a basis for the assessment of this proposal and it is established practice to take the Development Plan into account in such decisions. The Development Plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 and adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010. The proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2020 is the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore also afforded significant weight in the assessment. 9.3 The contribution of up to 70mw renewable energy generating capacity, with the potential for an additional 20mw if the applicant proceeds with the Battery Energy Storage System element of the proposed development, would draw strong support in term of renewable energy targets and supporting the overarching aims of NPF4 to achieve net zero targets. Notwithstanding this, by their very nature wind farms are major pieces of infrastructure which often require exposed upland sites which tend to be environmentally sensitive and relatively conspicuous within the landscape. In assessing this particular proposal, it has been necessary to consider whether the acknowledged impacts upon the environment and landscape are sufficiently great in this instance to outweigh the benefits of expanding renewable energy generation and/or any economic benefit which would be brought to West Dunbartonshire. 9.4 Policy 11 of NPF4 is one of the primary policies for the assessment of the development type proposed. Wind farms have the potential to impact on a wide range of features which is evident from the above assessment. The turbines proposed as part of the Vale of Leven wind farm are extremely large with a blade tip height of up to 250m. With a proposal of this scale, together with associated infrastructure inclusive of Battery Energy Storage System, significant adverse landscape and visual impacts are inevitable. 9.5 It is clear that the proposal has the potential to result in wide ranging visual impacts from a variety of locations. This includes from within existing settlements and it also follows that the proposed turbines will form a very significant feature within the landscape surrounding existing settlements. However, Policy 11(e)ii. of NPF4 explicitly accepts localised significant landscape and visual impacts and in this respect the position is thus weighted towards development’s contribution to renewable energy targets. In further considering the impacts It is considered that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape and the visual amenity of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area, and the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Loch Lomond and the surrounding area is a landscape asset of national importance, which is currently relatively unspoiled by major man-made development within the landscape. The large turbines proposed would occupy a prominent position within the setting of the National Park, and the introduction of a significant man-made element on the horizon could significantly detract from the setting of the National Park / National Page 197
Page 198
Scenic Area, the Lomond and the Trossachs National Park being only one of two National Parks in Scotland. Both the National Park Authority and NatureScot object to the proposal on this basis. The wind farm would also detract from the sense of remoteness and wildness provided by the Kilpatrick Hills and locating a wind farm in this location would have a significant impact on their setting. The existing landscape affords the opportunity for recreational use and users of existing paths for example and the wider landscape will also experience a significant and adverse impact. It is not considered that the benefits of the development would outweigh these significant impacts upon the National Park / National Scenic Area and the Kilpartick Hills which form part of the setting of the park. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be supported by Policies 4 and 11(e)ii and iii of NPF4 together with a range of policies within the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan including GN1, GD1, and DC6. The proposal is also not supported with reference to policy KH1 of the Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. Whilst Policy RE2 of the proposed Plan relates to the Spatial Framework for Wind Energy and would previously have been relevant, it conflicts with the approach set out in Policy 11 of NPF4. Policy 11 of NPF4 therefore has primacy. 9.6 Built and cultural heritage assets would also be impacted. Having fully reviewed this potential and being guided by the position of the consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers, it is considered that, subject to appropriate mitigation, there would not be significant detrimental impact on the majority of the designations and assets. However, the serious concerns of Historic Environment Scotland in respect of the adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle are noted and Historic Environment Scotland object on this basis. The impact upon the setting of the scheduled monument of Dumbarton Castle/Rock – a national asset is therefore clearly of significant concern and with an objection from the government agency responsible for the care and promotion of Scotland’s Historic Environment, the impact cannot be considered acceptable and is therefore not supported by Policies 7 and 11(e)vii of NPF4 together with Policy of the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and Policy BE1 of the proposed Local Development Plan. 9.7 Biodiversity matters such as the impacts upon designated sites, habitat, peatland, ecology, protected species and ornithology will be impacted upon by the proposed development. A variety of habitats will be impacted including blanket bog and wet modified bog. It is considered that subject to suitable mitigation measures including a habitat management plan together with the following recommendations from NatureScot, notably with reference to peatland restoration, the impact of the proposal upon habitats would be acceptable. In terms of protected and other species, it is expected that the Scottish Ministers in determining the application will fully consider the points highlighted by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer, ensure identified mitigation measures secured, follow the recommendations set out in NatureScot’s consultation response and require the implementation of a suitable Habitat Management Plan to ensure any effects of the development are minimised. Species protection plans would also be required. With this approach, the impacts of the proposed development upon protected species and wider ecology could be considered acceptable. 9.8 Notwithstanding the above, in terms of the consideration of the impact upon designated sites, the applicant fails to consider or assess local designations relative to the proposed site. It is identified that there are five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which would be impacted by the development, either directly or indirectly. It therefore cannot be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites. Given this, a conclusion with reference to Policies 3, 4(d) and 11(e)ix of NPF4 together with Policy E3A of the Local Plan and Policy ENV1 of the Proposed Plan. Page 198
Page 199
9.9 It is expected that wide ranging biodiversity enhancements are embedded into the final detail of the proposal and there is the question on whether any proposed biodiversity enhancements meet the requirements of Policy 3 of NPF4. It will ultimately be for Scottish Ministers as determining authority to consider this and ensure that conditions secure the delivery of meaningful biodiversity enhancement and nature networks across the site. NatureScot’s position that greater ambition is required in terms of the extent of proposed peatland restoration is specifically noted and it is expected that the extent of peatland restoration proposed will be considered in detail by the Scottish Ministers. 9.10 In assessing residential amenity, impacts in respect of residential visual amenity have been considered and it is concluded these would be acceptable. Impacts in respect of air quality, noise and shadow flicker have also been considered, informed by the consultation response from the Council’s Environmental Health Service. Subject to the Scottish Ministers ensuring that all matters raised in respect of noise impact are addressed in the event that they were minded to grant consent, the impact upon residential amenity will be acceptable and there are no objections to the proposal on the impact upon residential amenity. 9.11 The various consultee responses to both the Scottish Government and the limited responses to the Council suggest that subject to conditions to address a range of different matters, the proposed development would not result in any unacceptable impacts on the remaining matters assessed in this report. The exceptions are currently NATS and Glasgow Airport whose consultation responses to the Scottish Government are currently objections. Ultimately, however, Scottish Ministers are the determining authority in this case and it is for them to consider the consultation responses and how they wish to address the concerns raised in coming to any conclusion on the application. 9.12 The planning history of the site is also a relevant consideration. In 2012 planning permission was applied for the erection of ten wind turbines (max hub height 79m and max blade tip height 120m) with a total installed capacity of around 20MW and associated works including the erection of a meteorological mast, control building, ancillary infrastructure, temporary ground works and construction compound. Whilst the current proposal is not related to this previous proposal, it is sited within the same area as the current proposal albeit with a different access route. The application was considered by Planning Committee and refused due to the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the Kilpatrick Hills Regional Scenic Area/Local Landscape Area, the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the setting of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park and the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area. The National Park Authority note in their objection to the Scottish Ministers that it was consulted on the previous proposal and raised an objection due to the predicted significant adverse visual impact. The Park specifically note that the turbines now proposed would be up to 250m to blade tip height which is more than double the height of the previous proposal. NatureScot (as Scottish Natural Heritage) also objected to this previous proposal on the grounds that it would have an adverse impact upon the integrity of the National Park and Loch Lomond National Scenic Area (NSA). 9.13 Overall, it is considered that there would be a significant adverse impact upon the National Park / National Scenic Area together with the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Considering the impact upon the historic environment, the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle would also be unacceptably impacted upon. The adverse effects must, however, be weighed against the positive benefits of the proposal. It is accepted that it likely that the proposed development will provide a net economic benefit to the Page 199
Page 200
local area and community benefits would also likely be realised. The proposal will also contribute to renewable energy targets. However, the potential benefits cannot come at any cost. In respect of the National Park, National Scenic Area and Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area, significant adverse landscape and visual impacts are likely and it is concluded that these warrant objection from the Council to the proposal. Historic Environment Scotland highlight a significant adverse impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle also raises concerns to the point that it is considered that the potential impact upon this key historic national asset within West Dunbartonshire also warrants an objection from the Council. Finally, in terms of the potential impact upon the five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which the Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises has not been considered, a holding objection is warranted pending an assessment of the impact upon these locally designated sites being provided by the applicant for review. 9.14 It must be noted that should the Planning Committee accept the recommendation to formally object to the proposed Vale of Leven Windfarm, this will trigger a Public Local Inquiry in terms of Section 62 and Schedule 8 of the Electricity Act 1989 unless the Council subsequently withdraws its objection. 10. COUNCIL’S POSITION ON THE APPLICATION 10.1 It is recommended that this Committee Report is forwarded in full to the Scottish Ministers as presenting the Council’s full formal response to the consultation and that it is highlighted that the Council objects to the application for the following reasons: The Council objects to the proposal as the introduction of a wind farm into the Kilpatrick Hills could have a significant adverse impact upon the National Park / National Scenic Area together with the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be supported by Policies 4 and 11(e)ii and iii of NPF4 together with a range of policies within the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan including GN1, GD1, and DC6. The proposal is also not supported with reference to Policy KH1 of the Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. The Council also objects to the proposed windfarm as it could have a significant adverse impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle as a scheduled monument and it would therefore be considered contrary to Policies 7 and 11(e)vii of NPF4 together with Policy BE5 of the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and Policy BE2 of the proposed Local Development Plan. The Council further submits a holding objection to the proposal in respect of the failure of the applicant to consider or assess local nature conservation site designations relative to the proposed site. In the absence of this, it therefore cannot currently be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites in accordance with Policies 3, 4(d) and 11(e)ix of NPF4 together with Policy E3A if the Local Plan and Policy ENV1 of the proposed Plan. 10.2 Finally it is recommended that, in as far as required, reviewing and responding to any additional details submitted in respect of the holding objection set out in paragraph 10.01 together with all matters arising in respect of any Public Local Inquiry are delegated to the Chief Officer - Regulatory and Regeneration. Page 200
Page 201
Alan Douglas Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Date: 7th August 2024 ______________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: james.mcColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix 1: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application documents 2. National Planning Framework 4 3. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 4. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended 5. Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area – Statement of Importance 6. Renewable Energy Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan) Planning Guidance November 2016 7. Naturescot - Decommissioning and Restoration Plans for Wind Farms Guidance 8. Scottish Government Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity 9. Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal Wards affected: Ward 2 (Leven) Page 201
Page 202
ITEM 9 - APPENDIX 2 Page 202