Document Pack (Bookmarked) - Planning Committee 11 03 26
West Dunbartonshire Council · 11 March 2026
Back to Planning Committee — 11 March 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, 11 March 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: 26 February 2026 Page 2
Page 3
PLANNING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, 11 MARCH 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 - 7 Submit for approval, as a correct record, the Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 11 February 2026. 5 NOTE OF VISITATION 9 Submit, for information, a Note of the Site Visitation carried out on 10 February 2026. 6 ONSHORE ELECTRICITY GENERATION – ELECTRICITY 11 - 18 ACT THRESHOLD: CONSULTATION Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, seeking approval for the proposed response to the consultation. ___________________________________________________________________ Page 3
Page 4
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 on Wednesday, 11 February 2026 at 10.00 a.m. Present: Provost Karen Murray Conaghan and Councillors Kevin Crawford, Ian Dickson, Fiona Hennebry, Gurpreet Singh Johal, Lawrence O’Neill, Chris Pollock and Hazel Sorrell. 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 Lauren Oxley and Clare Steel. Councillor Lawrence O’Neill in the Chair DECLARATION OF INTEREST Councillor Lawrence O’Neill declared an interest in item ‘DC25/175/FUL: Construction of a spectator stand and relocation of ball stop fencing at Holm Park, Glasgow Road, Clydebank G81 1YA by Clydebank Football Club’ being the independent Chair to the Board of Holm Park FC. Councillor O’Neill indicated that he would remove himself as Chair for this item of business and, as a member of the public, represent the applicant. 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 14 January 2026 were submitted and approved as a correct record. ITEM 4 Page 5
Page 6
VARIATION IN ORDER OF BUSINESS After hearing Councillor O’Neill, Chair, the Committee agreed to vary the order of business as hereinafter minuted. PLANNING APPLICATIONS A report was submitted by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, in respect of the following Planning applications:- DC25/119/FUL: Continuation - Application under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) for the variation of condition 12 of planning permission DC23/098/FUL to remove reference to "community" from allotments at St Joseph’s Primary School. Councillor O’Neill, Chair, invited Gillian Kirkwood, on behalf of Faifley Community Council to address the Committee and Ms Kirkwood was heard in respect of the Community Council’s objection to the application and in answer to Members’ questions. Councillor O’Neill, Chair, invited Michelle Lynn, on behalf of the Applicant, to address the Committee. Ms Lynn was heard in respect of the application and in answer to Members’ questions. After discussion and having heard the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, the Development Management Team Leader and the Legal Officer in further explanation and in answer to Members’ questions, Councillor Dickson, seconded by Councillor Singh Johal, moved that the Committee agree to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 9 of Appendix 1 of the report. As an amendment Councillor O’Neill, seconded by Councillor Hennebry, moved that the Committee agree to refuse the Planning Application, as the ‘Community’ element of the site should remain in place. On a vote being taken, 4 Members voted for the amendment and 4 for the motion. There being an equality of votes, Councillor O’Neill, Chair, exercised his casting vote in favour of the amendment which was accordingly declared carried. ADJOURNMENT The Chair adjourned the meeting for a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 10.56 p.m. with all those listed in the sederunt present. Having previously declared an interest in the following item, Councillor O’Neill left the Chair and joined the public gallery at this point and Councillor Singh Johal, Vice Chair, assumed the Chair. Page 6
Page 7
Councillor Gurpreet Singh Johal in the Chair DC25/175/FUL: Construction of a spectator stand and relocation of ball stop fencing at Holm Park, Glasgow Road, Clydebank G81 1YA by Clydebank Football Club. At this point in the meeting Councillor Pollock was heard in relation to a point of order and moved that Councillor O’Neill, having declared an interest in this item, should leave the meeting at this point. Having heard the Legal Officer and Councillor O’Neill, Councillor O’Neill confirmed his intention to remain in the meeting as a member of the public. Councillor Singh Johal, Chair, invited Stewart Kelly and Lawrence O’Neill, on behalf of the Applicant, to address the Committee. Mr Kelly and Mr O’Neill were heard in respect of the application and in answer to Members’ questions. After discussion and 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 were informed that, due to the objection from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), any decision to approve the application would require to be notified to Scottish Ministers, in line with legislative requirements and that Ministers may call this application in and make the determination themselves. Whilst acknowledging the objection from HSE, taking into account that this is an existing site that can remain in operation irrespective of the outcome of this planning application and compliance otherwise with the Development Plan, the Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to such conditions as deemed appropriate by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager and the outcome of the required notification to Scottish Ministers. The meeting closed at 11.33 am Page 7
Page 8
Page 8
Page 9
PLANNING COMMITTEE NOTE OF VISITATION – 10 FEBRUARY 2026 Present: Provost Karen Murray Conaghan and Councillor Fiona Hennebry. 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:- Holm Park, Glasgow Road, Clydebank G81 1YA DC25/175/FUL: Construction of a spectator stand and relocation of ball stop fencing by Clydebank Football Club. ITEM 5 Page 9
Page 10
Page 10
Page 11
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 11th March 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Subject: Scottish Government Consultation on Onshore Electricity Generation Thresholds 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek committee approval of the proposed response to the consultation. 2. Recommendation 2.1 It is recommended that Planning Committee agrees the response noted at Appendix 1 to be submitted as West Dunbartonshire Council’s response to the consultation. 3. Background 3.1 The Scottish Government is consulting on proposed changes to onshore electricity generation thresholds. The full consultation documents can be found at Onshore electricity generation - Electricity Act threshold: consultation - gov.scot 3.2 The consultation has a single focus on the thresholds and asks whether they should remain at 50MW or change to 100MW or 150MW. 3.3 Currently, all applications for onshore electricity generation, such as solar, wind farms or battery energy storage that generate over 50MW of electricity are considered under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 by the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) on behalf of the Scottish Ministers. Such applications are not considered in the same way as an application submitted to the Planning Authority and Planning Authorities have the role of a statutory consultee. Any consent granted by the ECU or Ministers is also granted deemed planning consent. 3.4 Any objection by the Planning Authority has previously triggered a Public Local Inquiry, however, changes to UK legislation that took effect from the 18th February has now removed this automatic trigger and allows a reporter from the Department of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) more flexibility in terms of what procedure is appropriate. Inquiries can still be held but other routes such as hearings can also be utilised. 3.5 Other changes also allow Scottish Ministers to make further regulations to set mandatory preapplication requirements and it is understood from the ITEM 6 Page 11
Page 12
consultation documents that this will bring S36 applications in line with similar procedures for Major and National applications under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 3.6 Currently, the ECU voluntarily assign the relevant Planning Authority 50% of the fee for S36 application in recognition of the resource burden in responding to S36 consultations that would otherwise be unfunded. 4. Main Issues Summary of the proposed response 4.1 The full response to all questions is set out in Appendix 1, with the general position of the Council being that the Council supports changes to the thresholds and considers that an increase to 100MW would be appropriate. 4.2 Feedback from local residents and elected members regarding electrical consent applications under S36 has frequently noted that the process is significantly different from a planning application and generally can be quite confusing. The lack of formal requirements for notification and consultation similar to those required for planning applications is commonly noted. 4.3 Having reviewed the consultation documents, it is considered that, in line with the Verity House agreement which sets out that decision making should be ‘local by default, national by agreement’, an increase to the threshold to bring more applications under local decision making would overall be a positive step. Based on the figures presented within the consultation, it would be expected that around 79% of applications for energy generation would be considered at the local level should the 100MW threshold be chosen. 4.4 In a West Dunbartonshire Context, there have been 2 S36 applications in previous years, Vale of Leven windfarm (70MW) and Braidfield battery energy storage (100MW). Both applications remain undetermined, with the windfarm currently subject to a Public Local Inquiry. The recent application for battery energy storage to the east of Faifley was within the East Dunbartonshire Council area. The consultation document sets out that previous responses to the Investing in Planning consultation had noted mixed responses to the increase in thresholds. The consultation notes that broadly, Planning Authorities, communities and 3rd sector groups were in favour of the change with industry representatives not in favour as they valued strategic oversight and consistency in decision making where it is centralised to ministers. The consultation also notes that within England a 100MW threshold is set through the National Significant Infrastructure (NSIP) consenting regime. On balance, it is considered that 100MW would increase the numbers of decisions taken at the local level, address some industry concern and also align the threshold with England. Page 12
Page 13
4.5 As noted in section 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 the Planning Authority would become the consenting authority and applications would be considered in the same way as applications that are currently under the 50MW threshold, i.e. under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Whilst such consultations already generate a significant workload for officers, a change in the threshold will generate further work, particularly administrative. Currently, internal consultation is carried out by Planning Authorities to determine the Council’s view, with all public and 3rd party representations going directly to the ECU. An increase in thresholds would increase the number of consents for Planning Authorities and this would increase administrative duties around statutory notifications and the logging and assessment of increased consultation responses and public representations. To offset this, it is recognised that Planning Authorities would now receive the full fee, rather than the 50% voluntary contribution as is the case now. It is anticipated that this increase in fee would also cover the increased local scrutiny of the sufficiency of applicant’s information. 4.6 In terms of decision making, by their nature, such applications would be considered major or national developments, therefore they would be considered in the usual way under the Council’s approved Scheme of Delegation. In the case of major applications Planning Committee would be the decision maker and in the case of national applications Planning Committee would first consider the application and refer the application to Full Council for decision. In both instances, where a refusal is granted, the route of appeal is to Scottish Ministers via DPEA. 4.7 It is considered that this process will be overall beneficial for both Planning Authorities and communities. With the other changes that have been currently implemented under UK legislation and future provision for Scottish Ministers, as set out in sections 3.3-3.5, the threat of a default Public Local Inquiry in the event of an objection from a Planning Authority will reduce the financial burden of all parties. Public Local Inquiries can often be a daunting and expensive process for communities and Community Council’s and changes to this process to have more of these types of applications considered at the local level with clear appeal routes are supported. Key summary of the response 4.11 West Dunbartonshire Council is supportive of the proposed increase to energy thresholds to bring more local control and community participation over energy consent applications within the Planning Authority area. It is considered that a 100MW threshold would double the existing threshold and bring around 79% of applications under local decision making. 5. People Implications 5.1 There are no people implications associated with this report. 6. Financial and Procurement Implications Page 13
Page 14
6.1 An increase in thresholds would increase the numbers of applications made under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Council would receive the full fee required, as opposed to the current 50% voluntary contribution provided by the ECU. 7. Risk Analysis 7.1 There is no financial, reputational or legal risk associated with this report. The Council is not statutorily required to respond to this Scottish Government consultation but will be bound by the outcome of the consultation and any resulting changes to thresholds. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) 8.1 Not required. 9. Consultation 9.1 This is a Scottish Government consultation seeking the views of all stakeholders. The Council has been consulted as Planning Authority and the Council is not required to consult with any other party to form its response. 10. Strategic Assessment 10.1 The consultation 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 Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 11th March 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, Michael.mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendices: Appendix 1 – Respondent Information Form Background Papers: Onshore electricity generation - Electricity Act threshold: consultation - gov.scot Wards Affected: All Page 14
Page 15
On-Shore Electricity Generation: Consultation on increasing the threshold for applications under the Electricity Act Respondent Information Form Please Note this form must be completed and returned with your response. To find out how we handle your personal data, please see our privacy policy: https://www.gov.scot/privacy/ Are you responding as an individual or an organisation? Individual Organisation Full name or organisation’s name Phone number Address Postcode Email Address The Scottish Government would like your permission to publish your consultation response. Please indicate your publishing preference: Publish response with name Publish response only (without name) Do not publish response We will share your response internally with other Scottish Government policy teams who may be addressing the issues you discuss. They may wish to contact you again in the future, but we require your permission to do so. Are you content for Scottish Government to contact you again in relation to this consultation exercise? Yes No West Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street, Dumbarton 07385479202 G82 1QL Michael.mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Information for organisations: The option 'Publish response only (without name)’ is available for individual respondents only. If this option is selected, the organisation name will still be published. If you choose the option 'Do not publish response', your organisation name may still be listed as having responded to the consultation in, for example, the analysis report. ITEM 6 - APPENDIX 1 Page 15
Page 16
Questionnaire Question 1 Should there be a single threshold applicable to all technologies? Yes No No View Please give reasons for your answer. Question 2 What threshold should apply for applications for electricity generation to be determined by planning authorities? 50MW 100MW 150MW Please add any comment in support of your answer. Question 3 It is considered that a single threshold applicable to all generating technologies would be very clear and consistent and in line with the current single threshold. It is considered that 100MW would be an appropriate balance to address the concerns of parties noted in the consultation and increasing capacity of generating technologies, whilst still maintaining that larger projects have more national oversight. It is noted that such an increase would mean that Planning Authorities would be considering around 79% of applications, based on the profile noted in the consultation. WDC also supports that the full fee will now be received by Planning Authorities to cover the costs associated with processing such applications. Page 16
Page 17
Any change to the threshold would apply only to new applications. Do you have any comments on transitional arrangements? Question 4 Do you have any other comments to add? Question 5 Do you have any comments on the partial and draft impact assessments undertaken? Question 6 Whilst West Dunbartonshire Council has no particular view on transitional arrangements, for ease of understanding and to ensure procedural consistency, it would be beneficial for any existing S36 that is being considered by the ECU that would be under a revised threshold should maintain its current route and the new arrangements only apply to those that are not yet under consideration. Ministers should be mindful of the requirements under the Planning Act for major/national developments for public consultation that do not apply to S36 applications. In terms of resources, it is recognised that whilst currently Planning Authorities are statutory consultees and carry out significant work in terms of S36 applications, we are not the determining authorities so changes to increase the number of such applications at the local level will increase workload, particularly in respect of administrative functions such as statutory notifications and consultations. Energy consent applications generate a great deal of community interest and typically have high numbers of representations to be processed. Planning Authorities will now receive the full fee and this is welcomed. West Dunbartonshire overall welcomes an increase in thresholds to allow greater community representation and Planning Authority ownership of applications within our area. None. Page 17
Page 18
Do you have any suggestions for additional sources of information on the potential impacts of the proposals that could help inform our final assessments? None. Page 18