Document pack (Bookmarked) - Planning Committee 14 01 26
West Dunbartonshire Council · 14 January 2026
Back to Planning Committee — 14 January 2026 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, 14 January 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Time: 10.00 ___________________________________________________________________ Venue: Civic Space, Council Offices, 16 Church Street, Dumbarton G82 1QL ___________________________________________________________________ Contact: Nicola Moorcroft, Committee Officer 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:- Provost Karen Murray Conaghan Councillor Lawrence O’Neill (Chair) Councillor Gurpreet Singh Johal (Vice Chair) Councillor Kevin Crawford Councillor Ian Dickson Councillor Fiona Hennebry Councillor Chris Pollock Councillor Lauren Oxley Councillor Hazel Sorrell Councillor Clare Steel All other Councillors for information Date of Issue: 30 December 2025 Page 2
Page 3
PLANNING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, 14 JANUARY 2026 AGENDA 1 APOLOGIES 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members are invited to declare if they have an interest in any of 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 - 13 Submit for approval, as a correct record, the Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3 December 2025. 5 NOTE OF VISITATION 15 Submit, for information, a Note of the Site Visitation carried out on 1 December 2025. 6 PLANNING APPLICATIONS Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, in respect of the following Planning applications:- (a) DC25/182/PPP: Planning Permission in Principle for a 17 - 28 Class 7 hotel with cafe/restaurant, meeting rooms and rooftop lounge. Car-lite layout with modest parking/cycle storage, single access from south/east and screened servicing. Flood-resilient with SuDS at Development Site, Ossian Way Clydebank by Montgomery Developers. (b) DC25/163/MOD: Modification of Planning Obligation 29 - 36 entered into under a Section 75 agreement associated with Planning Permission DC20/253 at Landfill Site, Auchincarroch Road, Jamestown, Alexandria G83 9EY by Barr Environmental. Page 3
Page 4
7 LOCAL PLACE PLAN VALIDATION – ALEXANDRIA LOCAL PLACE PLAN 1 37 - 52 Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, seeking approval to validate and register the Alexandria Local Place Plan 1. 8 S36 CONSULTATION – BRAIDFIELD BATTERY STORAGE 53 - 80 Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, seeking approval for 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. ___________________________________________________________________ Page 4
Page 5
PLANNING COMMITTEE At a Meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chambers, Clydebank Town Hall, 5 Hall Street, Clydebank G81 1UB on Wednesday, 3 December 2025 at 10.00 a.m. Present: Provost Karen Murray Conaghan and Councillors Ian Dickson, Gurpreet Singh Johal, Laurence O’Neill, Lauren Oxley and Chris Pollock. Attending: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager; James McColl, Development Management Team Leader; Amy Melkevik, Lead Planning Officer; Christopher Anderson, Section Head and Principal Solicitor; and Nicola Moorcroft, Committee Officer. Apologies: Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillors Kevin Crawford, Fiona Hennebry, Hazel Sorrell and Clare Steel. Councillor Gurpreet Singh Johal 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 5 November 2025 were submitted and approved as a correct record. PLANNING APPLICATION A report was submitted by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, in respect of the following Planning Application:- ITEM 4 Page 5
Page 6
DC16/229: Erection of 118 flats and 16 houses (substitution of house types and amendments to layout) at former Thompsons Yard, Leven Street, Dumbarton by Turnberry Homes Ltd. Reference was made to a site visit which had been undertaken in respect of the above application. The Development Management Team Leader was heard in further explanation and in answer to Members’ questions. The Chair invited Mr Steven McLaughlin (objector) to address the Committee. Mr McLaughlin was heard in respect of the application. The Chair then invited Mr Tom Walker (Applicant’s agent) to address the Committee. Mr Walker was heard in respect of the application and in answer to Members’ questions. After discussion having heard the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager and the Development Management Team Leader, in further explanation and in answer to Members’ questions, the Committee agreed that:- (1) the application be referred to the full Council for determination, recommending that the application be approved with the conditions indicated within Section 9 of the report within Appendix 1 hereto; and (2) amendments be made to condition 9 to secure detailed design and location of the bin stores and additional conditions relating to infrastructure. The meeting closed at 10.47 a.m. Page 6
Page 7
APPENDIX 1 DC16/229: Erection of 118 flats and 16 houses (substitution of house types and amendments to layout) at former Thompsons Yard, Leven Street, Dumbarton by Turnberry Homes Ltd. GRANT full planning permission subject to the following conditions:- 1. Prior to the commencement of development on site, exact details, specifications and samples of all proposed external materials to be used within the development site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, all facing bricks to be used shall be good quality clay bricks. Thereafter, unless otherwise first 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. Further to Condition 1 above, prior to the approved brickwork associated with any house being constructed on site, a sample panel of the brickwork shall be constructed on site in order for it and the associated mortar to be reviewed, inspected and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be completed in strict accordance with the approved brick details. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. 3. Prior to the commencement of works on site, full details of the phasing and build programme for the development, inclusive of the delivery of the waterfront pathway to the riverside, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Works shall then proceed as approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development is delivered in an appropriate manner and ensure the delivery of the waterfront pathway. 4. Notwithstanding the approved plans, an acoustic barrier shall be installed prior to the occupation of any residential unit herby consented. The acoustic barrier, as shown in blue on drawing AL (0203) Rev C, shall be of a solid construction with no gaps between the fence panels, post of at the junction with the ground and must have a surface density of at least 10kg/m2. Thereafter the acoustic barrier shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To ensure that no adverse noise impact for the proposed homes, in the interests of residential amenity. Page 7
Page 8
5. Prior to the commencement of works on site, final details of the approach to achieve adequate thermal regulation without having to open windows can be achieved as set out within the noise impact assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall then be implemented as approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that no adverse noise impact for the proposed homes, in the interests of residential amenity. 6. Prior to commencement details of cycle parking at a rate of 1 space per dwelling (house or flat) shall be provided. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that sufficient cycle parking is provided, 7. Prior to the commencement of development on site, a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan setting out how the proposal enhances biodiversity beyond the current baseline, together with the implementation on site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All measures shall then be implemented as approved. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: In the interest of biodiversity. 8. No removal of trees and vegetation shall take place during the bird nesting season March to September inclusive unless first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, and a nesting bird survey shall be undertaken not more than 48 hours prior to the commencement of site clearance works, the findings of which shall be submitted and agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the in interests of the protection of breeding birds 9. Prior to commencement of development on site, a detailed hard and soft landscaping plan, inclusive of a full planting schedule, shall be submitted for the further written approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved hard and soft landscaping and all associated approved planting details shall be implemented within a timescale to be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 10. 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 interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. Page 8
Page 9
11. That full details of maintenance and management for the landscaping approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the first dwellinghouse hereby permitted. Management and maintenance shall commence upon completion of the landscaping. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 12. Prior to commencement, a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by Planning Authority in consultation with NatureScot. This shall include full details of measures that will be implemented to minimise noise impacts on roosting Special Protection Area redshank and screen the development during any construction works carried out in the wintering period (September to April inclusive). The construction method statement shall also detail the measures that will be used to prevent pollution. Reason: To ensure there are no adverse impacts created upon the Special Protection Area. 13. Prior to the occupation of any house or flat, the parking provision associated to that house or flat shall be completed and be available for use by residents of the associated with the house or flat. The parking provision shall then remain unobstructed and available for use by residents of the associated house or flat at all times thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision is in place for the development. 14. Prior to the occupation of the first house or flat within the site, the developer shall install the necessary infrastructure to enable the full development and all associated properties to be connected to the existing fibre optic network, where available in West Dunbartonshire, and in accordance with the relevant telecommunications provider's standards. Reason: To ensure compliance with Policy CON4 of the West Dunbartonshire Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (2020) and in the interests of securing the facilities to support local communities. 15. No house or flat shall be occupied until the contents of a Travel Information Pack which encourages reduced dependency on the private car by highlighting the location of local amenities, public transport services and active travel routes is submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, on the occupation of each dwelling, the approved Travel Information Pack shall be provided to new residents. Reason: In order to be consistent with the requirement of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) for sustainable transport. Page 9
Page 10
16. 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 first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority: Mondays to Fridays: 0800 - 1800 Saturdays: 0800 - 1300 Sundays and public holidays: No Working Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by creasing excessive noise and disturbance at unsocial hours. 17. No commercial vehicle making deliveries to, or collecting material from, the development during construction shall enter or leave the site before 0800 or after 1800, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise noise and disturbance to nearby residents at unsocial hours. 18. No piling works shall be carried out until a method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This statement shall include an assessment of the impact of the piling on surrounding properties, taking into account the guidance contained in BS 6472: 1984 'Evaluation of Human Response to Vibration in Buildings'. It shall detail any procedures which are proposed to minimise the impact of noise and vibration on the occupants of surrounding properties. This statement shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person, and the piling works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: To minimise noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents/occupants during construction. 19. Prior to the commencement of development on site a scheme for the control and mitigation of dust shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning 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 first agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the occurrence of dust, in the interests of the amenity of the area. 20. No development shall commence on site until such time as a noise control method statement for the construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This statement shall identify likely sources of noise (including specific noisy operations and items of Page 10
Page 11
plant/machinery), the anticipated duration of any particularly noisy phases of the construction works, and details of the proposed means of limiting the impact of these noise sources upon nearby residential properties and other noise-sensitive properties. The construction works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents/occupants during construction. 21. No development (other than investigative works) shall commence on site until such time as a detailed report on the nature and extent of contamination on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and shall include: a) A detailed site investigation identifying the extent, scale and nature of contamination on the site (irrespective of whether this contamination originates on the site); b) An assessment of the potential risk (where applicable) to: Human health Property (existing and proposed), including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, wood land and service lines and pipes Groundwater and surface waters Ecological systems Archaeological sites and ancient monuments c) An appraisal of remedial options, including a details remediation scheme based on the preferred option. Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 22. No development (other than investigative works) shall commence on site until such time as a detailed remediation scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be prepared by a suitable qualified person and shall detail the measures necessary to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risk to human health, building and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme shall include details of all works to be undertaken, the remediation objections and criteria, a timetable of works and/or details of the phasing of works relative to the rest of the development, and site management procedures. The scheme shall ensure that upon completion of the remediation works the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part IIA in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. Page 11
Page 12
Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 23. The approved remediation scheme shall be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement od development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority shall be notified in writing of the intended commencement of remediation works not less than 14 days before these works commence on site. Upon completion of the remediation works and prior to the site being occupied, a verification report which demonstrates the effectiveness of the completed remediation works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 24. The presence of any previously unencountered 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 affected area shall cease. At this stage, if requested by the Planning Authority, an investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken and an amended remediation scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the recommencement of works in the affected area. 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. Page 12
Page 13
APPENDIX 2 DC25/103/FUL: Removal of conservatory and garden shed, replace with single storey extension at 37 Islay Drive, Old Kilpatrick G60 5EP by Ms Fiona Hennebry. GRANT full planning permission subject to the following conditions:- 1. The presence of any 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 fit for its intended use. Page 13
Page 14
Page 14
Page 15
PLANNING COMMITTEE NOTE OF VISITATION - 1 DECEMBER 2025 Present: Provost Karen Murray Conaghan and Councillor Lawrence O’Neill. Attending: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader and Amy Melkevik, Lead Planning Officer. SITE VISIT A site visit was undertaken in connection with the undernoted planning application:- Former Thompsons Yard, Leven Street, Dumbarton DC16/229: Erection of 118 flats and 16 houses (substitution of house types and amendments to layout) by Turnberry Homes Ltd. ITEM 5 Page 15
Page 16
Page 16
Page 17
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 14th January 2026 DC25/182/PPP: Planning Permission in Principle for a Class 7 hotel with cafe/restaurant, meeting rooms and rooftop lounge. Car-lite layout with modest parking/cycle storage, single access from south/east and screened servicing. Flood-resilient with SuDS at Development Site At, Ossian Way, Clydebank by Montgomery Developers 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 The planning application is subject to an objection from a statutory consultee. Under the terms of the approved Scheme of Delegation, it therefore requires to be determined by the Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Section 9 of the report. 3. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 The site sits within the wider Queens Quay Masterplan area. The extent of the masterplan area lies to the south of Clydebank Town Centre on the north bank of the River Clyde, which was previously a location of shipbuilding in Clydebank. Planning permission in principle was granted for the wider site (DC02-283) for mixed use development in July 2005. There has been significant progress on the redevelopment of the wider site with the construction of Titan Business Centre, Aurora House, West College Scotland – Clydebank Campus and Clydebank Leisure Centre, which are all located within the southeastern part of the wider Queens Quay site considered through a variety of further planning applications. A further planning permission in principle (DC15/234) was granted for the part of the site northwest of the college building which remains undeveloped and this consent in principle remains live with the recent grant of a Section 42 application to update one of the planning conditions (DC24/091/FUL). This consent does not cover the current application site which sits at the south-eastern most point of the wider Queens Quay area, to the east of Clydebank Leisure Centre, and to the south of the West College Scotland – Clydebank Campus, Aurora House and the Titan Enterprise building. 3.2 This application is an application for planning permission in principle for a Class 7 hotel which will include a café/restaurant, meeting rooms and rooftop lounge. The proposal also proposes parking/cycle storage, a single access from the south/east, screened servicing, flood resilience and SuDS. As this is an application for planning permission in principle, full design details are not required at this stage. The applicant has however indicated that the proposed hotel will be five stories in height sitting between 20m and 23m in height. Visualisations are provided of the indicative concept which give a flavour of how the site could be developed and is described within the pre-app document as having a fluid and sculptural form composed of smooth white glass fibre reinforced concrete “ribbons” that wrap continuous, river facing glazing. Its form is stated to celebrate the town’s shipbuilding heritage, the meander of the river and the backdrop ITEM 6a Page 17
Page 18
of the Kilpatrick Hills. The indicative sculpted prow is deliberate reference to the hull lines of the QE2 and other iconic Clyde-built vessels. 3.3 Whilst final details of parking provisions are not required at this stage the applicant’s submitted documentation states that the scheme adopted a deliberately car-lite approach that builds on the site’s public transport accessibility and riverside walk/cycle connections. The applicant’s Transport Assessment and Travel Plan notes that the car park will provide approximately 25-30 spaces including, 2 accessible bays, 4 electric vehicle charging bays and 2 loading/servicing spaces. 10 secure and covered cycle stands are also to be provided. The pre-app document references 40-45 on site spaces, 8 of which are accessible with 12 electric vehicle charge points to be installed. 70 long-stay cycle spaces for staff and guests as well as 12 short-stay spaces are also indicated. 4. CONSULTATIONS The Coal Authority 4.1 The application site falls within the defined High Risk Area (DHRA); therefore, within the site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application. More specifically, The Coal Authorities information indicate that the eastern part of the site lies in an area of outcropping coal seams, which may have been worked in the past. Voids and broken ground associated with such working may pose a risk to ground stability and public safety. The applicant needs to submit a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to support their planning application. As no relevant information has been submitted at this time, the Coal Authority’s Planning and Development Team objects to this application noting their fundamental concern. West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service 4.2 The proposed approach to parking provision does not comply with National Roads Development Guide, even when considering the sites proximity to public transport links. The provision must be revised to ensure sufficient capacity can be achieved. Additionally, a Transport Assessment is required to demonstrate how the development will manage the travel demand. West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service (Flooding) 4.3 No objection in principle to the application but a detailed Flood Risk Assessment is recommended for the site if approval is granted. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) 4.4 No objections subject to a condition relating to a Flood Risk Assessment being submitted. West Dunbartonshire Council Environmental Health 4.5 No objection subject to conditions relating to dust, noise, working times (including deliveries), construction noise, piling method statement, contaminated land, unexpected contamination and importation/reuse of soil and waste. Glasgow Airport 4.6 No objections subject to conditions relating to details of the location, height, layout, form and materials of buildings and structures within the proposed development and a Bird Hazard Management Plan. Page 18
Page 19
Scottish Power 4.7 No objection but notes that there is a Substation with high voltage and low voltage underground cables within the vicinity of the proposal. Scottish Water 4.8 No objection but notes that the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. Renfrewshire Council (Planning) 4.9 No objection. Marine Scotland 4.10 No response. 5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 None. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 6.1 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. Delivery of the development proposals for the site would support the objectives of this national development. Whilst within the Clyde Mission area, the proposed development is not considered as a national development as it falls within the category of Local Development as set out in The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. 6.2 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 of matters being addressed by condition, the proposal would have a neutral impact in respect of Policies 1, 2 and 3. 6.3 Policy 7 states that development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places will be accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and/or place. A variety of listed buildings lie in the vicinity of the site including the Category A listed Titan crane. Given the distance between the proposal and subject to conditions on final design it is considered that the site could be developed without having a significant impact on nearby listed buildings or structures. 6.4 Policy 9 relates to brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings. Part a) states that development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield Page 19
Page 20
land including vacant and derelict land and buildings, whether permanent or temporary, will be supported. The redevelopment of this brownfield site is this supported by part C of the policy. Part c) of Policy 9 states that where land is known or suspected to be unstable or contaminated, development proposals will demonstrate that the land is, or can be made, safe and suitable for the proposed new use. This has not been demonstrated and as such the proposal does not comply with part c) of the Policy. 6.5 Policy 11 supports development proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies. Policy 13 relates to sustainable transport and aims to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. Criterion e) states that development proposals which are ambitious in terms of low/no car parking will be supported, particularly in urban locations that are well-served by sustainable transport modes and where they do not create barriers to access by disabled people. 6.6 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. The application site is located in an urban area near a wide range of facilities. Any future applications for matters specified by condition for the detail of the development on site could ensure proposals are acceptable with reference to the existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area. There is thus no conflict with these Policies. 6.7 Policy 22 - 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 proposal has no objections from SEPA 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. No concerns arise in respect of this Policy. 6.9 Policy 30 relates to tourism and supports new or extended tourist facilities or accommodation in location identified in the Local Development Plan. Part b) of the policy also states that proposals for tourism related development will take into account certain criteria including compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of the nature and scale of the activity and impacts of increased visitors and opportunities for sustainable travel and appropriate management of parking and traffic generation and scope for sustaining public transport services. 6.10 Additional information has been requested from the applicant which has not been provided. Without this information it cannot be demonstrated that the proposal is supported by all policies of NPF4. This is assessed fully in Section 7 below. West Dunbartonshire Adopted Local Plan 2010 6.11 The application site is identified as a regeneration priority, and under Policy RP1 there is support for the redevelopment of underused, vacant and derelict land. Policy UR1 also promotes the re-use of land and buildings in the urban area that become vacant, derelict or underused in order to stimulate the process of urban renewal and thereby enhance the Plan area as a place to live, work and visit. Page 20
Page 21
6.12 Design and layout considerations are set out in Policy GD1 which outlines that all new developments are expected to be of high-quality design and to respect the character and amenity of the area in which it is located. Proposals are required to be considered against a list of development control criteria. Policy BE2 aims to ensure that in relation to any works affecting a listed building or its setting, its appearance, character and setting is not adversely affected. Policy R5 requires developers of waterfront sites to provide paths to and along the riverbank. In accordance with Policy DC3, development within the safeguarding zone around Glasgow Airport, should not affect the operational integrity or safety of the airport. No concerns arise in respect of these Policies at this ‘in principle’ stage. 6.13 Policy LE8 support applications for tourist industry developments throughout the Plan area conditional on the criteria below being satisfied. The Council recognises the Forth and Clyde Canal Corridor and the Lower Clyde and Firth of Clyde as Tourism Development Areas. All tourist related development proposals will be required to satisfy the certain criteria including that there are no adverse environmental, landscape, infrastructure and transport implications. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not have infrastructure and transport implications. 6.14 Policy T2 states that the Council will identify opportunities for access improvements to Regeneration Priorities. Policy T4 requires development sites to be well integrated into walking, cycling and public transport routes. Significant new development is to be accessible to public transport networks and developer contributions will be required where such development is shown to impact on public transport infrastructure. 6.15 Policy E1 states that the Council in exercising its planning function it will further the conservation of biodiversity. Policy E2A states that development likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site will be subject to an appropriate assessment. Where an assessment is unable to conclude that a development will not adversely affect the integrity of the site development will only be permitted where: there is no alternative solutions; there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Policy E2B states that development that affects an SSSI will only be permitted where an appraisal demonstrates: the objectives of the designated area and the overall integrity of the area would not be compromised; or any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance. In this instance the Natura 2000 site is the Inner Clyde SPA. The Inner Clyde SPA is approximately 490m away and as such is not impacted by the development. 6.16 Policies F1 states that the Council will resist development that is likely to increase the risk of flooding or are located in a functional flood plain. Policy F2 requires inclusion of sustainable urban drainage. Policy F3 states that the Council will use the standards of flood protection set out in Scottish Planning Policy. The up-to-date development plan position in flooding is set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 which therefore has primacy in this instance. 6.17 Subject to conditions, the proposal overall complies with the 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, Page 21
Page 22
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 Through Policy 1 land to the West of Garth Drive, known as Plots 4 and 5, will continue to be supported for Business, Industrial, Commercial and Restaurant uses. Hotel or commercial leisure uses will also be considered in this area where the criteria in Policy E2 are met. The development of the site is supported by these policies. Policy W1 relates to waterfront development and requires proposals adjacent to the waterfront to meet certain criteria. This includes that developments shall present a frontage to the waterfront which enhances the appearance of the waterfront and contributes to the overlooking of it. Proposals for the design, massing and scale of built form, including materials and colour should also demonstrate a coordinated approach that successfully integrates the development within the landscape and wider views. It is considered that subject to conditions, the proposal has the ability to comply with the Policies, and the development of a hotel is supported in principle. 7.3 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. Subject to conditions and the final design and detail of the development, the proposal offers no conflict with the six qualities of successful places. 7.4 Proposals for alternative uses of land or premises which are currently or have been previously used for business, industrial or commercial uses will be supported where it can be demonstrated that they accord with certain criteria in accordance with Policy E2. The criteria are as follows: a) There is no adverse impact on the operation of existing uses or the potential for future business, industrial or employment use within the area; b) The proposal protects and enhances the attractiveness of the area as an industrial and business location; c) The proposal is ancillary to the industrial and business uses; d) There is no unacceptable detrimental impact on the availability of employment land; and e) The economic benefit that the proposal can bring to the area is demonstrated. 7.5 Policy E6 relates to Tourism development and supports the development of new and existing tourist facilities throughout the Council area where there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, and they avoid adverse impacts on the green network and built heritage and are in accordance with other relevant policies within the plan. Policy E7 relates to Glasgow Airport and does not permit development that would adversely impact on the operation of the Airport. Glasgow Airport has offered no objections subjection to conditions relating to the building details and a Bird Hazard Management Plan. 7.6 Policy BE2 relating to Listed Buildings states that development that would adversely affect the special interest, character or setting of a listed building will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated and it meets certain criteria. The proposal is acceptable with reference to this policy. The proposal is acceptable with reference to these policies. Page 22
Page 23
7.7 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. Subject to conditions, there is no conflict with these policies. 7.8 Policies ENV8 relates to Air, Light and Noise Pollution and Policy ENV9 Contaminated Land. Policy CON1 requires development proposals to accord with Designing Streets, the National Roads Development Guidelines, and be in alignment with the provisions of the Regional and Local Transport Strategies. Developments which do not meet these requirements will not be acceptable unless sufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate why a departure from these strategies is required. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal complies with the National Roads Development Guidelines. 7.9 Policy ENV10 relates to unstable land and states that in areas of past coal mining activity, developers will be required to establish the nature and extent of any land instability. Where land instability is present and a risk is identified, remediation works will be required to ensure that the site can be made safe and stable for its future use. The applicant has not provided a Coal Mining Risk Assessment and as such compliance with the policy cannot be established. 7.10 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail below. Specifically, it is concluded that the proposal is not in accordance with Policy ENV10 of the proposed Local Development Plan 2. Creating Places Guidance and Green Network and Green Infrastructure Guidance 7.11 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 and it is considered this is achieved. Subject to conditions, no conflicts are expected to arise with the guidance. Principle of Development 7.12 Queens Quay is the largest and most significant regeneration opportunity in West Dunbartonshire, covering an area of 41 hectares to the south of Clydebank Town Centre and fronting onto the River Clyde. It lies within the Clydebank Waterfront Strategic Economic Investment Location which supports the key sectors of business and financial services, as well as life sciences. 7.13 The proposed site is allocated as site LE1(4) within the adopted Local Plan (LP) and site E1(15) in the proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2). Whilst these are business and industry allocations, intended for Use Classes 4 and 5, Policy E2 of LDP2 allows for alternative uses of business and industrial land in certain circumstances. Given the location of the proposal, within the vicinity of the West College Scotland – Clydebank Campus, Clydebank Leasure Centre and business centre it is considered that a hotel will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding uses. The adjacent E1(8) allocation through LDP2 is also for Class 4 and 5 and would not be sterilised from use through the erection of a hotel. The proposal for a hotel has the potential to enhance the attractiveness of the area, particularly given its current vacant nature. There remains allocated employment land within Clydebank and as such it is considered that there will be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the availability of employment land. Page 23
Page 24
7.14 The Development Strategy for Queens Quay and Queens Quay Policy 1 - Land to the West of Garth Drive supports the proposed allocation of Plots 4 and 5 for commercial, hotel or restaurant development, or a mixture of these uses Business, Industrial, Commercial and Restaurant uses. Hotel or commercial leisure uses will also be considered in this area where the criteria in Policy E2 are met. As stated above it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy E2. 7.15 It is therefore considered that there is support within both the adopted and proposed plans for a hotel development in this location and is consistent with policies outlined above. It therefore rests to consider whether there are any other material planning considerations that suggest that the proposal would be unacceptable. Design, Appearance and Visual Amenity 7.16 The application is for a planning permission in principle and as such detailed drawings are not required to be submitted. The application has been submitted with indicative drawings and visuals. The design concept proposed through the visualisations is striking and modern. Whilst elevation drawings have been provided, these are not to scale. Reference is made in the pre-app document to an anticipated overall height of 20-23 metres to parapet with five stories indicated within the drawings. The adjacent college is four stories high at its highest point and the Titan Enterprise business centre is three stories. Aurora House is 23.36m in height for comparison. Subject to detailed designs and materials being submitted, the principle of a five-storey hotel of 20-23m in height in this location is acceptable. There is also nothing to suggest that a suitable approach to the wider site in terms of hard and soft landscaping could not be achieved. 7.17 The addition of such a building would be a positive addition to the most significant regeneration opportunity within the Council area. Subject to conditions relating to final design of the hotel, a modern design of the indicated massing would be acceptable in this location. Traffic, parking and sustainable transport 7.18 The applicant’s supporting documentation submitted states that the scheme adopted a deliberately car-lite approach that builds on the site’s public transport accessibility and riverside walk/cycle connections. The Transport Assessment and Travel Plan notes that the car park will provide approximately 25-30 spaces including, 2 accessible bays, 4 electric vehicle charging bays and 2 loading/servicing spaces. 10 secure and covered cycle stands are also to be provided. The pre-app document references 40- 45 on site spaces, 8 of which are accessible with 12 electric vehicle charge points to be installed. 70 long-stay cycle spaces for staff and guests as well as 12 short-stay spaces are also indicated. 7.19 The Roads Service were consulted on the application and have noted that the proposal is not in compliance with the National Road Development Guide (NRDG). Council’s work off a baseline of 1.2 spaces per bedroom for a hotel which in this instance equates to 154-163 spaces. Based on NRDG of 1 space per 2.5 bedspaces the proposal would require 102-109 spaces. The proposed provision of either 25-30 or 40-45 spaces therefore falls short of the expected minimum. This also does not include parking for any restaurant/café and the public floor area and number of staff is not provided. 7.20 The Roads Service consultation notes that 5% of the total provision of parking should be for accessible parking and note that the proposed 8 accessible spaces would be acceptable. The provision of 12 active electric vehicle charge points with infrastructure for 12 more is acceptable and aligns with NRDG. 70 long-stay and 12-short stay cycle spaces exceeds NRDG but does not compensate for any deficit in parking. Page 24
Page 25
7.21 The Roads Service have stated that whilst a car lite development has been proposed, the application does not acknowledge that the nearest public transport provision for busses is 400m for eastbound and 500m for westbound from the development and 600m from rail connections. The Roads Service have recommended that the parking provision does not comply with NRDG standards, even when considering the site proximity to public transport links and that the proposal should be revised to ensure sufficient capacity. 7.22 These points were highlighted to the applicant’s agent and confirmation was sought on whether the proposal could provide the parking levels as stated within the consultation response as the shortfall shown is 59%. The applicant has stated that no further details will be provided as part of this application for planning permission in principle. Given the size of the site there are concerns that the parking may not be achievable on the site and no solutions have been provided by the agent or applicant. Whilst a question therefore remains on how adequate parking provision could be accommodated on site, it is recognised that the application is considered in principle only. The final design of the site and accommodation provided in any proposed building would require to be undertaken in the context of the parking requirements for a development of this nature. Any granting of permission would require a condition which ensures that the required parking levels are provided within the site. Flood risk and water management 7.23 Policy 22 (Flood risk and water management) of NPF4 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. Policy 22 states that development proposals at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported in certain circumstances, including the redevelopment of previously used sites in built up areas where the LDP has identified a need to bring these into positive use and where proposals demonstrate that long - term safety and resilience can be secured in accordance with relevant SEPA advice. In such cases, it will be demonstrated by the applicant that: all risks of flooding are understood and addressed; there is no reduction in floodplain capacity, increased risk for others, or a need for future flood protection schemes; the development remains safe and operational during floods; flood resistant and resilient materials and construction methods are used; and future adaptations can be made to accommodate the effects of climate change. As the proposal is within the Queens Quay Development Strategy policy area, it is identified as being required to be brought into positive use. The Council’s Road Service offer no objections on flooding grounds but highlight the need for a detailed Flood Risk Assessment for the site through condition. Similarly, SEPA provide no objections subject to the addition of a condition relating to a Flood Risk assessment submission. It is considered that subject to this condition the development proposal is acceptable with reference to with the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan policies and Policy 22 of NPF4. Ecology, biodiversity and protected species 7.24 The site is laid with hardcore with limited rough vegetation. No concerns arise in respect of ecology and biodiversity. The Inner Clyde Special Protection Area (SPA) classified for its overwintering Redshank is some 490 metres from the application site, significantly beyond the distance that necessitates a consultation with NatureScot. No concerns therefore arise in this respect. The approach to biodiversity enhancement will require to be set out within the detail of the development and this requirement can be addressed by condition. Page 25
Page 26
Ground conditions 7.25 The Council’s Environmental Health Service were consulted on the application and recommend conditions relating to contaminated land. It is agreed that this can be addressed by condition and such an approach can ensure that the site is, or can be, made suitable for its intended use. 7.26 The site is located within a development high risk area and coal outcrop area as defined by The Coal Authority. This area runs in a strip from the former Playdrome site, down towards the current planning application site and then crosses the River Clyde. As such the Coal Authority has been consulted on the application. The response raised “fundamental concern” and the Coal Authority have objected. The Coal Authority highlighted the requirement for a Coal Mining Risk Assessment in order to interpret and assess the coal mining risks present. The requirement for a Coal Mining Risk Assessment was passed to the agent for the application however the applicant has confirmed that they do not intend to submit further reports and that they wish for the application to proceed to determination with the current information. 7.27 Policy 9 of NPF4 part c) and policy ENV10 of the LDP2 relate to unstable land, with Policy 9 stating that where land is known or suspected to be unstable or contaminated, development proposals will demonstrate that the land is, or can be made, safe and suitable for the proposed new use. As a Coal Mining Risk Assessment has not been provided it is not possible to determine if the land is or can be made safe for development in this instance. The proposal therefore does not comply with these policies. Other matters 7.28 Matters relating to the construction phase of the development, including those highlighted by Environmental Health in their consultation response including dust, noise, working hours and piling can be addressed by condition. Matters raised by Glasgow Airport can be addressed by condition and assessed further in the context of the detailed design of any development. 7.29 The approach to incorporate renewable energy technologies can be addressed by condition. The expectation would be that the development would be designed to connect to the energy centre unless it was demonstrated beyond doubt by the applicant that this was not practicable of feasible. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 The desire for a hotel within the Queens Quay site has long been established, with Development Strategy policy within the proposed Local Development Plan 2 stating that there is support for Plots 4 and 5 for commercial, hotel or restaurant development or a mixture of these uses. The proposal includes indicative images of a bold and modern designed building which has the possibility to add to the high-quality design of the existing development that proceeded at Queens Quay. 8.2 Concerns have been raised by the Council’s Roads Service which have not been addressed by the applicant through the planning application. Given that this is an application for planning permission in principle, it may be that the final design can accommodate the required level of parking. Any granting of permission would require to be appropriately conditioned to ensure that the parking is provided. 8.3 The Coal Authority have raised fundamental concerns with the application and have requested a Coal Mining Risk Assessment due to the proposal’s location within high- risk area and coal outcrop area. This information has not been provided by the Page 26
Page 27
applicant and as such it is not possible to determine if the land can be made safe in accordance with part c) of Policy 9 of NPF4 and Policy ENV10 of the LDP2. Whilst the applicant has requested that this be conditioned as part of the Planning Permission in Principle, the absence of this information means that the principle of the proposal in this location cannot be established. This concern is not outweighed by the potential benefits of the development of other policy support. As such it is recommended that planning permission be refused. 9. REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The proposal has not demonstrated that the land is, or can be, made safe and suitable for the proposed use as a Class 7 hotel with associated infrastructure. Accordingly, the proposal is not supported by Policy 9 c) of National Planning Framework 4 together with Policy ENV10 of the proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 14th January 2026 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 Appendix: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application forms and plans 2. Consultation responses 3. National Planning Framework 4 4. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 5. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended 7. Creating Places Guidance (2022) Wards affected: Ward 6 (Clydebank Waterfront) Page 27
Page 28
West Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street Dumbarton G82 1QL Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO © Crown copyright and database right 2015. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100020790 Date: 29 December 2025 DC25/182/PPP Planning Permission in Principle for a Class 7 hotel with cafe/restaurant, meeting rooms and rooftop lounge. Car-lite layout with modest parking/cycle storage, single access from south/east and screened servicing. Flood-resilient with SuDS Development Site At Ossian Way Clydebank ITEM 6a - APPENDIX 1 Page 28
Page 29
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 14th January 2026 _____________________________________________________________ DC25/163/MOD: Modification of Planning Obligation entered into under a Section 75 agreement associated with Planning Permission DC20/253. 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 The application seeks to modify an obligation within a Section 75 Planning Agreement associated with planning permission DC20/253, which was determined by the Planning Committee. It therefore requires to be determined by the Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 That the Committee indicate agreement to the Grant the modification of the obligation in the Section 75 agreement associated with permission DC20/253, and delegate authority to the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager and Legal Services to conclude the modification. 3. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 Auchencarroch Landfill Site is located to the south-east of Jamestown and lies between the open hills of Auchencarroch and Pappert Hill. It sits in a natural plateau and, although the site itself is hidden by the rising landform in front, the access road is visible from Auchencarroch Road. The site has few neighbouring sensitive receptors, with the closest residential property being Mid Auchencarroch Farmhouse, the owner of which is an interested party cited on the existing legal agreement. Other agricultural holdings, primarily used for livestock grazing, surround the site in all directions. 3.2 Landfill operations on the site began in 1995, with planning permission granted in 2004 (DC02/324) to increase the lifespan of the facility by extending the landfill area. Planning permission DC07/233/FUL allowed for the further extension of the site to the south-east, with landfill workings extended by 14.4 ha (8 cells) to 27.4ha within a total area of 43.2ha The DC07/233/FUL permission allowed for land raising to continue the overall height of the existing restored landform in an easterly direction, with the finished landform of the existing and extended landfill forming a low hill covered with heathland vegetation. Adjacent to the site, also operated by the current applicant (Barr Environmental Ltd), is a materials recycling facility (MRF) which was granted permission in 2013. The MRF separates out recyclable material from waste before the latter goes to landfill. ITEM 6b Page 29
Page 30
3.3 A restoration scheme, which was agreed as part of the original planning permission, is based on an approach of progressive capping of the completed landfill cells, with the final restoration including the planting of woodland and linear strips of hedgerow, typical heathland grass species will be seeded, peat will be stripped and translocated to the restored profiles forming an acid heathland habitat. The reedbeds and surface water lagoons will be managed to form wetland areas with diverse planting of species, and a small area will become agricultural grassland forming a permanent pasture for sheep grazing. To ensure that there would be sufficient funds to cover the detailed level of restoration and aftercare required, a bond value of £120,000, to be held by the Council during active landfilling operations, with reduced amounts held for a 30 year period following the cessation of the landfilling operations, was secured through a Section 75 legal agreement between the Council, landowner and developer, dated 29/08/2008. 3.4 In December 2022, planning permission DC20/253 was granted to amend Condition 1 of permission DC07/233/FU, in order to extend the time of the approved landfilling operation and restoration by a further two years, to 2024 and 2026 respectively. While the existing Restoration Plan was carried forward unchanged, it was acknowledged that the existing restoration bond value required to be increased to cover the 2-year time extension. Following Committee approval, the existing Section 75 legal agreement was reviewed and updated to include a £1 million bond value. The agreement, which was signed on the 30/12/2022, included definitions of the Restoration Plan and the Mitigation and Restoration Requirements. 3.5 Landfill operations on the site ceased early in March 2024, with only 5 cells out of the 8 additional cells approved under DC07/233/FUL being constructed and filled due to the impacts arising from a number of political, environmental and economic policy changes. This included household waste being recycled at source, landfill tax escalators and the Biodegradable Municipal Waste Ban, which combined to make the landfill operation commercially untenable. With the cessation of landfill activities, site works now relate solely to specific restoration and regulatory aftercare. 3.6 In June 2025, planning permission DC24/197/FUL was granted to vary Condition 2 of the DC20/253 permission. This variation allowed for an updated restoration masterplan, which took account of the early cessation of landfill operations and the 3 undeveloped cells, to be implemented. The DC24/197/FUL permission also included a variation to Condition 14 of DC24/197/FUL, to allow for the retention of the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) building. Notwithstanding the grant of this application, the obligations set out in the Section 75 as concluded under DC20/253 which link to the restoration bond remain, as does the bond. 3.7 This application proposes to modify the obligation in the Section 75 agreement associated with permission DC20/253, in order to take account of the updated Restoration Plan approved under DC24/197/FUL. The proposed modification, which relates to Clause 1.1 ‘Definitions’ of the agreement, is as follows: Replace the definition of ‘Restoration Plan’ with, “‘Restoration Plan’ means the Restoration Plan dated January 2025, a full copy of which is set out in the Page 30
Page 31
Schedule to this document or such other restoration plan as may be agreed in writing with the Council (acting reasonably).” Replace the definition of ‘Mitigation and Restoration Requirements with, “‘Mitigation and Restoration Requirements’ means the actions set out in the Restoration Plan as required under the conditions of planning permission DC24/197/FUL, granted 4 June 2025 (as defined within the supplementary planning agreement).” 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 None required. 5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 None received. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Framework 4 (2023) 6.1 Policy 1 states that significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises when considering all development proposals, with Policy 3 seeking to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. No concerns arise in respect of these policies. 6.2 Policy 5 aims to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development, with Policy 6 supporting proposals which enhance, expand and improve woodland and tree cover. Policy 7 seeks to protect the historic environment, including archaeological sites. The proposal raises no concerns with respect to these policies. 6.3 Policy 12 sets out the circumstances in which development proposals for new or extended landfill sites will be supported. The proposal is not for a new or extended landfill site and the modification sought to the legal agreement does not alter the Restoration Plan granted permission under DC24/197/FUL. As such, the proposal does conflict with the requirements of the policy. 6.4 Policy 23 seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, and promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. No concerns arise in respect of these policies. 6.5 It is considered that the application complies with the relevant policies above, as set out in the assessment below. West Dunbartonshire Adopted Local Plan 2010 6.6 Policy PS1 seeks to protect established public utility, social and community facilities, as identified on the Proposals Map. The application site at Auchencarroch is identified on the Proposals Map under this policy. The proposal does not conflict Page 31
Page 32
with this policy as landfill operations have ceased on the site and the proposal modification to the legal agreement relates to a Restoration Plan that was approved under DC24/197/FUL. 6.7 Policy E1 aims to ensure the conservation of biodiversity, with Policy E3A seeking to ensure that development proposals do not have an adverse effect on the integrity or character of Local Nature Conservation Sites. Policy E9 requires that development proposals will have regard to the landscape character and distinctiveness of the Plan area and of adjoining areas. Proposals which are detrimental to the landscape will not generally be supported. Policy BE5 seeks to ensure that cultural heritage resources, including archaeological sites, are not adversely affected. Policies F1 and F2 aim to ensure that new development is not at risk from, and does not increase the risk of flooding, and has suitable SuDS drainage infrastructure. No concerns arise in respect of these matters. 6.8 It is considered that the application complies with the relevant policies above, as set out in the assessment below. West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 6.9 On 15 March 2023, the Planning Committee took a decision that the Council would not adopt Local Development Plan 2. The Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), incorporating the recommended modifications of the Examination Report received on 22 April 2020, which were accepted by the Planning Committee of 19 August 2020, remains the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore afforded significant weight in the assessment and determination of planning applications, subject to compatibility with NPF4. The Scottish Ministers’ Direction relating to the adoption of LDP2, dated 18 December 2020, is also a material consideration. 6.10 The site is identified as an existing waste management facility by Policy ZW1 and associated Table 10. Policy ZW1 requires that all such development meets the aims of the Zero Waste Plan and follows the development principles of the Waste Hierarchy. While the policy includes criteria for the assessment of new waste management facilities, this application is not proposing a new facility, rather a modification to the existing section 75 legal agreement, in order for the updated Restoration Plan approved under DC24/197/FUL to be reflected in the agreement. As such, the proposal raises no concerns with respect to this policy. 6.11 Policy MIN2 requires appropriate financial guarantees in respect of restoration. The policy relates to minerals extraction rather than landfill sites, but the general principles of the Policy are considered relevant. The proposal raises no concerns in relation to the policy as it does not seek to reduce the existing £1 million bond value. 6.12 Policy ENV1 addresses nature conservation and requires developments to conserve biodiversity and habitat networks, both within and adjacent to sites of special designation, together with non-designated habitats and protected species. Policy ENV2 requires development to be sited and designed to relate to the existing landscape character and ensure the integrity of landscape character is maintained. Policy BE1, ENV4 ENV5 and ENV6 are similar to the cultural heritage, water environment and flooding policies of the adopted Local Plan. Policy CP1 Page 32
Page 33
requires all new development to contribute towards creating successful places. No concerns arise with respect to these policies. 6.13 The proposed modification to the section 75 agreement is considered to comply with the policies of proposed Local Development Plan 2. 7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 This application is made under the Town and Country Planning (Modification and Discharge of Planning Obligations) (Scotland) Regulations 2010, which introduced a right to apply to the Planning Authority to have a Planning Obligation modified or discharged. 7.2 Section 75A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 explains that in determining an application for modification or discharge of a planning obligation, the planning authority may decide that the obligation – a) is to continue to have effect without modification, b) is discharged, or c) is to have effect subject to the modifications specified in the application. 7.3 In assessing this application to modify the obligation within the section 75 agreement, the material considerations are national policy and guidance, the development plan and the planning history of the site. While there are no policies within NPF4, the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 Local Development Plan which specifically address applications to modify planning obligations, it must be considered whether the proposed modification will effect matters covered by these Plans, including impacts on landscape and visual amenity, ecology, flood risk, biodiversity, cultural heritage and health and safety. Principle of Development 7.4 The application site is identified in the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 as a waste management site and was operated as a landfill, in accordance with planning permissions DC02/324, DC07/233/FUL and DC20/253 until landfill activities ceased in March 2024. The DC07/233/FUL and DC20/253 permissions also included a Restoration Masterplan. As such, the principle of landfill operations and site restoration are established. Landfill operations ceased before the 23/12/2024, in accordance with condition 1 of the DC20/053 permission, and this application does not propose any amendment to Condition 1 to allow further landfilling on site. 7.5 In light of the above, this application does not revisit the principle of a waste management use and associated site restoration, it only considers the appropriateness of a modification to the section 75 legal agreement attached to the DC20/253 consent. In this case, the application seeks to modify the section 75 agreement, specifically by removing references to the original Restoration Plan and replacing these with references to the updated Restoration Plan approved under DC24/197/FUL. As such, it is acceptable with respect to Policy 12, Policy PS 1 and Policy ZW1. Page 33
Page 34
Landscape, Visual Amenity, Ecology, Water Environment, Flood Risk, Health and Safety and Cultural Heritage. 7.6 The application advises that a significant amount of the works in the Restoration Plan approved under DC24/197/FUL, were completed in 2025. The remaining restoration works, as at 26/11/2025, are summarised as follows; completion to capping works of cell 2, creation of woodland planting, hydro seeding to areas of site. 7.7 The proposed modification will have a neutral effect in terms of landscape character, visual amenity, ecology, water environment, flood risk, health and safety and cultural heritage as it does not seek to change the Restoration Plan approved under DC24/197/FUL. As such, the remaining works in the amended Restoration Plan will be completed, as approved under DC24/197/FUL. In light of this, the proposal presents no conflict with Policies 1, 3, 5 and 23 of the NPF4, Policies E1, E3A, E9, BE5, F1 and F2 of the adopted Local Plan, and Policies BE1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV 5 and ENV6 of the proposed Local Development Plan 2. Restoration Bond 7.8 The Council holds a financial bond of £1,000,000 for the application site to ensure that the restoration works are completed in full. It is noted that the bond was recently extended from 31/12/2025 to 31/03/2026, with a copy of the Bond Certificate submitted with this application. The application does not propose to reduce the existing bond value in the section 75 agreement and, as such, it will have a neutral effect. It is, however, noted that the legal agreement includes a clause which allows the bond value to be reduced if the value is considered excessive relative to the restoration and aftercare obligations. As the updated Restoration Plan approved under DC24/197/FUL reduces the restoration requirements, primarily due to the 3 undeveloped cells not requiring restoration, the proposed modification to the section 75 agreement could, potentially, allow the existing bond value to be amended in the future, subject to a request by the signatories to the agreement. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 This proposal seeks permission for a modification to the section 75 legal agreement associated with planning permission DC24/197/FUL. Specifically, it is proposed to replace references to the original Restoration Plan, made in the ‘definitions’ section of the agreement, with references to the updated Restoration Plan approved under DC24/197/FUL. 8.2 Overall, the proposed modification would have no material impact on the application site, and no concerns would arise with reference to the NPF4, the adopted Local Plan and the proposed Local Development Plan 2. The proposal enables the existing section 75 agreement to be modified to take account of the updated Restoration Masterplan approved under DC24/197/FUL, while still ensuring that the developed part of the site is fully restored. 9. CONDITIONS 9.1 Not applicable. Page 34
Page 35
Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 14th January 2026 ______________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Email: Michael.Mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: james.mccoll@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application documents and plans 2. National Planning Framework 4 3. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 4. West Dunbartonshire LDP - Proposed Plan 2 5. The Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 6. Planning permission DC07/233/FUL 7. Planning permission DC20/253 8. Planning permission DC24/194/FUL Page 35
Page 36
West Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street Dumbarton G82 1QL Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO © Crown copyright and database right 2015. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100020790 Date: 29 December 2025 DC25/163/MOD Modification of Planning Obligation entered into under a Section 75 agreement associated with Planning Permission DC20/253 Landfill Site Auchincarroch Road Jamestown Alexandria G83 9EY APPENDIX 1 ITEM 6b - Page 36
Page 37
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 14th January 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Subject: Local Place Plan Validation – Alexandria Local Place Plan 1 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to validate and register the Alexandria Local Place Plan 1. 2. Recommendation 2.1 It is recommended that Planning Committee approves the validation of the Alexandria Local Place Plan 1, as set out in Appendix 1. Once approved, the Alexandria Local Place Plan 1 will be placed on the Register of Local Place Plans. 3. Background 3.1 The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 give new powers to communities to prepare Local Place Plans for their area, as well as placing associated duties on Planning Authorities and amends The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Local Place Plans are community led plans which set out proposals for the development and use of land. A Local Place Plan, must be prepared by a Community Council or another Community Controlled Body, as defined by the Community Empowerment Act. 3.2 Planning Committee approved an approach to local place plans and a package of measures to support communities prepare them on 20th of September 2023. This included giving officers authority to issue the invitation to prepare Local Place Plans to communities which took place in October 2023. This approach to Local Place Plans set out that officers would submit recommendations in relation to validation of a Local Place Plan to Planning Committee 3.3 The invitation to prepare Local Place Plans was issued to organisations and individuals in the Local Development Plan participant database on 16 October 2023. A public notice was also placed in the Clydebank Post and Lennox Herald on 25 October and 31 October 2023, respectively. A Local Place Plan webpage has also been created at https://www.west- dunbarton.gov.uk/council/key-council-documents/local-development- planning/local-place-plans. ITEM 7 Page 37
Page 38
3.4 Although they can be prepared at any time prior to the preparation of the Proposed Plan, West Dunbartonshire Council has advised that Local Place Plans should be submitted to the council for validation by the end of June 2026. This will allow the Local Place Plans to be taken into account in the preparation of the new Local Development Plan. 3.5 Alexandria Local Place Plan 1 has been prepared by Alexandria Community Council and other partner organisations for an area of Alexandria Town Centre, including Mitchell Way, St Andrew’s Churchyard, and cemetery as well as the access routes to these sites. 4. Main Issues 4.1 The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 sets out the requirement for the Council, as Planning Authority, to validate and register Local Place Plans which meet paragraphs 1(4) and 2(1) of Schedule 19 of the Act. This requirement is further expanded upon by The Town and Country Planning (Local Place Plans) (Scotland) Regulations 2021. The validation only considers the requirements of legislation and is not an assessment of the proposals within the Local Place Plans, therefore no consideration can be given to the content of proposals within the Local Place Plan. The proposals within a registered local place plan will be reviewed as part of the Local Development Plan process. 4.2 Officers have worked with members of Alexandria Community Council to ensure that requirements of validation have been met prior to submission. This includes ensuring that the plan contains information, such as a statement of the community body’s proposals and relevant mapping; evidence that the community body has taken the required notification requirements before submitting the Local Place Plan; and that required additional information, such as contact details have been provided. Appendix 2: sets out the Validation Assessment of the Alexandria Local Place Plan 1 in line with the requirements of the Act and regulations referred to in Section 4.1 of this report. It is recommended that Members agree to validate the Local Place Plan in line with the assessment. 4.3 Validated Local Place Plans are registered and published. They are a key part of early engagement in the Local Development Plan process and will inform the preparation of Local Development Plan 3. They may also be material considerations in the assessment of planning applications. Circular 1/2022: Local Place Plans advises community bodies may wish to consider whether proposals contained within a local place plan could form part of representations on individual planning applications. 5. People Implications 5.1 There are no people implications associated with this report. 6. Financial and Procurement Implications Page 38
Page 39
6.1 There are no financial or procurement implications associated with this report. 7. Risk Analysis 7.1 If the Council decides not to register a Local Place Plan on the basis that it is not valid in terms of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, and The Town and Country Planning (Local Place Plans) (Scotland) Regulations 2021, the authority must give their reasons for reaching that view to the Community Body that submitted the Local Place Plan. Planning Authorities are encouraged to provide clear reasons behind the decision, so that the Community Body can rectify any issues and re- submit the Local Place Plan. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) 8.1 The Equality Impact Assessments for the Council’s approach to Local Place plans were reported to the Planning Committee dated 20 September 2023. 9. Consultation 9.1 The Alexandria Local Place Plan 1 has been prepared by Alexandria Community Council in consultation with the local community. Alexandria Community Council has submitted evidence that neighbouring Community Councils, and local Councillors have been notified of the publication of the Local Place Plan and given a period of 28 days within which to respond. 9.2 On registration, officers will circulate the Alexandria Local Place Plan 1 to other services for noting. 10. Strategic Assessment 10.1 The new Local Development is 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 Page 39
Page 40
Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 7 October 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, Michael.mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Clare Laurenson, Principal Officer Development Planning & Place clare.laurenson@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendices: Appendix 1: Alexandria Local Place Plan 1 Appendix 2: Information Notice Appendix 3: Alexandria Local Place Plan 1 – Validation Assessment Background Papers: Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Local Place Plans) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 Circular 1/2022: Local Place Plans Wards Affected: Leven Page 40
Page 41
Alexandria Local Place Plan 1 October 2025 Introduction A Local Place Plan (LPP) is a community-led plan setting out proposals for the development and use of land. Local Place Plans, offer communities the opportunity to develop proposals for their local area, expressing their aspirations and ambitions for future development. Alexandria Community Council is pleased to introduce this limited Place Plan developed for the people of Alexandria. This LPP was developed by the Community Council and partner organisations who live, work and care about Alexandria. These are: • The Vale of Leven Trust • Tullichewan Tenants and Residents Association • Central Alexandria Tenants and Residents Association • Alexandria BID Company (Alexandria Traders) In preparing this LPP the Community Council and partners have had regard for National Planning Framework 4, West Dunbartonshire’s Adopted Local Development ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 1 Page 41
Page 42
Plan (2010), West Dunbartonshire’s Proposed Local Development Plan (2020) and Leven Locality Plan 2024 (Leven Locality Plan). The local place plan shares several of the themes and priorities specified in Leven Locality Plan (2024): • Improvements to the town centres- LPP provides a tangible, site-based regeneration proposal. • Health and Wellbeing- LPP creation of an accessible and inclusive space. • Community Spaces and Activities- LPP seeks to designate land for community and cultural use. • Traffic Parking and Pavements- LPP proposes pavement improvements and access improvements. • The local economy, jobs and employment- LPP proposes infrastructure to foster local enterprise and footfall. Consideration was also given to the consultations our community has contributed to over recent years where the future of Alexandria Town Centre was deliberated. These include Alexandria Masterplan2030 Vision (2021). This limited LPP is Local Place Plan 1 for Alexandria, and the intention is to develop a further plan that encompasses a wider area. The focus of LPP 1 are two sites within the area shown on the map below. These are: • Mitchell Way • St. Andrew’s Church yard and cemetery. Both these sites have seen significant change in recent years with the demolition of St. Andrew’s Church following a fire and the demolition a block of flats on Mitchell Way. LPP1 will present ideas for the future of these two sites and how and why they should be used to both benefit the people of Alexandria and enhance our community. To comment or ask any questions about LPP1 please contact Alexandria Community Council: Harry McCormack (Secretary) Alexandria Community Council c/o Tullichewan Community Flat 2/1 McGregor Walk, Alexandria. G81 0JE harrymccormack.alexandriacc@gmail.com Page 42
Page 43
What does the LPP1 cover LPP1 covers Mitchell Way, St. Andrew’s Churchyard and cemetery and the access routes to these sites. About Alexandria Established as a town in the early 18th century, Alexandria expanded significantly due to the textile industry locating on the banks of the river Leven. Just over 6000 people live within Alexandria (2022) and over 20,000 people living in the surrounding Vale of Leven. Alexandria is the heart of the Vale of Leven though this may seem unlikely to any casual observer of our town. Like town centres across Scotland, Alexandria suffered from decline due to the loss of industry and lack of investment in the area. Despite its issues, Alexandria has a thriving and active community life. Our partners in developing LPP1 include The Vale of Leven Trust. Their actions have brough impetus, activities and engagement to the town. The same is true of Central Alexandria Tenant and Residents Association whose volunteers have created and tend to growing spaces in and around Alexandria- adding colour and life. Recent and future developments in Alexandria will help improve the look and feel of the town. Developments include the Green Corridors in and around Alexander Street and down to the Leven, the improvement work done to the Smollett Fountain and proposed Mitchell Way uplift. Page 43
Page 44
Mitchell Way Mitchell Way was until 2023 a “major eyesore” (Masterplan 2021) and in need of urgent attention. In previous decades, Mitchell Way had been a busy street with a variety of shops, businesses and local services. However, in the recent past it became a dark, dirty and miserable place for the few shops and businesses that remained in the street; shoppers and the community lived in darkness in the shadow of decaying flats. West Dunbartonshire Council listened to local people’s concerns and demolished the flats on the south side of Mitchell Way in late 2023. The difference this has had to Mitchell Way is immense. Sunlight now rains down on the remaining premises and on local people who visit them. The new open aspect of the street has created view to the hills and green spaces beyond Bonhill. “A heart for Alexandria- in the heart of the Vale” Further improvements are planned for Mitchell Way in the shape of WDC’s up-lifting Mitchell Way Project which will improve lighting, pavements etc. This work however doesn’t cover the footprint of the demolished flats. We propose that this newly opened area where the flats used to be is retained as open space within the next development plan and we support its developed and improvement as a public space in the future. We propose that the entire footprint of the previous flats is retained for open space. This could be a multi-use community space for Alexandria; Providing Alexandria’s town square and a heart for Alexandria. Page 44
Page 45
West Dunbartonshire’s Proposed Local Development Plan (2020) proposes this area be used for housing. We believe this to be a mistake and one suitable alternative sites for housing development are available now or soon will be available within Alexandria Town Centre. An example being the proposals at Gray Street. We believe that local people support this view. Alexandria Community Council carried out a survey at a recent Alexandria Market and almost 200 people gave their opinion on the future use of the site at Mitchell Way. 75% of those questioned wanted the space to be retained for community use with suggestions including: • A bandstand like Clydebank (Three Queens Square) • Seating and benches • Something like Colquhoun Square, Helensburgh • Coffee and food carts • Skate and play equipment A place where local people can gather, where community events and performances can be held would be of great benefit to Alexandria. We believe the benefit to local people in terms of community cohesion, reduced isolation and mental wellbeing can justify this cost. The Alexandria BID Company (formed by Alexandria Traders) has a vision of Alexandria Town Centre as a place where people will visit and stay for a while- be that local people or people from further afield. Alexandria Town Square has a contribution to make to that vision by increasing footfall in the Town Centre, increasing the likelihood of people staying longer to shop and spend locally thus, improving the local economy. National Planning Framework 4 defines the qualities of successful places. In developing the proposals in LPP1 consideration was given to these and reflect the following policy areas: • Health: Social Connectivity, environmentally positive places, Positive Social Interaction • Pleasant: Enjoyment-people feel at ease and spend more time outdoors • Sustainable: community and local living Page 45
Page 46
St. Andrew’s Churchyard and Cemetery St. Andrew’s Church was built in 1840 and was a place of worship for 155 years before it closed in 1995. It was used as a children’s soft-play for a time but lay unused from 2012. There were plans to reopen St. Andrews as an arts and creative space prior to the Covid pandemic but these never really got off the ground, though some funding was secured and preliminary works carried out on the building. The Church was, however, seriously damaged by fire in April 2022 and subsequently demolished on safety grounds in October 2022. The churchyard has been locked since and no access to the cemetery permitted. The cemetery has several historically significant graves within including the Smollett Mausoleum. In the Local Plan 2010 and LDP 2020 the Church and Yard is not designated as protected open space. We propose that it should be retained and designated as protected open space within the next local development plan. The footprint of St. Andrew’s Church is privately owned. We propose that through negotiation with the current owners, the site is taken into public and, eventually, community ownership. Community or public ownership would allow the community to decide a fitting way to use the space vacated by the Church and allow access to the Churchyard. Suggestions include a garden of remembrance. The Churchyard is a place of cultural and local significance to the people of Alexandria, and it should be protected as such within the next local development plan. This is a new designation under National Planning Framework 4 and think it should apply to this site. The community partnership that is making this proposal have good community links and consult with local people regularly and are therefore confident that the proposals herein reflect community opinion and will have community backing. The Alexandria Masterplan consultation highlighted the importance of the then church and churchyard to the people of Alexandria. Access, Paths and Pavements The paths that connect Mitchell Way and St. Andrew’s Churchyard require attention. At a recent engagement event involving older people in Bridge Court Sheltered Housing, the condition of the pavements on Main Street was highlighted. These concerns are in the process of being addressed by WDC. However, some paths and pavements not within scope of the current plans require improvement: in some Page 46
Page 47
instances, this is simply a maintenance or cleaning issue, where others the problems are more serious. Good quality and well-maintained footpaths and pavements are essential to support accessibility and 20-minute neighbourhoods in line with NPF4.t Paved footpath connecting Bridge Street and Church Street. There are examples of desire paths which support access and 20-minute neighbourhood access across Alexandria. We propose that these are mapped, adopted and incorporated into the next local development plan. We note that the LDP 2020 shows areas of Alexandria Town Centre for public realm improvement we believe that this should be extended along Main Street to include Bridge Street and Church Street. Links to National Plans National Planning Framework 4 states that Local Development Plans should encourage the permanent or temporary use of unused or under-used land as green infrastructure and defines the qualities of successful places. In developing the proposals in LPP1 consideration was given to these and reflect the following policy areas: • Health: Social Connectivity and creating a sense of belonging and identity within the community environmentally positive places, Positive Social Interaction • Pleasant Places: positive social interactions including quality of public realm, civic spaces, streets and ensuring a lively and inclusive experience Enjoyment, enabling people to feel at ease, spend more time outdoors and take inspiration from their surroundings. Page 47
Page 48
• Sustainable: active local economy including opportunities for local jobs and training, work spaces, enabling working from home, supporting community enterprise and third sector community and local living including access to local services and facilities, education, community growing and healthy food options, play and recreation and digital connectivity Page 48
Page 49
Harry McCormack Wed 9/24/2025 1:01 PM Local Place Plan, Alexandria Balloch and Haldane Community Council <info@ballochhaldanecc.com>; Bonhill and Dalmonach Community Council <bonhill-dalmonachcc@outlook.com>; Ian Dickson <lan.Dickson@west- dunbarton.gov.uk>; John Millar <John.Millar@west dunbarton.gov.uk>; James Bollan <James.Bollan@west-dunbarton.gov.uk>; ; Michelle McGinty <Michelle.McGinty@west dunbarton.gov.uk>; Secretary HCC <secretary@helensburghcommunitycouncil.co.uk>; lussandardencommunitycouncil@gmail.com <lussandardencommunitycouncil@gmail.com> tit Outlook Outlook From Harry McCormack Date Wed Local Place Plan, Alexandria 9/24/2025 1 To :01 PM Balloch and Haldane Community Council <info@ballochhaldanecc.com>; Bonhill and Dalmonach Community Council <bonhill-dalmonachcc@outlook.com>; Ian Dickson <lan.Dickson@west- dunbarton.gov.uk>; John Millar External email • Contains topics of a financial nature Central Alexandria Community Place Plan 1 V2.pdf; 1 attachment (708 KB) Cc <John.Mil Dear All Attached is a draft Local Place Plan (LPP) for Alexandria. This was prepared in July and August 2025 by a group led by Alexandria Community Council. Our partners in developing the LPP are The Vale of Leven Trust, Central Alexandria Tenants and Residents Association and Tullichewan Tenants and Residents Association. lar@west dunbarton.gov.uk>; James Ballan <James.Bollan@west-dunbarton.gov.uk>; ; Michelle McGinty < Michelle. The LPP focuses on two sites within Alexandria Town Centre and Please review the document and email any comments to harrymccormack.alexandriacc@gmail.com or post them to: Development Plan. outlines proposed future use of these sites and recommendation for these proposals to be included in West Dunbartonshire's Local McGinty@west dunbarton.gov.uk>; Secretary HCC < 2/1 McGregor Walk, Alexandria, Harry McCormack (Secretary) secretary@helensburghcommunitycouncil.co.uk>; G83 OJE. lussandardencommunitycouncil@gma From Date To 1/2 https://outlook.office.com/mail/none/id/AAQkADM0ZGMzZDImLWJhMjctNIDIzOS1iOTE5LTkzMDM2MDY0Mjk0YwAQAA9tiBXDIfRKquaoa4z0IS8... Many thanks Please send your response or comments by Friday 24th October 2025. il.com <lussandardencommunitycouncil@gmail.com> Cc @1 attachment (708 KB) Central Alexandria Community Place Plan 1 V2.pdf; External email Contains topics of a financial Dear Attached is a draft Local Place Plan (LPP) for Alexandria. This was prepared in July and August 2025 by a group led by Alexandria Community Council. Our partners in developing the LPP are The Vale of All Leven Trust, Central Alexandria Tenants and Residents Association and Tullichewan Tenants and Residents The LPP focuses on two sites within Alexandria Town Centre and outlines proposed future use of these sites and recommendation for these proposals to be included in West Dunbartonshire's Local Please review the document and email any comments to harrymccormack.alexandriacc@gmail.com or post them to: 2/1 McGregor Walk, G83 0JE https://outlook.office.com/mail/none/id/AAQkADM0ZGMzZDlmLWJhMjctNDlzOS1iOTE5LTkzMDM2MDY0Mjk0YwAQAA9tiBXDlfRKquaoa4z0IS8.. 1/2 Many thanks Please send your response or comments by Friday 24th October 2025. . Alexandria, Harry McCormack (Secretary) Development Plan. Association. nature ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 2 Page 49
Page 50
Harry McCormack Secretary Alexandria Community Council 2/2 -- Harry McCormack Secretary Alexandria Community Council 2/2 Page 50
Page 51
Alexandria Local Place Plan 1 – Validation 11/12/2025 No. Submission requirement Circular paragraphs Status Notes 1 A copy of the finalised Local Place Plan The LPP should contain the following elements 2 A statement identifying the Community Body that has prepared the plan and its written constitution? Paras 12-17; 37; 40 Alexandria Community Council is identified as the community body 3 Map of the Boundary of the Local Place Plan. Paras 37; 41; 43 A map is provided on page 3 under heading “What does the LPP1 cover” 4 A statement of the Community Body’s proposals. Paras 18-21; 41- 45 Proposals are detailed under headings Mitchell Way; St Andrew’s Church and Cemetery; and Access, Paths, and Pavements 5 An additional Map identifying specific sites/locations detailed in the Community Bodies proposals. Paras 41-45 All proposals are shown on the map provided (page 3) under heading “What does the LPP1 cover” 6 A statement explaining how the Local Place Plan has regard to the Local Development, National Planning Framework and any applicable Locality Plans. Paras 25-31; 68- 69 A statement in relation to the Leven Locality Plan is detailed on page 2. A further statement in relation to the link to National Planning Framework 4 and the Local Development Plan is set out on pages 7 and 8. ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 3 Page 51
Page 52
7 A statement explaining how the proposals in the LPP align with, or differ from, the relevant policies and development proposals in the plans in 6 above, and why it considers that the Local Development Plan should be amended considering this. Paras 32-35; 70 Statements in relation to the Local Development Plan and National Planning Framework are set out in relation to each proposal: Mitchell Way; St Andrew’s Church and Cemetery; and Access, Paths, and Pavements. Evidence of compliance with the requirements of regulation 4. 8 A copy of the pre-submission Information Notice evidencing of compliance with the required contents. Paras 54-58 The notice has been submitted and is included Appendix 2. 9 Records of when and to whom the Information Notice was sent (required local councillors and community councils). Paras 49-53 These details are included in Appendix 2. Additional information that needs to be submitted. 10 Documents confirming the status of the Community Body, and a statement showing compliance with the definition of a Community Body (see Appendix 1 of Part 1 of this Guide). Paras 61-65 N/A Community Councils are not required to do this. (Para 62) 10* Contact details Para 65* An address has been provided. 11 Evidence of level of community support for the Local Place Plan and how CB reached that view. Paras 71-73 The local place plan includes details of partner organisations who have contributed to the plan as well as community engagement which has taken place. 12 Copies of additional relevant documents as appropriate. Paras 74-76 N/A No other documents referred to, other than council documents, which are excluded. Page 52
Page 53
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 14th January 2026 _____________________________________________________________ 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 19th January 2026 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 53
Page 54
(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 is 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 54
Page 55
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 55
Page 56
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 for 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 Initially objected noting that the application did 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), and that there was insufficient information to adequately assess the impact of the proposals. 5.9 Whilst the applicant has not provided an updated Heritage Impact Assessment following the submission of revised planting proposals, a site visit, updated plans and submitted visualisations have allowed HES to carry out their own assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on the setting of the Antonine Wall WHS and scheduled monument. 5.10 The proposed development is unlikely to appear in views as you travel along this section of the WHS and scheduled monument, and therefore the revised proposals would not interfere with how the WHS is understood as a linear monument and can be appreciated in the landscape. It is concluded that key views and relationships would be retained. 5.11 It is confirmed that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact the integrity of setting of the scheduled monument (SM6836) and Antonine Wall WHS to such a level that HES would object. Conditions are recommended in relating to the planting proposals. Page 56
Page 57
NatureScot 5.12 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 required to ascertain the presence of protected species. Further general advice is provided in the response. East Dunbartonshire Council 5.13 No objection. Glasgow City Council 5.14 No objection. Scottish Forestry 5.15 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 5.16 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) 5.17 No objections BT 5.18 This proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. No objections. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) 5.19 No objections. Scottish Water 5.20 No objections Office for Nuclear Regulation 5.21 No comments to make on the proposal HSE 5.22 The development is not located in any consultation zones and does not comprise hazardous substances. No further comments on the proposal. NATS 5.23 No objections. SGN 5.24 No objection. Page 57
Page 58
Transport Scotland 5.25 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. Glasgow Airport 5.26 No objections subject to conditions relating to details of soft and water landscaping and a bird hazard management plan. Parkhall Community Council 5.27 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 5.28 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 2581 representations have been received in connection with the proposal. 25 of these are in support and 256 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 points 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 create 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 Page 58
Page 59
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 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, Page 59
Page 60
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 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 considered that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that there are no sites outside the Green Belt for this development and this conflicts with the requirements of the 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. Page 60
Page 61
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. It is concluded that the proposal can be justified against the above 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. No concerns arise in respect of this Policy. 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 present 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 with specific reference to Policy 8. 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 fully demonstrated that this development cannot be accommodated on an alternative site out with the Green Belt. 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. Page 61
Page 62
The proposal can be accepted with reference to these matters as further assessed in Section 8 below 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. The proposal is acceptable with reference to this Policy. 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. The proposal can be accepted with reference to 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. Taking account of the response from WoSAS and HES, it is concluded that significant concerns in respect of the impact upon the Wall and its setting would not arise. 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 with reference to Policy GB1. Page 62
Page 63
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 meet all other policy requirements. It cannot be held that the proposal us supported by this Policy given the conflict with Policy GB1. 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. The proposal can be considered acceptable with reference to this Policy. 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 but are considered acceptable. 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 archaeological remains. This Policy also advises that where a scheduled monument or Page 63
Page 64
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. It is concluded that significant concerns in respect of the impact upon the Wall and its setting would not arise. 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. The development can be accepted with reference to this Policy 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 with reference to Policies GB1 and RE1. 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 As it can be concluded that significant concerns in respect of the impact upon the Wall and its setting would not arise, the proposal is acceptable with reference to 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 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 Page 64
Page 65
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. It is generally accepted that the closer the point of connection is, the more efficient the transmission would be, the cabling costs would likely more viable and there would be a reduced likelihood of physical obstacles preventing a connection being implemented. While this may be accepted from a technical perspective, it remains that it must be assessed whether the applicant’s 2km search area is appropriate, how site selection was approached by the applicant and whether Windyhill is the only grid connection point available to the applicant. 8.19 The applicant has submitted a site selection assessment in support of the proposal to set out why the Green Belt location is essential and that there are no sites that could Page 65
Page 66
accommodate this development out with the Green Belt. This acknowledges that for proposals of this nature, each developer will have their own site selection criteria, including distance to the available connection point. The applicant also sets out that the availability of land is an important limiting factor to site selection. Within the assessment, there is reference to one other possible site which the applicant notes as unavailable, although this site is not specifically identified. The site selection assessment does not provide any detailed comparative analysis of possible sites which were considered as potentially being capable of accommodating the development within the 2km radius of the Windyhill substation. The applicant, however, concludes that that within the 2km search area, there is no land within the built-up area within West Dunbartonshire, which is largely residential in character, that could be considered suitable to accommodate this development. There has also been no clear justification of why a 2km search area was considered appropriate compared to a larger radius. 8.20 Notwithstanding the lack of a detailed analysis by the applicant, it can be generally accepted that, based on the applicant’s search criteria, there are likely no sites out with the Green Belt within West Dunbartonshire. However, there has been no assessment of possible available sites within either the East Dunbartonshire area where the connection point is located, and the Glasgow City area. A substantial part of the applicant’s 2km search area lies within East Dunbartonshire and Glasgow City and reference to Policy 8 a) ii) of NPF4, the test in this case is not whether there are no sites which are outwith the Green Belt within the West Dunbartonshire area only, the test is that there are no other suitable sites outwith the Green Belt. Whilst the applicant sets out the desire to invest within West Dunbartonshire to support the economic revitalisation of the area, and some support can be given to this goal, this does not negate the requirement to assess possible available sites within the whole of the identified search area. 8.21 It is not considered that the applicant’s site selection assessment provides a detailed analysis of other possible sites which could accommodate this development, why a 2km search area has been chosen in this instance and why the connection point must be at Windyhill. There has also been no consideration of much of the identified 2km search area. 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, which provides the most up-to-date position on Green Belt developments, are met in this regard. 8.22 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 and setting 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 8.23 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 Page 66
Page 67
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. 8.24 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. 8.25 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 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. 8.26 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 southeast, 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. Page 67
Page 68
8.27 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 change 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 or any other vantage points 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. 8.28 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. 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 significant. 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 appearance adjacent to it. No viewpoint from the Core Paths adjacent to the site was initially provided by the applicant. A viewpoint (Viewpoint 01a) facing east on Core Path 148 towards the junction with Core Path 149, adjacent to the northwestern end of the site has now been provided. The visuals provided for this additional viewpoint show that by year 10, the development would be relatively well screened by the proposed landscaping. However, the development will not be screened in its entirety to the point that users of the core path would be oblivious to its presence. Whilst planting and mitigation is proposed as shown in the visuals, this is only detailed as a simple narrative in the supporting documentation and inclusion of the general layout on the proposed site plan. Utilising native deciduous planting to screen the development would also not result in there being a consistent level of screening across all seasons. The landscaping will also take time to mature, and the development will be notable within the landscape for users of the adjacent routes in the early years, potentially affecting the understanding of the area forming part of the green belt and introducing a more urban form of development. However, on balance and accepting an initial impact prior to the landscape mitigation establishing, it is concluded that it has been demonstrated that the proposal would overall seek to minimise localised visual impact. 8.29 Policy 11(e) ii of NPF4 accepts significant landscape and visual impacts. Notwithstanding this, there is also an expectation of appropriate design mitigation for Page 68
Page 69
these impacts. Policy 8 a) ii also requires that the proposal minimises landscape and visual impacts within the Green Belt as far as possible. Whilst it is accepted that there will be a localised visual impact and that the development will be noticed by users of the adjacent Core Paths, the overall character of the routes will not be changed to such as extent that the development is considered unacceptable in this respect. The final detail of the landscape mitigation together with the implementation, retention and maintenance of this will be of particular importance in ensuring the visual impacts are minimised in the long term. These details can, however, be secured by condition. Overall, it is concluded that the landscape impacts arising from the development are not to such an extent to warrant an objection from the Council. Impact upon designated landscapes 8.30 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 8.31 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. 8.32 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 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. Page 69
Page 70
8.33 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 southwest of the fortlet. 8.34 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. 8.35 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 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. 8.36 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. 8.37 The application submission is supported by a Heritage Assessment. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) assessed the proposal and initially objected noting that the application did 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 that there was insufficient information to adequately assess the impact of the proposals. 8.38 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 World Heritage Site at Cleddans is located in an area of countryside, on an elevated position which affords the site superb views in every Page 70
Page 71
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. 8.39 In their original consultation response, HES advised 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. 8.40 Following the objection from HES, the applicant has reviewed the planting proposals and provided updated details and visualisations in support of the proposal. In their further consultation response, HES note that whilst the applicant has not provided an updated Heritage Impact Assessment, a site visit, updated plans and submitted visualisations have allowed HES to carry out their own assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on the setting of the Antonine Wall WHS and scheduled monument. HES are now satisfied that the key views to the south and south-west towards the River Clyde, and in the direction of Old Kilpatrick, will not be obstructed by the development, including the proposed landscaping and planting. HES also consider that due to the sloping topography of the development site and the location of the development to the west of a small hill south of the fortlet at Cleddans, the proposals would not appear to be dominant or distracting in views from the fortlet. HES further consider that the proposals are also unlikely to draw focus or distract from views down into the fortlet at Cleddans and this section of the frontier from Castle Hill to the east, and any glimpsed views from the fort at Goldenhill to the west. Additionally, HES consider the proposed development is unlikely to appear in views as you travel along this straight section of the WHS and scheduled monument, and therefore the revised proposals would not interfere with how the WHS is understood as a linear monument and can be appreciated in the landscape. They are thus content that key views and relationships would be retained. 8.41 Overall, HES have fully assessed the proposal in the context of the revised details and additional information, and now conclude that the proposed development, including the planting proposals, would not have a significant adverse impact the integrity of setting of the scheduled monument and Antonine Wall WHS, to a level as such that would warrant an objection. Conditions to address securing the planting proposals to ensure that the final details of these do not disrupt the setting of the Wall are recommended. 8.42 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 granting consent. Page 71
Page 72
8.43 It is clear that the proposed development would have the potential to impact upon the Antonine Wall WHS and Scheduled Monument. Whilst Historic Environment Scotland initially objected, they are now able to conclude that there would not be a significant, adverse impact upon the Antonine Wall WHS and Scheduled Monument to together with the integrity of the setting of the Wall to the point that an objection would be warranted. Following a full assessment of the potential impact upon this asset, there is nothing to suggest that an alternative position to HES, who have considered the Council’s published guidance in their assessment of the proposal, should be taken or that there would be any additional concerns at a local level. The proposal is therefore 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. 8.44 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 satisfying themselves that a connection to the site could be achieved. Residential amenity 8.45 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. 8.46 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. 8.47 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. Page 72
Page 73
8.48 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. 8.49 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 granting consent for this development. 8.50 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 8.51 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 pair of foxes were observed entering and exiting the hole and triggered the camera on 16 occasions. 8.52 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 Page 73
Page 74
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. 8.53 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 southwest 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. 8.54 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 8.55 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 the site, procedures to deal with inclement weather and breakdowns, and access for emergency services. 8.56 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 Page 74
Page 75
matters relating to abnormal roads on the trunk road network and the requirement for a Construction Traffic Management Plan addressing a range of matters. Whilst not set out in the applicant’s submission, there is the possibility that equipment would require to be replaced from time to time, or that a wider midlife equipment replacement programme would be required. A condition can ensure that suitable traffic management plans are agreed for such events. 8.57 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 8.58 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 8.59 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 presents 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 8.60 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 is highlighted by the applicant. 8.61 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 are 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 Page 75
Page 76
concern with the principle of using such technology or the technical design of equipment, which is controlled by other legislation and industry standards. 8.62 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 8.63 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 8.64 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 present 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 8.65 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. Page 76
Page 77
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. 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. However, it is not considered that the applicant’s site selection assessment provides a detailed analysis of other possible sites which could accommodate this development, why the development must be connected to Windyhill substation, or why a 2km search area has been chosen in this instance. There has also been no consideration of much of the identified 2km search area. 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 which is a key consideration, 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. Overall, and following a full assessment, it is concluded that the landscape impacts arising from the development are not to such an extent that significant concern arises, subject to conditions requiring the landscape mitigation to be in place. 9.4 The impact upon built and cultural heritage assets is also a significant consideration with the potential for the development to impact upon the setting of the world heritage site and scheduled monument, an internationally recognised asset. Having fully Page 77
Page 78
reviewed potential impacts and being guided by the position in the consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers, including that from Historic Environment Scotland it is concluded that the proposed development, including the planting proposals, would not have a significant adverse impact the integrity of setting of the scheduled monument and Antonine Wall WHS, to a level that would be considered unacceptable. 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, it cannot be considered that the benefits of the proposed development outweigh any adverse impacts. On balance, the significant concern arising from the lack of justification from the applicant that the proposed development cannot be located on a site outwith the Green Belt is not considered to outweigh other policy support for the proposed development. 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, or the applicant subsequently withdraws the application. 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 reason: 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 and this concern is not considered to outweigh other policy support for the proposed development. 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: 14th January 2026 ______________________________________________________________ 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 Page 78
Page 79
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 79
Page 80
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 80