Document Pack (Bookmarked) Planning Committee 07 08 24
West Dunbartonshire Council · 7 August 2024
Back to Planning Committee — 7 August 2024 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, 7 August 2024 ___________________________________________________________________ Time: 10.00 a.m. ___________________________________________________________________ Venue: Council Chambers, Clydebank Town Hall, 5 Hall Street, Clydebank G81 1UB. ___________________________________________________________________ Contact: Nicola Moorcroft, Committee Officer Email: nicola.moorcroft@west-dunbarton.gov.uk committee.admin@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Dear Member Please attend a Special meeting of the Planning Committee as detailed above. The business is shown on the attached agenda. Yours faithfully PETER HESSETT Chief Executive Page 1
Page 2
Distribution:- Councillor Lawrence O’Neill (Chair) Councillor Gurpreet Singh Johal (Vice Chair) Councillor Ian Dickson Councillor Daniel Lennie Provost Douglas McAllister Councillor June McKay Councillor Karen Murray Conaghan Councillor Chris Pollock Councillor Hazel Sorrell Councillor Sophie Traynor All other Councillors for information Date of Issue: 25 July 2024 Page 2
Page 3
PLANNING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, 7 AUGUST 2024 AGENDA 1 APOLOGIES 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members are invited to declare if they have any interests in the items of business on this agenda and the reasons for such declarations. 3 OPEN FORUM The Committee is asked to note that no open forum questions have been submitted by members of the public. 4 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 5 - 6 Submit for approval, as a correct record, the Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning Committee held 5 June 2024. 5 NOTE OF VISITATIONS 7 Submit, for information, Note of Site Visitations carried out on 3 June 2024. 6 PLANNING APPLICATIONS Submit reports by the Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration in respect of the following Planning applications: (a) DC23/039/FUL (Continued item): Installation of driveway 9 - 17 (Retrospective) at 49 Briar Drive, Clydebank G81 3HT by Mr Steven Messenger. (b) DC23/086/FUL (Continued item): Erection of new 19 - 31 activity centre incorporating a community hub and bicycle workshop, together with associated works at South Canal Bank, Sylvania Way, South Clydebank by West Dunbartonshire Council. Page 3
Page 4
(c) DC22/245/FUL: Formation of a dwellinghouse with the 33 - 45 re-establishment of the derelict Ferrydyke cottage into a family home, involving the renovation of the existing property inclusive of the construction of a dormer and extension to the rear together with associated works at Former Ferry Dyke Canal House, Portpatrick Road, Old Kilpatrick by Mr Farhat Malik. (d) DC23/217/FUL: Erection of a Class 1A retail foodstore with 47 - 67 associated access, car parking, landscaping and associated works at land to southeast of Castle Street, Dumbarton by Aldi Stores Ltd. 7 CONSULTATION ON SECTION 36 APPLICATION TO 69 - 115 SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ENERGY CONSENTS UNIT: DC23/223/S36 Submit report by the Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration seeking a response to a consultation received from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit on behalf of the Scottish Ministers regarding a proposed wind farm development comprising up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts (MW) each, with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m, and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW. __________________________________________________________________ Page 4
Page 5
PLANNING COMMITTEE At a Meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Civic Space, Council Offices, 16 Church Street, on Wednesday, 5 June 2024 at 10.00 a.m. Present: Councillors Ian Dickson, Gurpreet Singh Johal, Daniel Lennie, June McKay, Karen Murray Conaghan, Lawrence O’Neill, Chris Pollock, Hazel Sorrell and Sophie Traynor. Attending: Alan Douglas, Chief Officer - Regulatory and Regeneration; Amy Melkevik, Lead Planning Officer; Matthew Spurway, Development Planning and Place Officer; Ash Hamilton, Planning Officer; Nigel Ettles, Principal Solicitor and Nicola Moorcroft, Committee Officer. Apology: An apology for absence was intimated on behalf Provost Douglas McAllister. Councillor Lawrence O’Neill in the Chair DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Sophie Traynor declared an interest in item DC23/039/FUL: Installation of driveway (Retrospective) at 49 Briar Drive, Clydebank G81 3HT, by Mr Steven Messenger, the applicant being known personally by Councillor Traynor. Councillor Traynor left the meeting during consideration of this item. 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 8 May 2024 were submitted and approved as a correct record. PLANNING APPLICATIONS Reports were submitted by the Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration in respect of the following Planning applications:- ITEM 4 Page 5
Page 6
(a) DC23/086/FUL: Erection of new activity centre incorporating a community hub and bicycle workshop, together with associated works at South Canal Bank, Sylvania Way, South Clydebank by West Dunbartonshire Council. The Chair explained that the relevant Planning Officer was unable to attend this meeting. The Committee agreed that this item be continued at a future meeting of the Planning Committee. Having previously declared an interest in the following item, Councillor Traynor left the meeting at this point. (b) DC23/039/FUL: Installation of driveway (Retrospective) at 49 Briar Drive, Clydebank G81 3HT by Mr Steven Messenger. Reference was made to a site visit which had been undertaken in respect of the above application. The Lead Planning Officer was heard in further explanation, and in answer to Members’ questions. The Chair invited Mr Steven Messenger (Applicant’s son) to address the Committee. Mr Messenger was heard in respect of the application and in answer to Members’ questions. After discussion and having heard the Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration and Lead Planning Officer in further explanation, and in answer to Members’ questions, the Committee agreed that this item be continued at the next meeting of the Planning Committee and that an Officer from Roads and Transportation be in attendance at that meeting to answer any questions Members may have. Councillor Traynor rejoined the meeting at this point. MASTERPLAN CONSENT AREAS - STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION A report was submitted by the Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration seeking agreement to issue the Statement of Consideration in relation to Masterplan Consent Areas. Having heard the Development Planning and Place Officer in further explanation the Committee agreed the proposed Council Statement of Consideration. The meeting closed at 10.55 a.m. Page 6
Page 7
PLANNING COMMITTEE NOTE OF VISITATIONS – 3 JUNE 2024 Present: Councillors Karen Murray Conaghan, June McKay (first site visit only), Chris Pollock and Sophie Traynor (first site visit only). Attending: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader and Amy Melkevik, Lead Planning Officer. SITE VISITS Site visits were undertaken in connection with the undernoted planning applications:- South Bank of the Forth and Clyde Canal, Sylvania Way, South Clydebank DC23/086/FUL: Erection of new activity centre incorporating a community hub and bicycle workshop, together with associated works by West Dunbartonshire Council. 49 Briar Drive, Clydebank G81 3HT DC23/039/FUL: Installation of driveway (Retrospective) by Mr Steven Messenger. ITEM 5 Page 7
Page 8
Page 8
Page 9
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 7th August 2024 DC23/039/FUL: Installation of driveway (Retrospective) by Mr Steven Messenger. 1. PURPOSE 1.1 To provide the Committee with the opportunity to further consider the planning application following their request for an Officer from the Council’s Roads Service to attend Planning Committee in order to answer further questions regarding the application, and to seek the Committee’s decision on the application. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Section 9 of Appendix 1. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 The above planning application was presented to Planning Committee on 5th June 2024. Appendix 1 contains a copy of the report considered by Planning Committee. It was determined by the Planning Committee to continue the application to allow for an Officer from the Council’s Roads Service to attend Planning Committee in order to answer further questions regarding the application. 4. MAIN ISSUES 4.1 There are no material changes to either the development plan position or the circumstances of the site since Committee previously considered the application on 5th June 2024. 4.2 Since the publication of the original Committee Report (Appendix 1) further photos of the applicant’s car parked upon the driveway have been provided for additional clarity. These photos are provided within the planning file and are available for public viewing. 4.3 Concerns remain relating to the amenity of the surrounding residential area where users of the footway could be forced off the public footway due to vehicles on the driveway the footway. The Council’s Roads Service have ITEM 6a Page 9
Page 10
also objected to the proposal due to 4.1 metre depth of the driveway not being sufficient to park a car on. It remains the case that the proposal is not in accordance with NPF4, the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and the proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 and the recommendation remains to Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Section 9 of Appendix 1. 5. PEOPLE IMPLICATIONS 5.1 None. 6. FINANCIAL AND PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS 6.1 There are no financial or procurement implications in terms of this report. 7. RISK ANALYSIS 7.1 No risks have been identified. 8. EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) 8.1 Not required. 9. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 9.1 There are no environmental sustainability issues in terms of this report. 10. CONSULTATION 10.1 Consultation was undertaken as part of planning processes associated with the planning application. 11. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT 11.1 There are no strategic issues. Alan Douglas Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Date: 7th August 2024 Person to Contact: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: James.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Page 10
Page 11
Appendix 1: DC23/039/FUL Committee Report (05/06/2024) Appendix 2: Location Plan Wards affected: Ward 5 (Clydebank Central) Page 11
Page 12
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Planning Committee: 5th June 2024 _____________________________________________________________ DC23/039/FUL: Installation of driveway (Retrospective) at 49 Briar Drive, Clydebank by Mr Steven Messenger 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 The application is subject to an objection from another Council Service. Under the terms of the approved Scheme of Delegation, the application therefore requires to be determined by the Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Section 9. 3. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 The application site comprises a residential flat and associated garden ground within a two storey, four in a block arrangement situated on the western side of Briar Drive in Clydebank. Externally the flats are finished in a grey render for the external walls and a grey tiled roof. There are front and rear garden areas for the flatted properties. The property is situated within a well-established residential area with a variety of dwellings of a similar design theme lying adjacent. 3.2 A driveway has been created to the front of the flat. The driveway extends across the whole of the front garden area of the flat measuring approximately 9.6m in width. The depth of the driveway measures 4.1m within the monoblocked area with a gravelled sloped area beyond which creates a level platform for the driveway due to the slightly sloping nature of the site. Both the monoblock and gravel are grey in colour. Two paths remain on site with the most northern path retaining step-free access to the properties. The area to the front of the properties was previously grassed with a low- level hedge as a boundary treatment. As the works have already been carried out, the application is considered in retrospect. 3.3 An electric vehicle charging point has been attached to the front of the building however, this in itself does not require the benefit of planning permission. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service object to the proposal on the basis that the driveway is only 4.1m in depth. 5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Two objections have been received from nearby residents. The full details are contained within the planning file and are available for public viewing. However, the concerns raised can be summarised as follows: ITEM 6a - APPENDIX 1 Page 12
Page 13
• Object on health and safety grounds. • The permission is retrospective. • The car will be near the window of neighbouring properties. • The driveway may restrict parking for other residents. • The access is communal. • The disabled parking bay post has been moved. • The company who installed the driveway is not certified. • The driveway does not have sufficient foundation and is sinking in places. • A dropped kerb has not been formed to access the driveway. • Electric cars are known to go on fire and this constitutes a hazard. • There is a charging point which has not been checked if it is a fire risk. The concerns raised shall be assessed in the Section 7 below. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 6.1 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. 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. Policy 16 supports householder development proposals where they do not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the property and surrounding area, and do not have a detrimental effect upon neighbouring properties. 6.2 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail in Section 7 below. Based on that assessment, it is concluded that the proposal is not in accordance with NPF4. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 6.3 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 requirement for proposals to be appropriate to the local area inclusive of design and the effect on privacy is highlighted. Considering residential amenity, Policy H5 seeks to protect, preserve, and enhance the residential character and amenity of existing residential areas at all times. 6.4 The proposal does not comply 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, 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. Page 13
Page 14
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. 7.2 Policy CP1 of LDP2 seeks to ensure that all development takes a design lead approach and seeks to protect and enhance the amenity of existing communities. Policy H4 sets out that that the Council will protect, preserve, and enhance the residential character and amenity of existing residential areas at all times. It is considered that the proposal is not in accordance with the relevant policies of LDP2. Principle of Development 7.3 The creation of a driveway within the front curtilage of a flatted property situated within an established residential area is acceptable in principle, subject to all material considerations being addressed. This type of development is commonly found within residential areas and with the facility to charge electric vehicles, the proposal would be considered to, in a small way, support tackling the climate emergency. It therefore rests to consider if there are any material planning considerations that would result in the proposal being unacceptable. Visual Appearance 7.4 The driveway, whilst wide in nature and covering the whole of the front garden area of the flat, does not cover the whole of the frontage of the plot. An area of green remains to the south of the site which is outwith the development area. The colour and material choices of grey monoblock and gravel are in keeping with the varied colour palette of the surrounding area, with other monoblocked driveways being present within close proximity. On balance, it is considered that the visual appearance of the driveway that has been formed is acceptable within the context of the area. Traffic and Road Safety Matters 7.5 In assessing whether any road safety concerns arise in respect of the driveway that has been formed, the Council’s Roads Service have been consulted on the application proposal. The Roads Service have concerns regarding the depth of the driveway which is 4.1m from the heel of the footway to the rear of the monoblocked area of the driveway. They consider this to be unacceptable and have objected to the application on this basis. This is due to 4.1m not being a sufficient depth to park a car which could result in the footway being obstructed, forcing pedestrians and, in particular, wheelchair users and those with prams onto the public road. 7.6 The Road’s Service advise that a minimum driveway length of 5 metres is generally required to ensure a vehicle does not overhang the footway. This is not achieved by the driveway already constructed on site. Whilst it is accepted that cars which are less than 4.1 metres in length are available, family cars generally exceed this dimension. This includes a Ford Focus at 4.4 metres in length and a Kia Sportage at 4.5 metres in length. It is not considered that a condition restricting the type and dimension of vehicle that could be parked on the driveway would be reasonable. Such a condition would also likely be impossible to enforce. Given this and being guided by the objection from the Council’s Road Service, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable with reference to the potential implications for pedestrians using the footway and implications for road safety. 7.7 Concerns are raised in the objections in respect of the implications of the driveway on the availability of street parking. The Council’s Roads Service, however, does not object to the proposal on this basis. Page 14
Page 15
The requirement for a footway crossover and dropped kerb or any works to be undertaken to the public road would be a matter to be addressed by the Roads Service via separate legislation. The disabled parking bay sign being moved to accommodate the driveway is not a planning matter. The disabled bay which the sign relates to remains in place on the street and it is noted the driveway and disabled bay overlap. This would, however, be a matter to also be addressed by the Roads Service via separate legislation. Impact on Residential Amenity 7.8 The driveway is located adjacent to the windows of the downstairs property. Whilst movement and noise will be brought slightly closer to the property than has been previously experienced with cars parking on the adjacent road, it is not considered that this will unacceptably disturb the amenity of the neighbouring property to an extent that would justify the refusal of the application. The retention of the path between the driveway and the building provides some separation between the driveway and the downstairs property. 7.9 In addition to the road safety matters discussed above, the depth of the driveway also raises concerns regarding the impact on the wider amenity of the surrounding residential area and impacts upon the ability for people to easily move around the area and this is not consistent with the six qualities of successful places. As there is no space in which to lengthen the driveway within the confines of the site, users of the pavement may be forced to leave the public footway in order to pass vehicles overhanging the public footway. Representations Received 7.10 Turning to the outstanding points raised in the submitted objections which have not been assessed above. Many of the points raised in the objection are not material planning considerations. These include the land being communal, the company who installed the driveway not being certified and the quality of the work undertaken. Reference has also been made to a perceived fire risk posed by electric charging points and/or cars but there is no evidence to suggest that the proposal would represent a fire risk. The retrospective nature of the application has also been noted; however, the planning system does allow for retrospective applications, and this cannot be a determining factor. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 This retrospective application for the creation of a driveway raises concerns relating to the amenity of the surrounding residential area in which users of the footway could be forced off the public footway due to insufficient parking space within the off-street area causing vehicles to overhang the footway. This impacts upon the ability for people to easily move around the area and this is not consistent with the six qualities of successful places. The Council’s Roads Service have also objected to the proposal due to 4.1 metre depth of the driveway not being sufficient to park a car on. This would result in vehicles potentially overhanging and obstructing the footway and forcing pedestrians, and in particular wheelchair users and those with prams onto the public road. 8.2 The proposal is therefore not supported by Policies GD1 and H5 of the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan, Policies CP1 and H4 of the proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 or Policies 14 and 16 of National Planning Framework 4. Page 15
Page 16
9. REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The development does not provide sufficient depth in which to park a vehicle off- street which will result in pedestrians and, in particular, wheelchair users and those with prams to be unable to use the public footway. As such the development is contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4, Policy GD1 of the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and Policy CP1 of the West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 which requires proposals to improve the quality of an area and to be supported by the six qualities of successful places. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 16 of NPF4, Policy H5 of the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and Policy H4 of the West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 due to the disruption to the residential amenity of the area resulting from the potential obstruction of the footway. 3. The proposal would potentially bring pedestrians and vehicles into conflict, to the detriment of road and pedestrian safety. Alan Douglas Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Date: 5th June 2024 ______________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader James.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application forms and plans 2. Representations 3. Consultation response 4. National Planning Framework 4 5. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 6. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended Wards affected: Ward 5 (Clydebank Central) Page 16
Page 17
¯ Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (C) Crown copyright and database right 22/05/2024. All rights reserved. West Dunbartonshire OS Licence Number 100020790. Scale: 1:1,250@A422/05/2024 DC23/039/FUL - MapWest Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street Dumbarton G82 1QL ITEM 6a - APPENDIX 2 Page 17
Page 18
Page 18
Page 19
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 7th August 2024 DC23/086/FUL: Erection of activity centre incorporating a community hub and bicycle workshop, together with associated work on land adjacent to the south bank of the Forth and Clyde Canal, Clydebank by West Dunbartonshire Council. 1. PURPOSE 1.1 To provide the Committee with the opportunity to consider the planning application following continuation from June Planning Committee, and to seek the Committee’s decision on the application. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 of Appendix 1 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 The above planning application was to be considered by Planning Committee on 5th June 2024. Appendix 1 contains a copy of the Committee Report. Due to the relevant Officer from the Planning Service being unable to attend Committee, it was determined by the Planning Committee to continue the application without consideration, to allow for the relevant Officer to attend, present the application and answer Members questions. 4. MAIN ISSUES 4.1 There are no material changes to the Development Plan position, the circumstances of the site, proposal or the assessment since June Committee. 4.3 It remains the case that the proposal is welcomed and would provide a high quality, community focused activity centre that would contribute to the mix of uses and vitality of the Town Centre and help connect people with the canal, without any detrimental effects on local amenity. 4.4 The proposal presents no conflict with the policy requirements of NPF4, the adopted Local Plan, the proposed Local Development Plan 2 and associated Planning Guidance. ITEM 6b Page 19
Page 20
5. PEOPLE IMPLICATIONS 5.1 None. 6. FINANCIAL AND PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS 6.1 There are no financial or procurement implications in terms of this report. 7. RISK ANALYSIS 7.1 No risks have been identified. 8. EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) 8.1 Not required. 9. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 9.1 There are no environmental sustainability issues in terms of this report. 10. CONSULTATION 10.1 Consultation was undertaken as part of planning processes associated with the planning application. 11. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT 11.1 There are no strategic issues. Alan Douglas Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Date: 7th August 2024 Person to Contact: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: James.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix 1: DC23/086/FUL Committee Report (05/06/2024) Appendix 2: Location Plan Wards affected: Ward 5 (Clydebank Central) Page 20
Page 21
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Planning Committee: 5th June 2024 DC23/086/FUL: Erection of activity centre incorporating a community hub and bicycle workshop, together with associated work on land adjacent to the south bank of the Forth and Clyde Canal, Clydebank by West Dunbartonshire Council. 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 The planning application raises issues that in the opinion of the appointed officer merits the determination of the application by Committee. Under the terms of the approved Scheme of Delegation, it therefore requires to be determined by the Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 below. 3. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 The application site relates to a 943sqm area of land located adjacent to the South Bank of the Forth and Clyde Canal and the NCR 7 cycle route, to the south of the Clyde Shopping Centre, Clydebank. The site is linear in form, slopes gently down from south to north, and is comprised of amenity grass and 8 trees, most of which are located along the northern extent. The site also includes 5 sculptured seating elements. Currently, the site functions as open space and is part of a wider area that forms the southern canal bank. 3.2 The site is situated within Clydebank Town Centre and surrounded by a mix of uses, with a church to the south, Clydebank Shopping Centre and amenity greenspace to the north, Clydebank Bandstand and South Sylvania Way to the west and a walkway and greenspace to the east. The site of the former Playdrome Leisure Centre, for which planning permission has been granted for a residential development, lies to the southeast. 3.3 Planning permission is sought for the development of an activity centre which includes a community hub and associated kitchen, launderette, coffee hatch, bicycle store, workshop and landscaping. It is indicated that the Community Hub will host a range of recreational and educational activities, such as yoga and cooking classes. The proposed modular building would have a footprint of 234sqm, being 6.7m D x 35m L, with the flat roof rising to a highest point of 3.85m and overhanging the building footprint by approximately 1.3m on the northern elevation to create a covered corridor (loggia). The building is comprised of two parts connected by a roofed external cycle storage area which can be closed off at the sides. A condenser store is located at the eastern end. All window openings are floor to ceiling, with five windows and a door proposed on the northern elevation, four windows on the southern elevation and one window on the western elevation, all of which would be fitted with folding security shutters. Two skylights are also proposed. ITEM 6b - APPENDIX 1 Page 21
Page 22
The building would be comprised of a polished pre-cast concrete base rising to a highest point of 1m, with the walls finished with a series of metal fins infilled with perforated 1.5m wide metal mesh panels. The windows would be comprised of aluminum with the door being metal. The walls, windows and door would be finished in a powder coated Green RAL 6003 colour. No information has been provided on the finish of the membrane roof. 3.4 With respect to the wider site, a hardstanding area is proposed within the northern half of the western extent, along with a gravel pathway along the eastern and southern elevations. A wild garden is further proposed adjacent to the southern elevation. 3.5 While the application indicates that there would be illuminated signage on the northern elevation, this will require to be assessed under a separate application for Advertisement Consent. 3.6 In support of the proposal, the applicant has submitted a range of documentation and information, including a Design Statement, Tree Report, and Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service have no objection to the proposal in respect of roads and parking together with flooding matters. 4.2 West Dunbartonshire Council Environmental Health Service have no objection, subject to two conditions on construction and operating hours. 4.3 West Dunbartonshire Council Biodiversity Officer has no objection, subject to two conditions relating to landscaping and biodiversity enhancement. 4.4 Historic Environment Scotland had initially objected due to the potential impact upon the canal which is a scheduled monument, but following further consideration the objection was removed. 5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 None received. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 6.1 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. 6.2 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity and deliver positive effects from development, requiring that local development includes appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. It is noted that measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development. Page 22
Page 23
6.3 Policy 6 aims to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. It advises that proposals will not be supported where they result in the loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or individual trees of high biodiversity value. Where woodland is removed, compensatory planting is expected to be delivered. 6.4 Policy 7 aims to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, with proposals affecting scheduled monuments only supported where direct impacts on the integrity and setting of scheduled monuments are avoided or exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the impacts on the monument and any impacts have been minimised. 6.5 Policy 12 relates to waste and advises that development proposals will set out how much waste the proposal is expected to generate and how it will be managed. 6.6 Policy 13 supports proposals where they provide direct, easy, segregated and safe links to local facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks and are accessible by public transport. 6.7 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, with development proposals required to contribute to both, where relevant, through local access to a wide range of facilities and activities, including lifelong learning and recreation facilities 6.8 Under part (f) of Policy 19, proposals for buildings that will be occupied by people will be supported where they are designed to promote sustainable temperature management, for example by prioritising natural or passive solutions such as siting, orientation, and materials. 6.9 Green infrastructure is considered through Policy 20. Proposals that result in fragmentation or net loss of existing green infrastructure will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that this would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained. 6.10 Policy 21 seeks to promote and facilitate spaces and opportunities for play, recreation and sport. It advises that development proposals likely to be occupied or used by children and young people will be supported where they incorporate well designed, good quality provision for play, recreation, and relaxation that is proportionate to the scale and nature of the development and existing provision in the area. 6.11 Policy 22 addresses flood risk and water management, stating that proposals will not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk; manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), and seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. 6.12 Policy 23 aims to safeguard people from environmental harm and promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. Development proposals that will have positive effects on health will be supported. Policy 24 supports proposals that incorporate appropriate, universal, and future-proofed digital infrastructure. Page 23
Page 24
6.13 Policy 27 seeks to promote and facilitate development in our city and town centres, advising that proposals that enhance and improve the vitality and viability of city, town and local centres, including proposals that increase the mix of uses, will be supported. 6.14 The proposed development is supported by NPF4 and is assessed fully in Section 7 below. West Dunbartonshire Adopted Local Plan 2010 6.15 Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high quality of design and respects the character and amenity of the local area. 6.16 Policy RET 5 advises that applications for non-retail uses within the designated town centres will be favourably considered where they contribute to the vitality and viability of the town centre and do not conflict with other Local Plan policies. 6.17 Policy R1 relates to the retention of existing open space. It includes a presumption against development which adversely affects the use, character or amenity of areas of functional and valued open space. Developments on existing open space will be considered against the existing or potential future use, quality, function and value of the open space and the sufficiency of provision of the facility type in the local area. 6.18 Policy T1 and T4 require sites to be integrated with sustainable travel. Policy E1 relates to the Council’s Biodiversity duty and Policy E5 requires new development proposals to consider impacts on trees and incorporate suitable tree planting. Policies F1 and F2 aim to ensure that new development is not at risk from, and does not increase the risk of flooding, and has suitable SUDS drainage infrastructure. Policy DC7 supports the inclusion of on-site micro-renewable technologies. 6.19 Policy BE 5 advises that the Council will resist any development proposals that would have an adverse impact on or affect the setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument, unless a number of criteria are met. 6.20 Policy R 4 seeks to ensure that new development on or adjacent to the Forth and Clyde Canal is compatible and appropriate, with Policy R 4C encouraging recreational activities adjacent to the canal. Policy R 4F notes that development of canal-side sites should, wherever possible, be oriented towards and integrate with the canal, overlook the canal to provide a supervised edge and provide direct access to the existing canal side paths. 6.21 The proposal 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, 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. Page 24
Page 25
7.2 Policy CP1 seeks to ensure that development is of a high quality, adaptable and designed to be suitable for a mix of occupants. It indicates 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. 7.3 Clydebank Policy 1 advises that the Council will encourage proposals adjacent to the Forth and Clyde Canal which introduce a mixture of uses associated with a leisure and evening economy, such as recreational activities. These uses will be supported where they will help to transform this area into a well-used multi-functional Town Centre that extends a range of activities into the evening and makes the Canal a focal point for activity, whilst also being complimentary to existing Town Centre uses. In line with this, the Clydebank Town Centre Development Strategy supports the transformation of the area around the Forth and Clyde Canal into a focal point and multi-functional area for recreation which connects people again with the Canal. Policy FCC1 advises that development alongside the Forth & Clyde Canal should enhance this green network asset. Development that would have an adverse impact on the canal or its setting will not be permitted. 7.4 Policy SC1 advises that proposals for retail, commercial and leisure investment, and other key Town Centre uses, should align with the sequential approach and the preferred uses set out in Table 5, which includes Class 11 – Assembly and Leisure. Developments are directed sequentially to Town Centres in the first instance. 7.5 Policy GI1 relates to open space and outdoor sports facilities. It advises that development which would result in the loss of open space which is, or has the potential to be, of quality and value will not be permitted unless provision of additional open space of equal or enhanced quality and value is provided. 7.6 Policy BE1 advises that where development would adversely affect a scheduled monument or the integrity of the setting of a scheduled monument, permission would only be granted in exceptional circumstances. 7.7 Policy CON4 sets out a need for all developments to install sufficient broadband provisions. 7.8 Policies ENV1, ENV4, ENV 5 and ENV6 are all similar to the ecology, tree, water environment and flooding policies of the adopted Local Plan. Policy ENV8 requires developments to address air quality, lighting and noise as part of the planning process. 7.9 Policy RE4 encourages micro-generation and heat recovery technologies within or associated with individual properties, with Policy RE5 advising that new buildings are required, as far as possible, to integrate low and/or zero carbon generating technologies. 7.10 It is considered that the application complies with the relevant policies above, as set out in the assessment below. Creating Places Planning Guidance and Green Network and Green Infrastructure Planning Guidance Page 25
Page 26
7.11 The Creating Places 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. The Green Network and Green Infrastructure Guidance - November 2022 seeks to ensure that the proposal integrates landscaping and green infrastructure as part of the setting of the new development and open space created. This will include a focus on biodiversity enhancement. Following a full assessment, it is concluded that the proposal presents no conflict with the aims of the guidance. Principle of Development 7.12 While the application site is not allocated for a specific use in the Proposals Maps of the Local Plan and proposed LDP2, it is located in Clydebank Town Centre and subject to the policy requirements associated with this location. It is considered that a community focused Activity Hub located adjacent to the Canal would contribute to the provision of a mix of uses within the Town Centre, thereby improving the vitality and viability of the Centre. The proposed provision of recreational and educational opportunities would also promote lifelong learning, health and wellbeing and help create a multi-functional area that connects people with the Canal. In light of the above, the principle of development is supported by Policy 15, Policy 21, Policy 23 and Policy 27 of NPF4, Policy RET 5 and Policy R 4C of the Local Plan, and Clydebank Policy 1, Clydebank Town Centre Development Strategy and Policy SC1 of the proposed LDP2. 7.13 It is noted that the site, which is comprised of amenity grass, trees and sculptured seating, has value as open space. While it is not identified as open space in the Proposals Maps of the Local Plan and proposed LDP2, Policy R 1 and Policy GI1 of the respective Plans safeguard open space which is, or has the potential to be, of quality and value. Policy 20 of NPF4 advises that development proposals that result in the fragmentation or net loss of existing blue and green infrastructure will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in blue or green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained. With significant areas of similar amenity grassland located along the canal to the north and east of the application site, it is considered that the proposal, which would result in approximately a third of the existing open space being lost, would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in green infrastructure at this location. It is also considered that a proposal of this nature will enhance facilities at this location and compliment the wider areas of open and public space that form this part of the southern canal bank. In this context, the proposal complies with Policy 20 and is acceptable. Site Layout, Design and Appearance 7.14 New development requires to be well designed, take cognisance of the setting into which it is introduced and provide high quality, well designed buildings, whilst recognising the impact on existing neighbouring properties. 7.15 The 234sqm building footprint is appropriate relative to the 943sqm site size, with the single storey scale and linear form aligning with and complimenting the adjacent cycle path and Canal. The building would have a contemporary and attractive appearance, with the use of floor to ceiling windows/door, projecting fins infilled with perforated mesh panels and an overhanding roof providing a good degree visual diversity and interest. With the front elevation orientated towards the Canal, the proposal would also provide an active frontage that engages positively with the Canal. The proposed Green RAL 6003 colour finish would also blend in with the surrounding greenspace. Page 26
Page 27
While samples of the proposed materials and colour finish have not been provided in advance of the determination of the application, these can be secured through condition and subject to approval prior to the commencement of development. 7.16 It is noted that the application does not include information on the provision of low and/or zero carbon generating technologies, as required by Policy RE5. This matter can, however, be addressed through condition. 7.17 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would create a well-designed development that addresses the six qualities of successful places by having a distinctive identity, using high quality materials and being well connected and sustainable. As such, it complies with Policy 15 of the NPF4 and policies GD1, DS1 and CP1 of the adopted and proposed Plans, alongside the Creating Places Guidance (2022). Residential Amenity 7.18 The layout and scale of development proposed relative to the proximity of existing housing raises no concerns with respect to privacy, overshadowing or overbearing effects. While the development will undoubtedly bring additional activity to the area, it is unlikely to result in any noise or activity beyond that typically found in a Town Centre during the day. It is noted that the Activity Centre will not operate before 9am or beyond 8pm and a condition can be attached to secure these operating hours. Although it is accepted that the construction phase will produce an element of short term noise and disruption, the consultation response from the Council’s Environmental Health Service highlights the requirement for the construction of the development to be undertaken in a way that ensures that adjacent residential amenity is not adversely affected, which can be secured through condition. Trees, Open Space and Landscaping 7.19 While the submitted Tree Survey identifies eight trees on the site, comprising 2 Wild Cherry, 3 Norway Maple, 2 Callery Pear and 1 London Plane, it notes that there are no ancient or veteran trees on the site. Although six trees would need to be removed to accommodate the development, the proposal complies with Policy 20 and Policy ENV4 as no ancient or veteran trees or those covered by a TPO would be removed. It is noted that, following pre-application discussions, the applicant has included a wild garden as part of the landscaping in an effort to offset the loss of trees. 7.20 The proposal would provide approximately 630sqm of open space, comprised of hardstanding and grassed areas. While a detailed landscaping scheme has not been submitted, a gravel walkway is proposed adjacent to the eastern and southern elevations, along with a hardstanding area within the northwest extent and a wild garden adjacent to the southern elevation. The approach outlined is acceptable in principle and a detailed landscaping scheme can be secured through condition. Traffic, parking and road safety 7.21 The proposal raises no concerns with respect to traffic generation and road safety due to the scale and nature of the development and the excellent public transport and active travel connections associated with a Town Centre location. While no dedicated parking is proposed, it is considered that there is adequate parking within this Town Centre location. It is also noted that the consultation response from the Roads service raised no objection in relation to these issues. Transport and Connectivity 7.22 With the site being located in the Town Centre, it is accessible to a wide range of local services and within a 5 min walk of frequent public transport services to centres across West Dunbartonshire and beyond to Glasgow and Helensburgh. Page 27
Page 28
The site is also located adjacent to the NCR 7 cycle path. It is therefore concluded that the development is provided in an appropriate location within an established settlement accessible by means other than the private car. Flooding and Drainage 7.23 The proposal raises no concerns with respect to flooding as the site is not identified as being at risk on SEPA’s Flood Maps. The consultation response from the Council’s Flooding Officer also raised no objection. In relation to drainage, the application indicates that foul wastewater would be discharged to the public sewer, with surface water discharged to the canal. While no detailed information on drainage, including the use of SUDS, has been provided, this matter can be addressed through condition. The proposal is therefore acceptable, subject to condition. Ecology 7.24 The preliminary ecological appraisal submitted with the application found that the habitats on the site were of low conservation value, with no evidence of protected species and limited scope for nesting birds. The appraisal includes a number of recommendations, such the minimisation of light spill, which can be secured through condition. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has no objection to the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, but requests that a detailed Landscaping Scheme and Biodiversity Enhancement Plan be provided, which can again be secured through condition. Cultural Heritage 7.25 A large portion of the application site is located within the Forth and Clyde Canal Canal: Old Kilpatrick - Linnvale Scheduled Monument, which includes the canal, towpath and areas to either side in which traces of activities associated with its construction and use may survive. While Historic Environment Scotland initially objected to the proposal due to concerns about the potential adverse effects of the proposal, the objection was subsequently removed after discussions with the applicant. In light of this, the proposal is acceptable in this context. Waste Provision 7.26 The proposal is expected to generate a level of waste commensurate to a community facility of the scale proposed. A refuse store is proposed within the eastern corner of the building, which is acceptable. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal is welcomed and would provide a high quality, community focused activity centre that would contribute to the mix of uses and vitality of the Town Centre and help connect people with the canal, without any detrimental effects on local amenity. 8.2 The proposal presents no conflict with the policy requirements of NPF4, the adopted Local Plan, the proposed Local Development Plan 2 and associated Planning Guidance. 9. CONDITIONS 1. Prior to the commencement of development on site, exact details and samples of all proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Page 28
Page 29
Authority, the development shall be completed in strict accordance with the approved material details and palette. 2. Prior to the commencement of development on site, full details of all hard surfaces shall be submitted for the further written approval of the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved details. 3. Prior to the commencement of development on site, a detailed soft landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be completed in strict accordance with the approved plan. 4. 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. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan. 5. 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. 6. That any trees, shrubs or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged or become diseased within five years of completion of the landscaping shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. 7. All recommendations within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated August 2022 and hereby approved, shall be implemented in full to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. 8. That prior to the commencement of works on site, full details of the proposed drainage regime, inclusive of calculations and overland flow details, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The drainage regime shall then be implemented and maintained as approved at all times thereafter. 9. That all surface water shall be intercepted within the site both during construction and on completion of the development and full details of measures to ensure that surface water run-off is contained within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works on site. The measures shall be implemented and maintained as approved. 10. Prior to the operation of the Activity Centre, the developer shall install the necessary infrastructure to enable the development to be connected to the existing fibre optic network, where available in West Dunbartonshire, and in accordance with the relevant telecommunications provider’s standards. 11. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, full details of the incorporation of low and/or zero carbon technologies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. 12. The development hereby approved shall only operate between the hours of 9am-8pm Mon-Fri, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Page 29
Page 30
13. During the period of construction, all works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary (or at such other place(s) as may first be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority), shall be carried out between the following hours unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority: • Mondays to Fridays: 0800 – 1800 • Saturdays: 0800 – 1300 • Sundays and public holidays: No Working Alan Douglas Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Date: 5th June 2024 Person to Contact: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader 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 6. ‘Green Network and Green Infrastructure’ Planning Guidance (2022) 7. Creating Places Planning Guidance (2022) Wards affected: Ward 5 (Clydebank Central) Page 30
Page 31
¯ Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (C) Crown copyright and database right 22/05/2024. All rights reserved. West Dunbartonshire OS Licence Number 100020790. Scale: 1:1,250@A422/05/2024 DC23/086/FUL - MapWest Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street Dumbarton G82 1QL ITEM 6b - APPENDIX 2 Page 31
Page 32
Page 32
Page 33
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Planning Committee: 7th August 2024 DC22/245/FUL: Formation of a dwellinghouse with the re-establishment of the derelict Ferrydykes cottage into a family home, involving the renovation of the existing property inclusive of the construction of a dormer and extension to the rear together with associated works at Former Ferry Dyke Canal House, Portpatrick Road, Old Kilpatrick by Mr Farhat Malik 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 The application is subject to an objection from a statutory consultee. Under the terms of the approved Scheme of Delegation, the application therefore requires to be determined by the Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Section 9. 3. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 The application site is located on the southern side of the Forth and Clyde Canal adjacent to Portpatrick Road in Old Kilpatrick and extends to approximately 1158 sqm. The site’s northern boundary is onto the tow path which runs alongside the canal. There is a more informal path to the western boundary which links the tow path (Core path 110) with Core Path 166. The site sits within an area of tree cover which is designated as open space within the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. 3.2 Currently on site there is the remnants of what was Ferry Dyke Canal House (also known as Ferrydykes Cottage). The building has sat empty for a number of years and in addition, has been set alight on two occasions as stated within the supporting statement submitted as part of the application. The majority of the roof is missing with vegetation growing within various places in the building’s interior. Vegetation has also penetrated the remaining stonework. The building is not capable of being occupied in its current form and the extent of the works required to the building would go beyond repair and reinstatement. They would be more akin to a complete rebuilding of the structure. As such, what remains on site is a ruin with the previous use considered to be abandoned. Accordingly, the structure can no longer be classed as a dwelling in terms of Planning. The site has re-naturalised over time and is now covered with areas of dense vegetation and a variety of immature and trees. A number of more mature trees also surround the former cottage. 3.3 Planning permission is sought to reinstate the two and a half storey dwellinghouse, including an extension beyond the original footprint to the rear as well as a porch to the front. In addition, it is proposed to extend the curtilage of the property to the east and south in order to provide garden grounds for Ferrydykes Cottage. ITEM 6c Page 33
Page 34
3.4 The extension proposed to the rear of the property is single storey in height, projecting 5.6m from the rear of building and measure 6.4m in width. The proposed porch projects 1.9m from the principal elevation of the property and measures 2m. Within the newly constructed roof, two dormer windows are proposed to the rear of the building. In terms of window and door openings, to the rear a new door opening at the ground floor level is proposed, which will allow for the newly created terrace above the single storey extension to be accessed. One new window opening is to be created at ground floor level on the east elevation. 3.5 Proposed material finishes are not detailed within the plans but are noted within the supporting statement as white render for the external walls, natural slate for the roof, slate coloured zinc dormer windows, cast iron rainwater goods and timber sash and case windows fronting the towpath. 3.6 The proposed floorplans show a lounge, kitchen and bedroom 1 at the lower ground floor level and a lounge, bathroom and bedroom 2 at ground floor level. Bedrooms 3 and 4 are shown at the attic level. Within the proposed garden grounds a patio is shown to the rear of the property with a lawn and large pond within the garden grounds. Bin storage and a shed are also shown to the south of the property, but no details have been provided of the shed. 3.7 Due to the location of the Ferrydykes Cottage on the opposite side of the Canal to Portpatrick Road, no parking has been provided within the red line boundary. As part of the application process the applicant and their agent have investigated alternative parking solutions and have proposed the lease of one of the garage sites on Portpatrick Road in order to provide space for one car to be parked off-street. 3.8 The site is located between Core Path 110 and Core Path 166, adjacent to the course of the Antonine Wall, within an area designated as part of both the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 as open space and within close proximity to the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area. 3.9 In support of the proposal the applicant has submitted a range of supporting documentation and information including a Design Supporting Statement, Tree Report and Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service initially requested that off street parking be provided. The applicant has indicated that they are able to secure the use of an adjacent site on Portpatrick Road to which the Roads Service have confirmed would be acceptable if it this was secured in perpetuity. In addition, a condition relating to a construction programme are recommended in order to ensure there is no unacceptable impact on the public road. 4.2 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service (Flooding) initially requested that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) be submitted. Upon review of the Flood Risk Assessment there are no objections on flood risk grounds. 4.3 West Dunbartonshire Council Environmental Health Service recommend the addition of conditions relating to the presence of any previously unexpected contamination and the re-use of site won material or import of material to any granting of permission. 4.4 West Dunbartonshire Council Biodiversity Officer welcomes that the Preliminary Ecological Assessment demonstrates there is no impact on protected species. Time Page 34
Page 35
constraints noted for site clearance due to bird breeding season and overwintering birds within the Special Protection Area. The Preliminary Ecological Assessment does not consider the distance to the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area to have significant impact however NatureScot’s response does consider the development proposal as having likely significant effect on the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area. All mitigation instructed by NatureScot would need therefore to be conditioned. 4.5 In terms of biodiversity onsite – there is proposed tree loss and no details have been provided showing trees lost and retained (or mitigation for safeguarding trees to be retained through the construction phase). There is no biodiversity enhancement of the site demonstrated and nothing has been offered in terms of trees replaced (mitigation) or indeed any enhancements, or landscaping plans. There is mention of a biodiversity pond in the design statement, but no plans have been given for this. 4.6 Scottish Water has no objection to the application; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. 4.7 NatureScot recommend that the proposal can be progressed with appropriate mitigation. Due to works within 40m of the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area boundary, mitigation measures would be to include conditions that ensure either works are undertaken within a specific timeframe or that noise barrier are used. 4.8 Historic Environment Scotland consider that the repair, consolidation, and conversion would help ensure the long-term survival of a structure that is of historical interest in relation to the use and function of the Forth and Clyde Canal. The proposed extensions are considered to be appropriate. In relation to the Antonine Wall and fort designations, HES would be content that the proposals would not have a negative impact on the setting of either the world heritage site or scheduled monument. 4.9 Scottish Canals (British Waterways Scotland) support the appropriate reuse and development of the former Ferry Dyke Canal House and the associated regeneration of the surrounding site. It is noted that all interfaces with the canal, including construction methodologies adjacent to the canal structure, with require the Scottish Canals Third Party Works approval. In addition Scottish Canals feel that it would be appropriate for the applicant to review suitable access routes and submit an appropriate method statement. 4.10 Scottish Environment Protection Agency initially submitted a holding objection to the application and requested that further information be provided. Once this information was provided and following a re-consultation, SEPA objected in principle to the application and recommended that planning permission should be refused. This is because the proposed development is expected to put people or property at risk of flooding, which is contrary to the duties se out under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, and the policy principles of National Planning Framework 4. 5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 A letter of support has been received from the Old Kilpatrick Community Council. The full details are contained within the planning file and are available for public viewing. However, the points raised can be summarised as follows: • The Community Council are delighted to hear that the building is to be brought back into use as a home. • For some years it has been a blight on the canal and a regular target for vandals. Page 35
Page 36
• The proposal should be no different from other developments south of the canal, in particular the Marine Technology Park and other proposed development at Bowling. • The Community Council want to restate their support for the proposal and hope that it encourages further development in this historic part of the village. The concerns raised shall be assessed in the Section 7 below. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 6.1 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. 6.2 Policy 7 relates to historic assets and places. As the site is adjacent to the Antonine Wall, the Forth and Clyde Canal and the building is on the Buildings at Risk Register, part h) relating to development proposals affecting scheduled monuments, part l) development proposals affecting a World Heritage Site or its setting and part n) development proposals which sensitively repair, enhance and bring historic buildings, as identified as being at risk locally or on the national Buildings at Risk Register are all applicable. Overall Policy 7’s intent is to protect and enhance the historic environment assets and places and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. 6.3 As the site has been previously developed, Policy 9 addressing brownfield, vacant and derelict land applies. Development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings, whether permanent or temporary, will be supported. 6.4 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. 6.5 Policy 16 relates to quality homes. Part (f) states that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the Local Development Plan will only be supported in limited circumstances where: the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods; and the proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary. 6.6 Green infrastructure is considered through Policy 20. Proposals that result in fragmentation or net loss of existing green infrastructure will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained. 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 Page 36
Page 37
minimise the area of impermeable surface. The application site is within an area at risk of flooding and the proposal does not fall into any of the exemptions set out within the Policy. 6.8 The proposed development is not supported by all policies of NPF4 and is assessed fully in Section 7 below. West Dunbartonshire Adopted Local Plan 2010 6.9 Policy UR1 encourages the redevelopment and re-use of underused, vacant and/or derelict land and buildings for appropriate uses such as housing. Policy RD1 give preference to residential development on brownfield sites within the urban area rather than on greenfield land. 6.10 Policy H4 sets out standards expected of residential development, requiring high quality design in the range of house types and sizes and in terms of form, layout and materials. Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high quality of design and respects the character and amenity of the area. 6.11 Under Policy R1 there is a presumption against development which adversely affects the use, character or amenity of functional and valuable open space. Policy R2 specifies the open space provision required for all developments. Assessment of open space requirements has been undertaken against the more updated “Our Green Network” Planning Guidance (2015) in Section 7 below. Policy R4 relates to the Forth and Clyde Canal and adjacent areas. Policy R4F states that wherever possible development should be oriented towards and integrate with the canal, overlook the canal to provide a supervised edge and provide direct access to the existing canal side paths. Policy R5 protects Core Paths and Rights of Way and Policy GN1 promotes and protects the Green Network including core paths. 6.12 Policy E1 relates to the Council’s biodiversity duty and Policy E2B relates to National Nature Conservation sites which includes the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area (SPA). Development that affects such areas will only be permitted in certain circumstances. Policy E5 requires new development proposals to consider impacts on trees and incorporate suitable tree planting. Policies F1 and F2 aim to ensure that new development is not at risk from, and does not increase the risk of flooding, and has suitable SUDS drainage infrastructure. There is a general presumption against development within the flood plain. The up-to-date development plan position in flooding is set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 which therefore has primacy in this instance. 6.13 Policy BE3 relates to derelict/vacant buildings and notes that the Council will encourage and support the renovation rather than demolition of derelict properties which are not listed but are considered to contribute to the townscape character of the surrounding area. Under Policy BE5 the council will resist any development proposal that would have an adverse impact on or affect the setting of a scheduled monument or upon other nationally or locally important archaeological sites. Policy BE6B outlines that there will be a presumption against development within the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site buffer zones which would have an adverse impact on the Site and its setting. 6.14 The proposal generally complies with the policies of the adopted local plan although is contrary to the precautionary approach in respect of flooding and is assessed fully in Section 7 below. Page 37
Page 38
7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 7.1 On 15 March 2023, the Planning Committee took a decision that the Council would not adopt Local Development Plan 2. The Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), incorporating the recommended modifications of the Examination Report received on 22 April 2020, which were accepted by the Planning Committee of 19 August 2020, remains the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore afforded significant weight in the assessment and determination of planning applications, subject to compatibility with NPF4. The Scottish Ministers’ Direction relating to the adoption of LDP2, dated 18 December 2020, is also a material consideration. 7.2 Policy CP1 seeks to ensure that all new development will be expected to contribute towards creating successful places by having regard to the six qualities of a successful place (distinctive, adaptable, resource efficient, easy to get to/move around, safe and pleasant, and welcoming). Policy CP2 requires the integration and consideration of green infrastructure from the outset of the design process through to its maintenance and stewardship of the resource. 7.3 Policy H4 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. 7.4 Under policy FCC1 development alongside the Forth & Clyde Canal should enhance this green network asset. Policy BE1 states that where development would adversely affect a scheduled monument or the integrity of the setting of a scheduled monument, permission would only be granted where there are exceptional circumstances. Policy AW1 relates to the Antonine wall and notes that development that would have an adverse impact on the Antonine Wall or its setting will not be permitted. 7.5 Policy GI1 relates to safeguarding open space and outdoor sports facilities and states that development which would result in the loss of open space which is, or has the potential to be, of quality and value will not be permitted unless provision of additional open space of equal or enhanced quality and value is provided within the development site or its vicinity. Policies GI2 and GI4 relate to green infrastructure. Policy GI2 requires new development to meet with the open space standards set out within the policy. Where a development has difficulty providing these standards on site, or where a relaxation of the standards can be justified, developers will require to accord with Policy GI4 and provide a contribution towards the types of projects outlined within the policy and detailed in the Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance. GI4 sets out the requirements for Developer contributions. 7.6 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. Policy ENV5 aims to protect and improves the quality and enjoyment of the water environment. 7.7 CON3 encourages improvements to core paths and the development of new core paths and Policy CON4 sets out a need for all developments to install sufficient broadband provisions. Page 38
Page 39
7.8 It is considered that the application proposal being assessed generally complies with the relevant policies above, although it is contrary to the precautionary approach in respect of flooding as set out in the following assessment. Creating Places Guidance and Green Network and Green Infrastructure Guidance 7.9 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. The proposal has been informed by a comprehensive pre- application as encourage by the Guidance. This has resulted in a development proposal that achieves a high-quality design that responds to the local context and accords with the approach set out in the Guidance. 7.10 The Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance - November 2022 seeks to ensure that the proposal also integrates landscaping and green infrastructure as part of the setting of the new development and open space created. This will include a focus on biodiversity enhancement. The on-site provision follows the Guidance in respect of residential development proposals. The open space also integrates with the wider green network adjacent inclusive of pathway connections. The proposal accords with the approach set out in the Guidance. Principle of Development 7.11 The site is a brownfield site adjacent to a well-established residential area but is not specifically identified in either the adopted Local Plan the proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) as a residential development opportunity. Whilst not identified as a development opportunity, the sustainable re-use of brownfield land is supported through Policy 9 of NPF4. Policy 16 also supports that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing where they are supported by an agreed timescale for build-out and that the proposal is for is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary. Whilst identified as open space, the application site is considered to be within the settlement boundary of Old Kilpatrick. A timescale for the build-out can be addressed via condition. 7.12 The proposal to redevelop underused and vacant land is also supported by Policy UR1 of the Local Plan together with Policy RD1 which sets out a preference for residential development on brownfield sites. 7.13 In addition, Policy 16 supports development proposals which sensitively repair, enhance and bring historic buildings, as identified as being at risk locally or on the national Buildings at Risk Register, back into beneficial use. The building has been on the register since September of 2021 and is classed as being in the “moderate” category of risk. 7.14 As such, the principle of the development of the site for new housing is supported on this site and it rests to consider whether there are any material planning considerations or site constraints which suggest that the proposal would not be acceptable. Site Layout, Design and Appearance 7.15 New developments require to be well designed, take cognisance of the setting into which they are introduced and provide a high-quality appearance. Whilst the use of a dwellinghouse has ceased on site, the ruins of the building have remained on site. As such, a building in this location is well established. The proposal sets out to reinstate what would have been previously in place in terms of the porch on the front of the cottage. The existence of the porch can be seen within the historic photos submitted as part of the supporting statement. As such the front of the proposal, which is onto Page 39
Page 40
the tow path is designed to reflect what was once in existence. The newer elements of the proposal, including the dormer windows, extension and raised terrace are all located to the rear. They are proportionate to the existing cottage and well designed in relation to the building. 7.16 The current curtilage of the Ferrydykes Cottage is small in size. With the desire for this property to be a family home the applicant has sought to extend this in order to provide a larger garden for the property. The sale of the adjacent land has been agreed by the Infrastructure, Regeneration and Economic Development Committee on 17th August 2022. 7.17 Turning to the proposed materials, the new house will be finished externally in white render and a slate roof. The use of such materials would provide a high-quality visual appearance and be a positive addition to the wider development. Historic photos also indicate that the building previously was finished in a light-coloured render. 7.18 Overall, it is considered that the proposal will create a well-designed development which will address the six qualities of successful places by having a distinctive identity, form safe streets and use high quality materials, all complying with policies GD1, DS1 and CP1 of the adopted and proposed Plans alongside the Residential Development Design Guidance. Trees, landscaping and open space 7.19 A variety of trees exist within the site. Whilst these are not protected by a Tree Preservation Order and many will have self-seeded, they are within designated open space. Whilst it is accepted that some trees will be required to be removed to accommodate the development, no details have been provided showing trees, trees retained or mitigation for safeguarding trees to be retained through the construction phase. Any granting of permission should include a condition which would require further information to be submitted in order to minimise the tree loss as part of the development. In addition, no landscaping plans have been provided. However a pond has been included within the plans and noted within the supporting statement. Landscaping details can be addressed by condition if required. 7.20 As noted, the ground in which the site sits, as well as the ground into which the garden is to be extended into is designated as open space within both the adopted and proposed plans. Policy GI1 of LDP2 states that development which would result in the loss of open space which is, or has the potential to be, of quality and value will not be permitted unless provision of additional open space of equal or enhanced quality and value is provided within the development site or its vicinity. Through previous correspondence as part of the sale of the land, it has been stated that this particular part of the open space is not of particular quality or value. As such the garden grounds extending into this area is acceptable. 7.21 Policy R2 of the adopted Local Plan advises on open space standards for new development with Policies GI2 and GI4 of proposed LDP2 providing the up-to-date position. Any development of new dwellings, even if small scale will be expected to provide a contribution towards the cost of providing or improving green infrastructure in the area. Policy GI4 of proposed LDP2 advises that developer contributions will apply in a number of circumstances including smaller sites of less than 10 units where provision of green infrastructure is not possible. Further details are set out in the Council’s Green Network and Green Infrastructure Planning Guidance 2022. In the event the proposal was otherwise acceptable, a contribution to open space would be expected. Page 40
Page 41
Parking 7.22 Due to its location the site does not have access for parking to be associated with the proposed dwellinghouse within the red line boundary. The Roads Service provided a consultation which requested off street parking to be provided. The agent and applicant have secured the possibility of a lease from the Council for a site on Portpatrick Road which would allow for one car parking space to be provided. The Roads Service have confirmed that this would be an acceptable approach. A condition is recommended for any granting of permission to ensure that for as long as the dwellinghouse is occupied, off street parking is provided on Portpatrick Road. Given the applicant does not, at the time of writing, own the land where parking could potentially be provided, this requirement could not be addressed by condition. However, a legal agreement involving all parties could potentially be used in the event that planning permission was to be granted. Ecology 7.23 The proposed site is within 40m of the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area (SPA) boundary. As such NatureScot were consulted. NatureScot have no objections to the proposal subject to a condition being added to any granting of permission which ensures that appropriate mitigation is put in place in order to protect the overwintering birds within the SPA. This would mean that either the works required would either need to be undertaken within a specific timeframe or a noise barrier would have to be used. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has also commented that time constraints for works would be required for breeding birds also. 7.24 The preliminary ecological appraisal does not highlight any protected species of concern. Whilst the area may support foraging bats, no further surveys are required. Recommendations are contained within the preliminary ecological appraisal including making contractors aware of best practice and root protection areas for trees. This could be addressed by condition. Historic Environment 7.25 Whilst the building is not listed, it does sit adjacent to the Forth and Clyde Canal which is a scheduled monument and also within close proximity to the course of the Antonine Wall and an associated fort. As such Historic Environment Scotland were consulted. Historic Environment Scotland support the proposal to repair, consolidate and covert the building in order to ensure it long-term survival and it’s historical interest in relation to the use and function of the canal. In addition, Historic Environment Scotland considered that the development would not have an adverse impact upon the settling of the Antonine Wall which is a world heritage site. Scottish Canals also support the appropriate reuse and development of the property and associate regeneration of the surrounding site. Scottish Canals recommended that any granting of permission should condition third party works approval. 7.26 Overall it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the policies relating to the historic environment, the Forth and Clyde Canal and the Antonine Wall that are contained within NPF4, the adopted Local Development Plan and the proposed Local Development Plan 2. Residential Amenity 7.27 It has been some time since the proposed site has been utilised as a residential site. However, due to its location on the opposite side of the road and canal from any nearby residential properties, as well as the scale and massing being retained from the original building it is considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact upon Page 41
Page 42
residential amenity. It has been stated within the supporting statement that the site has become an area which is associated with anti-social behaviour. Bringing Ferrydykes Cottage back into use would have a positive impact upon this with natural surveillance created by an inhabited dwellinghouse. This would have a positive impact upon the area. Flooding and drainage 7.28 With respect to flooding and drainage, SEPA were consulted on the application. SEPA requested further details to be submitted and the Council’s Roads Service requested a Flood Risk Assessment. The agent for the application provided the details requested. Following a reconsultation, the Council’s Road’s Service offered no further objection. . SEPA have, however, stated that the proposed development is expected to put people or property at risk of flooding and as such object in principle to the proposal. 7.29 Policy 22 of NPF4 sets out to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. Development proposals at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported in certain circumstances. These include for essential infrastructure, for water compatible uses, for development of an existing building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use; or for 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. The development does not fit into the definitions of essential infrastructure of a water compatible use as defined within NPF4. In addition, whilst there is general support for the development of previously used site and derelict sites, the site itself is not identified within the adopted Local Plan or proposed LDP2 as one to be brought into positive use. 7.30 It therefore rests to consider whether the proposal would result in the development of an existing building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use (as defined by SEPA guidance). Whilst the site has been previously used as a dwellinghouse, the building has fallen into disrepair and is no longer capable of being occupied as a dwellinghouse in its current form. In considering whether this results in the use being abandoned, the current condition of the building is as a result of a fire. Little remains of the interior, and the majority of the roof is missing, exposing the building to the elements. Vegetation is growing in various places within the building’s interior and has penetrated the stonework. Given the condition, the works to the building go beyond repair and reinstatement, they would constitute a rebuilding of the structure and the current physical condition would give the impression that the use had been abandoned. There has been no occupation of the building since two fires which are understood to have occurred soon after the applicant purchased the property in 2006. There is no evidence of any substantive repairs or works to prevent the buildings further deterioration. No planning application was submitted to reinstate the fire damaged property immediately following the fires. Given the above, it can be reasonably concluded that the use of the building as a dwellinghouse has been abandoned and the proposal would amount to a new dwellinghouse. The use as a dwellinghouse is therefore more vulnerable that its current state as a ruin. Whilst mitigation measures have been provided as part of the development, Policy 22 does not give allowances for such mitigation. As such it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy 22 of NPF4. 7.31 It is acknowledged that policies in NPF4 requires to be read and applied as a whole and that conflicts between policies are normal and to be expected. On whether the conflict with Policy 22 could, on balance, be accepted, the assessment is guided by the consultation response from SEPA. SEPA are clear that to show the development is not at risk of flooding, the footprint of the building would need to be set at least 5.29m Page 42
Page 43
above ordnance datum (AOD) and the finished floor levels require to be set 5.89mAOD. Setting the finished floor levels at 4.95mAOD would result in the proposed development being at risk of flooding, Information provided, along with the River Clyde Model, indicates that the property could be surrounded by flood water to a depth of 0.34m. SEPA advise this would be a dangerous situation which would put the people who occupy it at risk. As the proposal does not meet an exemption set out within Policy 22 of NPF4, SEPA advise that flood mitigation measures are not a suitable option to allow development to progress. SEPA further highlight concerns regarding same access and egress to the site during a flood event. Furthermore, SEPA also highlight that the expanded footprint of the proposed development, in comparison to the current one, may affect floodplain capacity and increase flood risk for others. Accordingly, SEPA object in principle to the proposal. 7.32 The proposal would result in the re-development of a derelict building adjacent to the Canal with an appropriate design and appearance, and this would bring a variety of benefits. Notwithstanding this, the flood risk concerns set out in the objection by SEPA in their objection are clear and it is not considered that these, and the failure for the proposal to comply with the requirements of Policy 22 of NPF4, can be outweighed by the benefits resulting from the development. Representations 7.33 One letter of support was received from the Community Council which states their support for the development with the hope that it encourages further development in this historic part of the village. The Community Council further confirm that the property has been a target for vandals in recent years. Questions have been raised as to why the possibility of flooding has affected this proposal but not other developments south of the canal. It should however be noted that a dwellinghouse is considered to be a “highly vulnerable use” by SEPA in contrast to the Marine Technology Park which is a less vulnerable non-residential use and also considered to be a water compatible use in terms of the exemptions set out within Policy 22 of NPF4. Pre-application Consultation 7.34 A pre-application enquiry was submitted under reference PREAPP22/071 in which advice was given relating to the site and requirements which would need to be demonstrated as part of any planning application. No advice was given in relation to the policies contained within NPF4 as this was not adopted until February of 2023. 8 CONCLUSION 8.1 It is accepted that the proposal would bring back into use a vacant and derelict building which is also on the Buildings at Risk Register. Whilst the building itself is not listed, it has historical context with being the bridge keeper’s cottage, adjacent to the scheduled monument that is the Forth and Clyde Canal. It has been suggested through the supporting documents that the area has been problematic for anti-social behaviour and that the bringing back into use of the cottage would create natural surveillance to discourage this. The proposed materials proposed are of high quality and the design is appropriate to the building and its surroundings. 8.2 However, the application site sits within an area which is at risk of flooding. As such Policy 22 of NPF4 applies. This policy only supports development within such areas in certain circumstances, none of which apply to this site as the previous use as a dwellinghouse has been abandoned. Through consultation, SEPA have objected in principle to the proposal stating that the proposed development is expected to put people or property at risk of flooding, which is contrary to the duties set out under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, and the policy principles of National Page 43
Page 44
Planning Framework 4. This concern is not outweighed by the potential benefits of the development. The application proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 22 of NPF4. 9. REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The site sits within an area which is at risk of flooding and the proposal is not for essential infrastructure, is not a water compatible use, does not involve the redevelopment of an existing use building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use due to the any previous use of a dwellinghouse having been abandoned and is not a site for the redevelopment of previously used sites in built up areas where the Local Development Plan 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. The proposal would place people and property at risk of flooding and as such the proposal is not in accordance with Policy 22 of NPF4. Alan Douglas Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Date: 7th August 2024 Person to Contact: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader James.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application forms and plans 2. Representations 3. Consultation responses 4. National Planning Framework 4 5. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 6. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended 7. Creating Places Guidance (2022) 8. Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance (2022) Wards affected: Ward 6 (Clydebank Waterfront) Page 44
Page 45
¯ Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (C) Crown copyright and database right 23/07/2024. All rights reserved. West Dunbartonshire OS Licence Number 100020790. Scale: 1:1,250@A423/07/2024 DC22/245/FUL - Committee MapWest Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street Dumbarton G82 1QL ITEM 6c - APPENDIX 1 Page 45
Page 46
Page 46
Page 47
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Planning Committee: 7th August 2024 DC23/217/FUL: Erection of a class 1A retail foodstore with associated access, car parking, landscaping and associated works on land adjacent to the south of Castle Street, Dumbarton by Aldi Stores Ltd. 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 The 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 That the Committee indicate that it is Minded to Grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 and delegate authority to the Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration to issue the decision following the satisfactory conclusion of the referral of the planning application to the Scottish Ministers. 3. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 This application relates to a part of the former Allied Distillers site on the south side of Castle Street, Dumbarton. The site has been previously cleared of all buildings and consists of hardcore surface. It extends to approximately 0.75ha. It is bounded by a terrace of tenement properties in Castle Terrace to the north, the A-listed building of the Scottish Maritime Museum to the east (with the Morrisons supermarket petrol station and its car park beyond that neighbouring building) and the remainder of the former Allied Distillers site to the west and south-west, which currently houses a Lidl store with the associated car park. To the south-west of the site, the tidal basin and a residential development site can be found. Vehicular access to the site is from Castle Street and is shared with the adjacent retail store. 3.2 The site lies within Dumbarton Town Centre as defined by the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. The surrounding area comprises a mix of uses, including retail, commercial, community and residential uses and vacant land. The Town Centre itself, which comprises a mix of retail, commercial and community uses, extends outwards from the site to the north- west, west and south. 3.3 The site was previously a part of a larger site which was subject to a planning application DC17/230 for the erection of retail development comprising seven ITEM 6d Page 47
Page 48
retail units including a food store, with associated infrastructure works including a new access, car parking and landscaping. This was granted by the Planning Committee in May 2018. The eastern part of the previous site where the two of the retail units with the associated parking were to be located is the site subject to the current application. Following the approval of the previous application, only one of the approved retail units has been constructed and occupied (Lidl) in the western half of the previous site, with the eastern part remaining undeveloped. On account of the previously granted proposal being partly implemented, planning permission DC17/230 remains extant and the development could be completed. 3.4 Permission is sought for an alternative retail development to that currently consented. The proposal would have a gross floor area (GFA) of approximately 1,931m², of which 1,344m² would be retail space. The structure would form a foodstore (Use Class 1A), with the prospective occupier indicated to be Aldi. The unit would consist of a detached supermarket and would be located at the eastern part of the site near the boundary located against the western elevation of the museum. 3.5 The proposed building would have a shallow monopitch roof, reaching 6.27m in height at its highest point. The structure would be single storey. Externally, the building would be a variant of the common Aldi store (the prospective occupiers) design which can be found throughout the country. This includes a glazed elevation to the north of the building, with the main glazed entrance located in the north-western corner. High level windows will form a large part of the north elevation. The building would be finished in powder coated aluminium cladding in grey colour. As described above, service access would be to the rear (south) of the building, accessed from the adjacent proposed car park. 3.6 The northern part of the site would provide the main vehicular access, with a secondary access to the west of the car park. The car park will comprise 87 spaces. The spaces would include six no. disabled spaces, two of which would feature electric vehicle (EV) chargers, two standard spaces with EV chargers, eight parent and child spaces, and two click and collect spaces. Five cycle hoops will provide parking for 10 bicycles. A footpath between the existing carriageway at the Lidl car park with associated zebra crossings to facilitate pedestrian movement through the car park and to the main door of the store would also be created. The southernmost part of the site would also provide access to the loading bay, to be located against the southern elevation of the proposed store. Service vehicles will access via the car park. 3.7 Landscaping within the development would comprise of a low-level selective and mixed shrub planting and trees. The key element would be the planting located at the northern entrance to the car park, opposite of a three-car parking bay near the north-western corner of the site. It would consist of three no. Whitebeam (Sorbus aria) trees and a mix of shrubs. The northern perimeter of the site would also benefit from tree planting, in the form of seven trees, comprising four Mountain Ash (Sorbus aucuparia), two no. Birch (Betula pendula) and one no. Whitebeam (Sorbus aria). These would be accompanied by a selection of shrubs. A further two no. trees of the Whitebeam variety would Page 48
Page 49
be planted along the eastern perimeter of the site at the northernmost parking bays; the remainder of the curtilage would be planted with a wildflower meadow, to consist of annual and perennial varieties of flowers, with robust grasses. In terms of landscaping of the southern perimeter, the area between the eastern boundary and the loading bay would be planted with a mix of shrubs. The remaining narrow strip along the southern boundary would be covered in chipping mulch, with further shrubs planted along it. The western boundary of the site would be planted with six no. of trees (three each of Mountain Ash and Birch), as well as a selection of shrubs. Additional shrubs would be planted on the traffic islands near the proposed zebra crossings within the car park. 3.8 While the application indicates that there would be signage on the northern and eastern elevations, as well as a post sign on the grass verge near the corner of Castle Street and Castle Terrace, this will require to be assessed under a separate application for Advertisement Consent. 3.9 The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement, Economic Impact Statement, Design and Access Statement, Transport Statement, Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment, Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment, Report of Consultation, Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Energy Statement and Noise Assessment, which address various technical issues. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service have no objection to the proposal in respect of roads and parking. 4.2 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service (Flooding) have no objection to the proposal in respect of with flooding matters. 4.3. West Dunbartonshire Council Environmental Health Service have no objection, subject to conditions on construction and operating hours. 4.4 West Dunbartonshire Council Biodiversity Officer has no objection subject to relevant conditions relating to landscaping and biodiversity enhancement. 4.5 Glasgow Airport have no objection subject to condition on provision of Bird Hazard Management Plan for the approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport and an advisory note on crane operation during the period of construction. 4.6 Historic Environment Scotland have no comment to make on this proposal. 4.7 Nature Scotland have no comment to make on this application as the development proposal is not within 150 metres of the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area. 4.8 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency object in principle to the application and recommend that planning permission should be refused. This is because the proposed development is expected to put people or property at risk of Page 49
Page 50
flooding, which is contrary to the duties se out under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, and the policy principles of National Planning Framework 4. 4.9 West of Scotland Archaeological Service have no objection to the proposal on the grounds of the site having been significantly disturbed in the modern period and due to the previous proposals for it receiving no objection or request for archaeology-related conditions from this consultee. 5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 59 representations have been received in connection with the proposal. Five of these are in objection and 54 are in support. The full details are contained within the planning file and are available for public viewing. However, the points raised can be summarised as follows: In objection: • Objections on the basis of overprovision of supermarkets in the area and oversaturation of this use in this part of Dumbarton • Objection due to the potential impact of the development on the High Street shops and the adjacent established supermarkets and the retail park • Question over accessibility to the site. In support: • General support and enthusiasm for the proposal • Appropriate location for this type of development • Bringing back into use a previously disused site • Support due to the proposed Aldi store likely adding to the variety of the retail offering and amenities in Dumbarton, and overall likely positive impact on the town and the area due to increased footfall and improved amenity • Support due to improving competition in the retail offering and providing affordable shopping opportunities in the area, also in the context of the current economic landscape and the cost of living and the supporters’ requirement for low-cost shops • Support due to the resulting new employment opportunities • Support on the basis of the existing transport infrastructure being capable of carrying additional traffic and the nearby existing public transport links Support for the proposed design of the development • Support due to close proximity of the proposal to the supporter’s place of residence • Local branch of Aldi in Dumbarton will spare local residents having to travel to the nearest alternative branch of this chain in Vale of Leven (including public transport users), thus limiting the environmental impact from these journeys The matters raised above are considered and addressed in Section 7 below. Page 50
Page 51
6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 6.1 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. 6.2 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity and deliver positive effects from development, requiring that local development includes appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. It is noted that measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development. 6.3 Policy 6 aims to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. It advises that proposals will not be supported where they result in the loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or individual trees of high biodiversity value. Where woodland is removed, compensatory planting is expected to be delivered. 6.4 Policy 7 aims to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, with proposals affecting scheduled monuments only supported where direct impacts on the integrity and setting of scheduled monuments are avoided or exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the impacts on the monument and any impacts have been minimised. 6.5 Policy 12 relates to waste and advises that development proposals will set out how much waste the proposal is expected to generate and how it will be managed. 6.6 Policy 13 supports proposals where they provide direct, easy, segregated and safe links to local facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks and are accessible by public transport. 6.7 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, with development proposals required to contribute to both, where relevant, through local access to a wide range of facilities and activities, including lifelong learning and recreation facilities 6.8 Under part (f) of Policy 19, proposals for buildings that will be occupied by people will be supported where they are designed to promote sustainable temperature management, for example by prioritising natural or passive solutions such as siting, orientation, and materials. 6.9 Green infrastructure is considered through Policy 20. Proposals that result in fragmentation or net loss of existing green infrastructure will only be supported Page 51
Page 52
where it can be demonstrated that this would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained. 6.10 Policy 21 seeks to promote and facilitate spaces and opportunities for play, recreation and sport. It advises that development proposals likely to be occupied or used by children and young people will be supported where they incorporate well designed, good quality provision for play, recreation, and relaxation that is proportionate to the scale and nature of the development and existing provision in the area. 6.11 Policy 22 addresses flood risk and water management, stating that proposals will not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk; manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), and seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. The application site is within an area at risk of flooding. However, notwithstanding the objection from SEPA, the proposal the proposal is considered to fall within at least one of the exemptions set out within the Policy. 6.12 Policy 23 aims to safeguard people from environmental harm and promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. Development proposals that will have positive effects on health will be supported. Policy 24 supports proposals that incorporate appropriate, universal, and future-proofed digital infrastructure. 6.13 Policy 27 seeks to promote and facilitate development in our city and town centres, advising that proposals that enhance and improve the vitality and viability of city, town and local centres, including proposals that increase the mix of uses, will be supported. 6.14 The proposed development is supported overall by NPF4 although there is some conflict with Policy 22. This is assessed fully in Section 7 below. West Dunbartonshire Adopted Local Plan 2010 6.15 The site is located within Dumbarton Town Centre, which is identified under Policy RP1 as a regeneration priority area where the Council will support the redevelopment of underused or vacant land in order that development opportunities that continue the process of urban renewal are brought forward. 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 in which it is located. Policy GD2 supports redevelopment opportunities and specifically identifies this site as suitable for a mixed use development comprising retail, residential and public services. 6.16 Policy RET1 requires the adoption of a sequential approach to site selection for new retail development. The application site is located within a defined town centre, which is the first preference for new retail developments. Policy RET2 requires proposals for any significant retail developments within the town centre to be assessed against certain criteria, including: whether the proposal is supported by the relevant catchment area; impact on the vitality and viability of Page 52
Page 53
existing centres; accessibility by public transport; impact on the surrounding environment; quality of design; whether there are any significant infrastructural implications; and the contribution the development would make to remedying any quantitative or qualitative deficiencies in the existing retail provision. Policy RET5 seeks to improve the environment of Dumbarton Town Centre and requires that any development at Dumbarton Waterfront take due cognisance of any relevant design guides for this area. 6.17 Policies F1, F2 and F3 relate to flooding and drainage and aim to ensure that new development is not at risk of flooding, does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere and has suitable drainage infrastructure which includes SUDS measures. 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. Policy BE2 relates to listed buildings and seeks to prevent any development which would detract from the appearance, setting or character of a listed building. 6.18 Policy T1 and T4 require sites to be integrated with sustainable travel. Policy E1 relates to the Council’s Biodiversity duty and Policy E5 requires new development proposals to consider impacts on trees and incorporate suitable tree planting. 6.19 Policy H4 safeguards residential amenity and Policy ENV8 relates to noise pollution. As outlined above possible noise nuisance will dealt with by condition. 6.20 The application is assessed against the criteria of the above policies in Section 7 below. A retail development would comply with a number of these policies. 7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 7.1 On 15 March 2023, the Planning Committee took a decision that the Council would not adopt Local Development Plan 2. The Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), incorporating the recommended modifications of the Examination Report received on 22 April 2020, which were accepted by the Planning Committee of 19 August 2020, remains the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore afforded significant weight in the assessment and determination of planning applications, subject to compatibility with NPF4. The Scottish Ministers’ Direction relating to the adoption of LDP2, dated 18 December 2020, is also a material consideration. 7.2 The application site forms part of the Dumbarton Town Centre and Waterfront ‘Changing Place’ and is specifically identified as suitable for a mixed-use development including retail and residential elements. The preferred strategy is for retail and commercial uses at ground floor level along Castle Street in order to provide an active street frontage and improve links between High Street and St James Retail Park. It also emphasises that throughout the development site, green space creation will be an important consideration, as is the provision of public access along the entire waterfront. The route of the proposed Lomond Canal should also be protected from incompatible development. Page 53
Page 54
7.3 Policy CP1 seeks to ensure that development is of a high quality, adaptable and designed to be suitable for a mix of occupants. It indicates 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. 7.4 Policy SC1 supports proposals for retail development in the network of centres which accord with the strategy, role and functions of centres. Town centres are the preferred location for all retail proposals. The proposed development complies with the requirements of Policy SC1. 7.5 The adjacent River Leven is a Local Nature Conservation Site, and Policy GN3 does not support development which would adversely affect the integrity of sites designated for nature conservation or harms protected species. The proposal complies with Policy GN3. Policy GN6 seeks to protect and improve the quality and enjoyment of the water environment whilst Policy GN8 expects developments to enhance active travel connectivity within the green network, particularly where this would create routes to and along waterways. The proposed development is considered to comply with these policies and this is discussed below. 7.6 Policy BE2 relates to listed buildings and aims to prevent any development occurring which would detract from the special interest, setting or detrimentally affect the character of a listed building. The proposed development is not considered to be contrary to the Policy BE2. 7.7 Policy SC1 advises that proposals for retail, commercial and leisure investment, and other key Town Centre uses, should align with the sequential approach and the preferred uses set out in Table 5. Developments are directed sequentially to Town Centres in the first instance. 7.8 Policies ENV1, ENV4, ENV 5 and ENV6 are all similar to the ecology, tree, water environment and flooding policies of the adopted Local Plan. The up-to- date development plan position in flooding is set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 which therefore has primacy in this instance. Policy ENV8 requires developments to address air quality, lighting and noise as part of the planning process. 7.9 Policy RE4 encourages micro-generation and heat recovery technologies within or associated with individual properties, with Policy RE5 advising that new buildings are required, as far as possible, to integrate low and/or zero carbon generating technologies. 7.10 A retail development would comply with a number of these policies and is assessed fully below. Page 54
Page 55
Dumbarton Town Centre and Waterfront Revised Urban Strategy (2014) 7.11 The importance of Dumbarton Waterfront in terms of regeneration and urban design requirements is reflected by the existence of guidance encouraging high standards of urban design. The revised urban strategy was prepared to consolidate and update earlier design guidance and regeneration masterplans for different parts of the town centre and waterfront. For the Castle Street and the waterfront area, the Council expects development to successfully integrate with the surrounding town centre and neighbouring waterfront areas in terms of connections, scale of development, high quality public realm and the creation of views towards Dumbarton Castle/Rock framed by new streets. 7.12 Due to the proximity of the town centre, any new development should have a traditionally urban street form. The strategy envisages mixed use development, including residential and compatible town centre uses such as food and drink use on the waterfront. The proposal raises no additional matters in relation to this guidance beyond the extant permission for a retail development on the site. Creating Places Planning Guidance and Green Network and Green Infrastructure Planning Guidance 7.13 The Creating Places 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. The Green Network and Green Infrastructure Guidance - November 2022 seeks to ensure that the proposal integrates landscaping and green infrastructure as part of the setting of the new development and open space created. This will include a focus on biodiversity enhancement. Following a full assessment, it is concluded that the proposal presents no conflict with the aims of the guidance. Principle of Development 7.14 The development of the site for retail purposes is supported by the land use policies in both the adopted and proposed Plans. In particular, having a major convenience store operator located within Dumbarton town centre is to be welcomed, as it would offer wider retail choice as well as bringing with it employment opportunities and economic benefits to the area. Retail development within existing town centres is supported by both national and local planning policy. Through the granting of planning application DC17/230, the principle of a retail development on the site has been established. As this planning permission remains extant, the currently consented proposal could be taken forward on site. It therefore rests to consider whether there are any material planning considerations or site constraints which suggest that the revised retail development proposal for the site would not be acceptable. Impact on Town Centres and Retail 7.15 The extant planning permission for the site would allow the construction of two retail units with a combined gross floor area of 2,011 square metres. The proposed development has a gross floor area of 1,931 square metres. Therefore, the revised proposal for the site does not increase the gross retail floor area provided by the development and this will have no additional impact on the existing town centre beyond the consented position. It is not considered Page 55
Page 56
that the proposal would change the role or nature of Dumbarton within the network of retail centres, and the proposal would not have any significant impact upon any other town centre. Whilst it remains that the prospective occupier of the proposed retail unit could occupy the consented floorspace as a single retail unit, discount foodstores primarily serve local markets and have a relatively limited catchment area. It is also noted that the existing brand recognition and customer loyalty, both of which are clearly indicated in the multiple representations received in response to this application, already encourage local residents to travel outwith the Dumbarton area to access their nearest established Aldi stores. The development is therefore likely to discourage this trend and transfer that footfall back to the town centre of Dumbarton. As the site is sequentially preferable to the St James Retail Park (which is classified as an edge-of-centre Commercial Centre), it is not necessary to consider the impact of the proposal upon the retail park. Economic benefit 7.16 Any development of this nature will result in employment creation and will, overall, contribute to the local economy. In developing this site, the applicant indicates that 35 no. full time equivalent (FTE) jobs. Moreover, the Economic Impact Statement submitted with this application suggests that 3.5 no. indirect jobs will be created. Furthermore, six no. further FTE jobs in the construction of the proposed store would be generated by the project. The applicant also indicates that the proposal will help contribute a Gross Value Added (GVA) of over £1,150,000 to the economy, with estimated about £110,000 in business rates per annum to the Council. The development is also considered to have a positive benefit to the vitality of the town centre by bringing more people into the area and increasing activity. Whilst in the area, visitors to the proposed foodstore may also visit other shops and services within the town centre and the adjacent retail park. Overall, the development will result in significant investment in Dumbarton Town Centre with the potential to act as one of the catalysts for the wider regeneration ambitions of the town centre. Site Layout, Design and Appearance 7.17 New development requires to be well designed, take cognisance of the setting into which it is introduced and provide high quality, well designed buildings, whilst recognising the impact on existing neighbouring properties. The site is located at an important gateway into Dumbarton Town Centre, being prominently positioned near Castle Street which was realigned in the recent past to enable redevelopment of this part of town. The site is also situated on Dumbarton waterfront, at the head of the old tidal basin in the River Leven and at one of relatively few places on the main routes through the town from which there are unobstructed views towards the river and Dumbarton Castle. The site is also at the centre of a pedestrian and cycle route along the waterfront, linking the castle and new residential areas with the town centre. Its development is also set against Castle Street, which is the main pedestrian route linking the High Street with St James Retail Park. The site is also adjacent to the A-listed Denny Maritime Museum, with several other A-and B-listed buildings nearby. Although not listed, the tidal basin is of significant historic interest. The site is also opposite the recently constructed Council office at 16 Church Street, which Page 56
Page 57
reuses the A-listed façade and has incorporated a new build of quality in terms of design and materials. 7.18 The 1,931m2 store unit footprint is appropriate relative to the 0.75ha (or 7,500m2) site size, with the single storey scale and linear form mirroring the established Lidl store at the adjacent site and aligning with and complimenting the adjacent waterfront path. The building would have a contemporary and attractive appearance, with the use of floor to ceiling windows/door at the elevation corner most prominent when entering the site through the northern entrance to the car park. The proposed design and finish of the structure is monochromatic, avoiding brash or excessive use of colours and features and is therefore likely to subdue to the surroundings of the historic Castle Terrace and the panorama of the river and Dumbarton Rock in the background when viewing the site from Castle Street. Moreover, the visual impact of the unit and its massing will be softened thanks to the trees to be planted along the perimeters of the site, as well as the screening afforded by the tenement terrace north of the site and the historic museum building located immediately to the east. 7.19 It is noted that the application does not include information on the provision of low and/or zero carbon generating technologies, as required by Policy RE5. This matter can, however, be addressed through condition. 7.20 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would create a well-designed development that addresses the six qualities of successful places by having a distinctive identity, using high quality materials and being well connected and sustainable. The proposed building would be lower, have a less bulky appearance and also a more attractive glazed frontage than the retail units currently consented on this site. As such, it complies with Policy 15 of the NPF4 and policies GD1, DS1 and CP1 of the adopted and proposed Plans, alongside the Creating Places Guidance (2022). Residential Amenity 7.21 The layout and scale of development proposed relative to the proximity of existing housing raises no concerns with respect to privacy, overshadowing or overbearing effects. While the development will undoubtedly bring additional activity to the area, it is unlikely to result in any noise or activity beyond that typically found in a Town Centre during the day, nor is it expected that any disturbance would occur beyond that which would occur should the consented units be constructed on site. Whilst planning permission DC17/230 did not restrict delivery hours, the position of the delivery bay relative to the residential development allocation of the adjacent site within proposed Local Development Plan 2 is acknowledged. In order to prevent conflict with future residential development and disturbance to residents during the nighttime hours of 11pm to 7am, a condition should be attached which prevents deliveries occurring during this time and these details will be considered in conjunction with the requirement for a delivery management plan. 7.22 It is accepted that the construction phase will produce an element of short-term noise and disruption, the consultation response from the Council’s Page 57
Page 58
Environmental Health Service highlights the requirement for the construction of the development to be undertaken in a way that ensures that adjacent residential amenity is not adversely affected, which can be secured through condition. Trees, Open Space and Landscaping 7.23 It is noted that the proposal relates to a cleared site and there are no trees to be removed. The proposed landscaping plan introduces tree planting, ornamental shrub planting and species rich wildflower grass mix and the Council’s Biodiversity Officer who advises that this approach will benefit wildlife. The inclusion of a wildflower grass mix within the site is welcomed, but will be required to have management carried out on it. A minimum of one cut and lift per year in September is recommended, with an additional cut towards the end of March which would also be beneficial. The arisings should be removed from site. It is noted that topsoil has been recommended in the planting schedule. The responding officer would recommend this for the formal ornamental planting areas. However, the wildflower mix will do much better on a bed of nutrient poor soil and subsoil is recommended for native wildflower mixes. The proposed soft landscaping enhances the that proposed via the current planning permission in place and will provide two-fold improvements of increased biodiversity to the site but also the softening of the appearance of the site. It will also add interest to this town centre site. The final detail and management can be addressed by condition. Traffic, parking and road safety 7.24 The proposal raises no concerns with respect to traffic generation and road safety due to the scale and nature of the development and the excellent public transport and active travel connections associated with a Town Centre location. Dedicated parking is proposed, and it will include disabled parking, family parking, EV charging (with provisions for future expansion of this facility) and dedicated parking bays for Click & Collect shoppers. It is considered that the proposed number of spaces is adequate within this Town Centre location. It is also noted that the consultation response from the Roads service raised no objection in relation to these issues. Transport and Connectivity 7.25 With the site being located in the Town Centre, it is accessible to a wide range of local services and within a five-minute walk of frequent public transport services to centres across West Dunbartonshire and beyond to Glasgow and Helensburgh. It is therefore concluded that the development is provided in an appropriate location within an established settlement accessible by means other than the private car. It is noted that the proposal also includes provision of hoops for bicycle parking. On the above basis, it is also considered that the development takes into consideration and manages environmental impact of some of the travel to be generated by it. Ecology 7.26 A preliminary ecological appraisal was submitted with the application and this has been reviewed by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer. The Biodiversity Officer advises that the boundary wall features to the north of the site has the potential Page 58
Page 59
to host bats and birds. Moreover, although the site is covered with hardcore, this could pose an attractive offer to certain types of ground nesting birds, whose habitat should not be disturbed during the nesting season. The protection of nesting birds can be addressed by condition. 7.27 Presence of hedgehogs was noted on site. For this reason, access points for this specie should be included on any boundary fencing treatment are recommended by the Biodiversity Officer and this can be secured with a condition. Moreover, the redshank roost observed to the south of the site is potentially vulnerable to displacement during the works. The Biodiversity Officer advises that consideration should be given to appropriate screening of the site during the works phase. The applicant’s ecologist has suggested further surveys on this and this requirement should be clarified with them and any appropriate mitigation measures put in place. This can be secured through condition. As the site is more than 150 metres from the Inner Clyde SPA, NatureScot advised that the proposal does not meet the threshold for them to comment on. Given the distance from the SPA, it can be concluded that no adverse impact will occur in respect of the qualifying species. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer also raises no concerns in this respect. 7.28 Finally, the Biodiversity Officer welcomes the use of built-in habitat boxes. Bird boxes require maintenance and this should be built in to the landscaping management contract, secured through condition, with one clean out of the boxes per year from October to January recommended. The responding officer is also satisfied with the proposed inclusion of vertical planting and native mixed wildflower seen on the lawn. Additional items such as invertebrate bricks and habitat boxes also considered to be welcome from the biodiversity point of view. While not included in the application site, the officer also commands retention of the buffer shrub area immediately south of the site. Built and Cultural Heritage 7.29 The site is adjacent to the historic Dumbarton waterfront as well as the A-listed Scottish Maritime Museum building. It is also in the vicinity of several other A- and B-listed properties and in close proximity to the Dumbarton Town Centre and Knoxland Square Conservation Areas. Neither Historic Environment Scotland, nor West of Scotland Archaeological Service objected to the proposal. The latter consultee also stated that given the level of modern disturbance of the site and despite its location near the original known location of the historic burgh and the Rock, there would be no reason for concern in relation to historic artefact deposits in the ground. Moreover, as discussed in the appraisal of the design, while this would be a clearly modern development, its position and the screening afforded by the adjacent properties when viewing the site from the A814 Glasgow Rd and Castle Street heading towards Dumbarton town centre, there is no concern over the proposal impacting visually on or influencing the character of the area and the nearby historic buildings inappropriately. The current proposal also has no greater potential for impact than the previously consented arrangement. Page 59
Page 60
Waste Provision 7.30 The proposal is expected to generate a level of waste commensurate to a facility of the scale proposed. A bin store is proposed under the stairs which will form a part of the loading bay, located against the southern elevation of the site, which is acceptable Flooding and Drainage 7.31 With respect to flood risk, the site is identified as being at high risk of coastal flooding on SEPA’s Flood Maps. SEPA were consulted on the application and requested further details to be submitted. Following a reconsultation, SEPA have stated that the proposed development is expected to put people or property at risk of flooding and as such object in principle to the proposal. 7.32 Policy 22 of NPF4 sets out to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. Development proposals at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported in certain circumstances. These include for essential infrastructure or for water compatible uses, neither of which the development comprises. The proposal does, however, comprise the redevelopment of a previously used site in built up areas where the LDP has identified a need to bring these into positive use. The adopted Local Plan identifies the site as a development opportunity meeting this criterion and it must therefore be considered whether the proposals demonstrate that long- term safety and resilience can be secured in accordance with relevant SEPA advice. 7.33 In their consultation response, SEPA advise that they are satisfied with the methodology used in preparing the flood risk assessment. It is accepted that the site is not at risk of fluvial flooding and the flood risk is tidal. No concerns regarding loss of floodplain capacity arise. SEPA are, however, concerned that safe egress could not be achieved from the building during a flood event and may result in an island of development. The Council’s Roads Service have also been consulted on flooding matters and offer no objection. This Service advises that neighbouring sites have been developed and whilst a 1:200 year plus climate change allowance flooding event would result in an island of development (i.e. a development that would be surrounded by flood water, but not necessarily flooded itself) for this site, this situation would be no different to the previously approved adjacent developments. The Council’s Roads Service further advises that they are in agreement with the position set out in the flood risk assessment that any potential flooding could be appropriately mitigated. Furthermore, while access to the site would be limited during a flood event, it is anticipated that Castle Street would be closed due to flooding anyway. As the street level is located lower than the application site and the recent developments surrounding it, they would all be islands of developments in the event of this scenario. The flood risk assessment identifies that to mitigate against the impact of flooding, flood resilience measures be incorporated into the building. The flood risk is from coastal / tidal flooding which can generally be predicted and the flood risk assessment indicates that the store will sign up to SEPA’s flood warnings to ensure that safe evacuation can take place prior to flood levels reaching a point that the building cannot be evacuated to dry land. Page 60
Page 61
Unlike nearby residential properties, those within the building would either be staff or shoppers and not permanent residents, reducing risk further. 7.34 The final exception criteria set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 is that the proposal would result in the development of an existing building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use (as defined by SEPA guidance). Whilst there is no building currently on site, there is an existing planning permission for a retail development of a marginally greater floorspace which remains extant and could be implemented on site. SEPA acknowledge this in their response but advise that this would be a matter for the planning authority to consider. The position is that even in the event that this application was to be refused, planning permission remains for the development of an alternative retail proposal on the site with a marginally larger floor area. There would be nothing to prevent the current applicant occupying the consented development as a single retail unit. The current proposal represents no increase in vulnerability over the consented development. 7.35 It is acknowledged that policies in NPF4 require to be read and applied as a whole and that conflicts between policies are normal and to be expected. It is accepted that there is conflict with elements of Policy 22. The building could not remain operational during a flood event and an island of development could occur. This position would conflict with NPF4. However, a flood management and evacuation plan could ensure the building is safety evacuated before any tidal flood event occurs and it is accepted that no buildings within the wider area could remain operational during a flood event. Overall, the proposal would result in the redevelopment of a vacant waterfront site, ensure retail development is appropriately located within the town centre and within an accessible location, and bring employment and economic benefit to the area. Therefore, considering the proposal as a whole, inclusive of the site history and extant planning permission, and being reassured by the lack of objection on flooding grounds by the Council’s Roads Service, it is considered that the proposal can be supported despite the objection from SEPA. 7.36 In relation to drainage, the application indicates that foul wastewater would be discharged to the public sewer, with surface water attenuated using course graded aggregate within the subbase of permeable paving. Final details of the drainage proposals can be addressed by condition. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal is welcomed and would provide an effective use of a brownfield site whose development has stalled since the approval of the application DC17/230. While the flooding aspect would potentially result in parts of the site becoming inaccessible in a 1:200 year plus climate change coastal flooding event, the store itself would likely remain unaffected. With suitable mitigation in place to ensure the building is evacuated prior to any flooding event, the benefit of redevelopment of a brownfield along with the economic benefit outweigh the flooding concerns. The design of the store unit and the adjacent car park would be of high quality with appropriate level of connectivity to the adjacent street level and the waterfront and its footpath. The development would contribute to Page 61
Page 62
the mix of retail offerings and vitality of the Town Centre, without any detrimental effects on local amenity. 8.2 Despite the conflict with elements of Policy 22 of NPF4, the proposal is, in the whole, supported by NPF4, together with the adopted Local Plan, the proposed Local Development Plan 2 and associated Planning Guidance. 9. CONDITIONS 1. Prior to the commencement of development on site, exact details and samples of all proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be completed in strict accordance with the approved material details and palette unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. 2. Prior to the commencement of development on site, full details of all hard surfaces shall be submitted for the further written approval of the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. 3. Prior to the commencement of development on site, details of the design and location of all bin stores, cycle storage, street furniture, trolley parking and lighting shall be submitted for the further written approval of the Planning Authority and shall be implemented as approved. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to any of the foodstore becoming operational unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. 4. All recommendations set out within the Level 3 Flood Risk Assessment dated 5th April 2024 shall be incorporated into the development to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. 5. Notwithstanding condition 4 above and prior to the commencement of development on site, full details of a flood mitigation and evacuation plan for the development shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the flood mitigation and evacuation plan shall be adhered to at all times, unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. 6. 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. 7. Prior to the commencement or works on site and notwithstanding the approved plans, a detailed management and maintenance scheme for the proposed landscaping shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the scheme shall include a minimum of one clean out per year from October to January of the hereby proposed bird boxes and detailed of the maintenance of the wildflower areas. The plan shall Page 62
Page 63
thereafter implemented in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. 8. That any trees, shrubs or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged or become diseased within five years of completion of the landscaping shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. 9. Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to the commencement of any works on site, full details of the incorporation of low and/or zero carbon technologies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. 10. All recommendations within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated October 2023 and hereby approved, shall be implemented in full to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. 11. Notwithstanding condition 10 above, no works shall commence on site during the months of March to August (inclusive) until a full nesting bird survey is undertaken, the methodology and findings of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, this survey shall be conducted within 48 hours of the commencement of any works. 12. Notwithstanding the approved plans, detail of access points for hedgehogs shall be included on any boundary fencing treatment, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the access points shall be maintained for the duration of the existence of the development. 13. Prior to the commencement of the hereby approved works, further survey shall be carried out to establish if the redshank bird species is present on site or in its vicinity. Thereafter, and notwithstanding the approved plans, details of screening of the site and any other appropriate mitigation measures during the works phase to avoid displacement of the redshank birds and any other relevant species of wild animals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved screening shall be in place and maintained for the duration of the works. 14. Development shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The submitted plan shall include details of: • Management of any flat / shallow pitched / green roofs on buildings within the site which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and ‘loafing’ birds. The management plan shall comply with Advice Note 8: “Potential Bird Hazards from Building Design”. • The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved and on completion of the development shall remain in force for the Page 63
Page 64
lifetime of the development. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. 15. All plant and equipment (including any ventilation system) to be installed or operated shall be enclosed, attenuated and/or maintained such that any noise therefrom shall not exceed International Standards Organisation (ISO) Noise Rating 35 between 0700 and 2300 hours daily, within any nearby residential property, with windows slightly open for ventilation, when measured and/or calculated and plotted on an ISO rating curve chart. 16. 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. 17. During the period of construction, all works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary (or at such other place(s) as may first be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority), shall be carried out between the following hours unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority: • Mondays to Fridays: 0800 – 1800 • Saturdays: 0800 – 1300 • Sundays and public holidays: No working 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. 19. 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 suitably qualified person and shall detail the measures necessary to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property, and the natural and historical environment. The scheme shall include details of all works to be undertaken, the remediation objectives 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 64
Page 65
20. The presence of any previously unexpected contamination that becomes evident during the development of the site shall be reported to the Planning Authority in writing within one week, and work on the site shall cease. At this stage, if requested by the Planning Authority, an appropriate investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken and a remediation scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the recommencement of site works. The approved details shall be implemented as approved. 21. If there is a requirement to either re-use site won material or to import material then the assessment criteria and sampling frequency that would adequately demonstrate its suitability for use shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to any material being re-used or imported. In addition to this and in accordance with BS3882:2015 and BS8601:2013, material to be used in the top 300mm shall also be free from metals, plastic, wood, glass, tarmac, paper and odours. On completion of the works and at a time and or phasing agreed by the Planning Authority, the developer shall submit a validation report containing details of the source of the material and associated test results to demonstrate its suitability for use. 22. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority, no development shall commence on site until such time as a scheme for the control and mitigation of dust has been submitted to and approved in writing by this Authority. The scheme shall identify likely sources of dust arising from the development or its construction, and shall identify measures to prevent or limit the occurrence and impact of such dust. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented fully prior to any of the identified dust generating activities commencing on site and shall be maintained thereafter, unless otherwise approved by this Authority. 23. Prior to the commencement of development on site an air quality impact assessment in accordance with the Environmental Protection UK guidance document “Guidance on land - use planning and development control: Planning for air quality January 2017” shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The findings of the assessment shall be implemented prior to the development commencing on site or within a timescale agreed by the Planning Authority. 24. Prior to the commencement of development on site, a Delivery Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Deliveries to the foodstore shall only occur between the hours of 0700 hours and 2300 hours. All deliveries and other servicing of the site shall then be undertaken in accordance with the approved Delivery Management Plan at all times thereafter. 25. Notwithstanding the approved plans and prior to the commencement of development on site, final details of the foul and surface water drainage system shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The drainage system shall incorporate the principles of Sustainable Drainage Page 65
Page 66
Systems (SuDS) within its design, and thereafter shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the foodstore hereby permitted. 26. That all surface water shall be intercepted within the site both during construction and on completion of the development and full details of measures to ensure that surface water run-off is contained within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works on site. The measures shall be implemented and maintained as approved. 27. The foodstore shall not be brought into use until the vehicle parking spaces associated with it have been provided within the site in accordance with the approved plans. The spaces shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all times. Alan Douglas Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Date: 7th August 2024 Person to Contact: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader James.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application forms and plans 2. Consultation responses 3. Representations 4. National Planning Framework 4 5. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 6. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended 7. ‘Green Network and Green Infrastructure’ Planning Guidance (2022) 8. Creating Places Planning Guidance (2022) 9. Planning application no: DC17/230. Wards affected: Ward 3 (Dumbarton) Page 66
Page 67
¯ Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (C) Crown copyright and database right 23/07/2024. All rights reserved. West Dunbartonshire OS Licence Number 100020790. Scale: 1:1,323@A423/07/2024 DC23/217/FUL - Committee MapWest Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street Dumbarton G82 1QL ITEM 6d - APPENDIX 1 Page 67
Page 68
Page 68
Page 69
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Planning Committee: 7th August 2024 _____________________________________________________________ DC23/223/S36: Proposed wind farm development comprising up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts (MW) each, with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m, and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW at the Site of the Proposed Vale of Leven Windfarm, Kilpatrick Hills, East of Alexandria by Vale of Leven Wind Farm Limited. 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 To agree the Council’s response to a consultation received from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit on behalf of the Scottish Ministers regarding a proposed wind farm development comprising up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts (MW) each, with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m, and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW. Given the nature of the proposal, this requires to be agreed by Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee agrees the position set out in Section 10 of this report and submit this report to the Scottish Ministers as presenting the Council’s full, formal response to the consultation advising of the Council’s objection. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 The Scottish Ministers received an application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and operation of windfarm of up to ten wind turbines of approximately 7 megawatts each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 250m as well as a battery storage system (BESS) with a capacity of up to 20 megawatts. The application site is located within the West Dunbartonshire local authority area however the assessment of the submitted application is undertaken via the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit for the Scottish Ministers. In Scotland, any proposal to construct and operate an onshore electricity generating station with a capacity of over 50 megawatts (as is the case with this proposal) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Sections 36 of the Electricity Act. Such applications are processed on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit. Due to the Scottish Ministers being the decision makers, representations from members of the public and other agencies are made directly to the Energy Consents Unit. The application is referred to under the project name of the Vale of Leven Windfarm. The location of the site is shown in Appendix 1. 3.2 A date of 12th August 2024 has been agreed with the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit for the submission of the Council’s consultation response. The application documents are available to view via the Energy Consents Unit website via the following link: Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details. 3.3 The Council is a formal consultee in this process. In procedural terms, the Council as Planning Authority, requires to provide a response to the Scottish Ministers. In this regard, the Council in response to the consultation can: ITEM 7 Page 69
Page 70
(i) Offer no objection to the Section 36 application as submitted; or (ii) Offer no objections subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and/or legal obligations it considers necessary to make the development acceptable; or (iii) Object to the application, stating the grounds on which objection is made. 3.4 Should the Scottish Ministers be disposed to grant a Section 36 consent for the proposed development, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act allows the Scottish Ministers to direct that planning permission for that development and any ancillary development shall be deemed to be granted. 4. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 4.1 The application site is located in the western part of the Kilpatrick Hills between Bonhill and Gartocharn. The nearest settlement to the site is Bonhill, which is located just over 2 km to the west, of the nearest proposed turbine, and approximately 600m to the northwest of the site boundary and proposed access track. Alexandria and Dumbarton are approximately 4 km to the west and south-west of the site respectively. The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park and the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area (NSA) lie a minimum of 1.7 km and 3.5 km respectively to the north of the northern site boundary. 4.2 The site comprises part of Auchenreoch Muir to the east of Pappert Hill, and primarily consists of upland open moor which is currently used for sheep grazing. The topography within the site undulates, and it contains several hills including Knockshannoch and Hill of Standing Stones. These form part of a gently sloping ridge of land which drops down from the higher Doughnot Hill and Meikle White Hill (to the south of the site). This ridge forms the watershed between the Endrick Water (a tributary of the River Leven) and the River Leven itself. A number of small burns originate within the site, flowing northeast and west respectively. The surrounding land comprises open moorland with some patches of coniferous plantation, while Auchencarroch landfill site borders the site to the northwest. Dumbarton Muir Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), designated for bog habitats, is located to the east of the Site. Auchenreoch Glen SSSI, designated for its lowland calcareous grassland and springs (including flushes), lies to the south-west. 4.3 The proposal would involve the following works: • 10 wind turbines up to 250m to blade tip and each with an output of approximately 7 megawatts (MW), giving a total output of up to 70 MW; • Hardstanding areas at the base of each turbine, with a total permanent area of approximately 7,800 sqm; • Site entrance and access track up to 9.2km in length from the south-west, via a new road through Murroch Farm, accessed from a new junction on the A813 Stirling Road, adjacent to the Aggreko Lomondgate facility in Dumbarton; • Sub- station / control building with parking and welfare facilities; • A network of on-site access tracks and up to 4 associated watercourse crossings: • Transformers and underground cables to connect the turbines to the onsite substation; • Telecommunications equipment; • Temporary construction compounds and laydown area; • Three borrow pits which take the form of small quarries used to obtain rock for construction of the wind farm; Page 70
Page 71
• Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity up to 20 MW. 4.4 The ten proposed turbines would be three bladed, horizontal axis turbines, each with a nominal rated capacity of 7MW and a rotor diameter of 172m. All of the turbines would be located on ground at elevations of between 220m and 304m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The solid, tubular towers would be constructed from steel and the blades would be made from reinforced composite materials such as fibreglass, all finished in a mid-grey tone consistent with more recently constructed turbines. 4.5 Each turbine would sit on a concrete base roughly 28m in diameter with a circular or octagonal plan shape. Should geotechnical investigations demonstrate that the required bearing capacities are not achievable, then a piled foundation design is proposed to be adopted using the same overall design footprint. For the purposes of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, a maximum (worst-case) scenario for turbine foundations of a 3 – 4m depth has been assumed. Adjacent to the foundation, an area of hardstanding of approximately 80m by 40m with a 6m wide track running along the length of the hardstanding would be required adjacent to each turbine as a platform for cranes to lift the turbine components into position. In addition to the hardstanding for the main assembly crane, up to two additional temporary crane pads may be required for crane assembly. Each turbine would be expected to have an associated transformer, located either internally or externally to the turbine. External transformers are proposed to be located within weather-proof housing, which would have indicative dimensions of 5.5m by 5.5m by 3m. Transformer housing would be colour finished to blend in with the surrounding landscape. 4.6 The entrance to the proposed development site for vehicles delivering both construction materials and turbine components, such as tower sections and blades, would be from a new road, via Murroch Farm, to the south-west of the Site. The road would be accessed from a new junction on the A813 Stirling Road, roughly opposite the Aggreko Building. From A813, the access track would be approximately 2 km in length until reaching the first wind turbine. Internally to the site, access tracks are proposed to be generally unpaved (stone surface) and of a minimum of 5.5m running width, with a 1m shoulder verge to either side and 2:1 side slopes. The tracks could be up to 7m wide on bends. Approximately 9.2km of new access track would be required for construction. Five turning heads of sufficient size to accommodate articulated vehicles would are also proposed. Some further widening would be necessary along the access track route to allow for passing places/temporary lay down areas, with the locations subject to detailed design post-consent. In general terms, the construction method would see topsoil, including peat, being removed and stored adjacent to the construction area until required for reinstatement. The requirements for access track drainage would be determined at detailed design stage and onsite during construction. The access tracks would have a suitable cross-fall to drain run-off and, where gradients are present, lateral drains would intercept any flow along the road. Where ground conditions are of a permeable nature, swales would be utilised alongside the access tracks to allow natural filtering of surface water into the ground. Where areas are less free draining, land drains or drainage ditches would be installed as topography and ground conditions dictate. Drainage filters would be installed at suitable locations to remove silts from the run-off. Post construction, the vegetated turf layer would be used for reinstatement. This would allow re-establishment of natural vegetation to the area. 4.7 The proposed development would require a total of 92,622 cubic metres of aggregate to construct new tracks, hardstanding areas for cranes and to lay the turbine foundations. This is expected to be won from up to three onsite borrow pits. However, the Environmental Impact Assessment assesses a worst-case scenario and considers the scenario where 50% of the track and hardstanding aggregate would be brought in Page 71
Page 72
from off-site sources, such as local quarries. Locations for up to three borrow pits have been sited in areas with low peat measurements and rock exposure. It is not proposed to retain any of the new proposed borrow pits post-construction. Materials are available locally so any requirement for rock aggregate during the operational phase would be met from those sources. Rock extraction from borrow pits by means of blasting operations is not anticipated. 4.8 The sub-station compounds will be split into two separate compounds with a separate control building in each compound. The substation compounds would measure approximately 100m x 75m and be enclosed by palisade type fencing. 4.9 It is further proposed to co-locate a battery energy storage facility in the position of one of the construction compounds and this would remain for the lifetime of the development. Whilst only indicative details are provided at this stage, it is anticipated this element of the proposal will comprise a lithium-ion battery technology solution, with modular elements comprising circa 14 battery housings such as standard ISO containers measuring 2.6 metres by 16.1 metres with associated heating, ventilation and air-condition systems together with associated inverters, transformers, switchgear and metering. Given only indicative designs have been provided, the final design would require to be agreed. 4.10 The construction phase of the development is estimated to take approximately 21 months. The proposed development will have an operational life of 40 years, after which it would be decommissioned, and the turbines would be dismantled and removed. During decommissioning the turbines would be dismantled and removed, along with any associated above ground electrical equipment. Underground cables and access tracks would be left in place and foundations would be removed to a depth of 0.5m below ground level to avoid environmental impacts from deeper removal. 4.11 In terms of the planning history of the site, in 2012 planning permission (reference DC12/028) was applied for the erection of ten wind turbines (max hub height 79m and max blade tip height 120m) with a total installed capacity of around 20MW and associated works including the erection of a meteorological mast, control building, ancillary infrastructure, temporary ground works and construction compound. In 2013 the West Dunbartonshire Council’s Planning Committee refused permission for the application which is sited within the same area as the current proposal but with a different access route. Reasons for refusal were due to the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the Kilpatrick Hills Regional Scenic Area/Local Landscape Area, the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the setting of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park and the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area and a conflict with aviation safeguarding criteria which could endanger aviation safety. 4.12 In order to more accurately gauge the wind speed and direction at the application site, an anemometer mast of up to 100m in height was approved for a period of 5 years by the Council’s Local Review Body in February 2024. 4.13 The proposal is informed by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) together with a range of associated supporting documentation. This addresses a range of matters including Landscape and Visual Impact, Ecology, Ornithology, Geology, Hydrology and Peat, Archeology and Cultural Heritage, Traffic and Transport, Noise, Socio Economics, Aviation, Shadow Flicker and Population and Human Health. Page 72
Page 73
5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 The Council is a consultee in the Section 36 application process and therefore consultation by the Council is limited to Council Services. However, a summary of the wider consultation responses received by the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit is also included below, as these are also relevant to the assessment of the proposal to inform the response by the Council. West Dunbartonshire Council consultation replies: West Dunbartonshire Council (Roads Service) (roads, traffic and flooding matters) 5.2 The location appears acceptable subject to conditions relating to the proposed junction design, gates, surface water, mechanical brush, wheel washing facilities, signage, the design, location and construction of the relocated bus bay and pre and post development inspections of the A813 from its junction with the A82 to Lionsgate Roundabout. 5.3 The location of the proposed development is at the source of several watercourses and tributaries. Two of these have been identified on the SEPA flood maps as medium to high risk for fluvial flooding within West Dunbartonshire. These are the Carrochan Burn and Gruggies Burn which have both flooded downstream of the site in recent years. It is also within the catchment for the Loch Lomond via the Gallangad Burn. If permission is given the applicant would need to prove that the proposed development would not increase the flood risk downsteam along the watercourses mentioned. West Dunbartonshire Council is currently promoting a Flood Alleviation Scheme for the Gruggies Burn. West Dunbartonshire Council (Environmental Health Service) 5.4 It is highlighted that predictions of the operational noise levels have been based on the candidate turbine being the Vestas 172.2MW but the test results for this specific turbine are not yet available and representative noise data has been adopted from similar Vestas V136 turbine. Environmental Health would request that any noise impact assessment is updated based on the actual wind turbines proposed. Full details would be required on the Battery Energy Storage Facilities (BESS) to allow full comments to be provided. If blasting was proposed, further detailed information will be required prior to any blasting on site. 5.5 Conditions are recommended relating to updating the report that determines the impact of noise from the turbines on nearby dwellings and any noise sensitive premises, the investigation of noise complaints, construction hours, delivery vehicles times, submission of a noise control method statement, noise attenuation for plant and machinery and shadow flicker. Biodiversity Officer 5.6 A variety of matters are highlight with reference to the proposed development. It is noted that protected and sensitive habitats which have been recorded on the site of the windfarm including blanket bog, wet modified bog, acid neutral flush and wet heath. There is no mention or consideration made to the five local designation on the proposed site. No specific species protection plans are included for the 15 species recorded within the vicinity of the proposed development as part of the mitigation proposals. There are Breeding snipe close to proposed locations of turbines 1,2,5 and 6. Black Grouse lek site is only 300m from proposed battery storage area and this is against the recommended distance of at least 500m. A number of raptor species have been identified using the site through the ornithology studies. Page 73
Page 74
5.7 It is considered that a peatland restoration programme on the vast swathes of class 2 peatlands would be more impactful in terms of the net zero commitments and would provide an abundance of biodiversity benefit whilst keeping the landscape character of the Kilpatrick Hills intact. There is no data for the 0.5m – 1m depth which is the national standard set by Naturescot to determine deep peat. The developer has instead only given peat depths of over 1m. T2 is on class 2 peat, T4 on class 1 peat. Extensive hard standing turbine footprints removing habitat. Naturescot estimate of 18% habitat loss –regardless of mitigation / enhancements. 5.8 There are large swathes of natural priority habitat types that are untouched. It is the value of the habitat and the vast open space of the Kilpatrick Hills that allows it to host such valuable species, many of which are of conservation concern. Opening up of access over this land will change the recreational value of this site. This additional disturbance could include additional walkers, cyclists, trail bikes and dogs onto the site which would reduce its value as an open habitat and breeding site for ground nesting birds. 5.9 In terms of enhancement, 90ha of peatland restoration is offered by developer but it is noted that the Naturescot response requires nearer to 200ha to fit current guidance. The peatland action grant system could offer biodiversity benefit without loss of the 18% habitat and therefore the proposed development is not the only route to provide improved peatland habitat enhancements. Native woodland planting areas are proposed outside of development site boundary and could also lead to self-seeding on the adjacent SSSI which should remain as calcareous grassland. The proposed new blocks of woodland planting could be detrimental to proposed calcareous grassland management - seem to be on wetland flush areas. The Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan should include detailed management plan for all protected species on site. 5.10 West Dunbartonshire Council (Economic Development) The sensitivities around visual impact and the adjacency to the National Park are understood but it is believed they are countered by the positive environmental and economic impacts both locally and wider. West Dunbartonshire Council has a statutory duty to deliver on the Scottish Government’s target of Net Zero by 2045. Significant investment both in resource and funding is required to achieve this. There is limited budget within the public sector to deliver actions at the pace and scale required and other investment, such as that from the private sector, will be essential for success. 5.11 The Vale of Leven windfarm proposal has the potential to provide significant funding through two channels, Community benefit packages; and/or Shared ownership. 5.12 Although community benefit is not a mandatory requirement, during initial discussions the developer had indicated that they would provide this at or above the minimum recommended by the Scottish Government. This would equate to £350,000 per year. Where and how the funds are invested is the decision of the local affected community and has the potential to have a significant impact. 5.13 In addition to community benefit, although more complex to set up, shared ownership is a further potential revenue stream that could benefit the local community and provide much needed funding for Climate Change Action Plan and Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy initiatives. Following initial discussions, the developer has indicated that up to 15% could be available for shared ownership. Page 74
Page 75
Scottish Government Energy Consent Unit consultation replies: West of Scotland Archaeology Service 5.14 Construction of the turbines and their associated infrastructure is likely to have both a direct impact on heritage features present within the development area itself, and an indirect effect on the settings of sites present in the surrounding landscape. 5.15 Direct impacts are generally concluded within the EIA to not be significant, a position that appears to have been reached on the basis that all of these features can be considered to be of negligible or minor importance. There are a number of features that are present within the 50m micrositing tolerance of the proposed development, including a burial cairn, an enclosure, an area of lime kilns and a turf structure. The EIA considers all of these assets to be of low or local importance and therefore concludes that any adverse effects on them resulting from physical impacts during the construction phase would not be significant. The exception to this is the burial cairn, which is considered to be of medium or regional importance; and states that without mitigation, any adverse effect resulting from a physical impact during construction- phase may be of up to moderate significance. 5.16 It is difficult to see how the effect of the proposed wind farm on the settings of sites in the surrounding landscape could be reduced or mitigated without substantial redesign to the location of the development or the height of the turbines. Recommend that any granting of permission should include a condition relating to a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation within the red line boundary. BT 5.17 The project indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. Joint Radio Company (JRC) 5.18 No potential problems foreseen based on known interference scenarios and the data provided. Met Office 5.19 The proposal falls within the 20 km consultation zone of our meteorological radar at Holyhead. The turbines in the design freeze layout are below the beam of the radar and will not have any adverse impact. Ministry of Defence (MOD) 5.20 Subject to a variety of conditions, the MOD has no objection to the proposed development. Glasgow Prestwick Airport 5.21 The airport no longer has any safeguarding concerns over Vale of Leven Wind Farm and would have no objection to the development. Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) 5.22 No comment on this proposed development as it does not lie within a consultation zone around a GB nuclear site. Scottish Water 5.23 No objection to the proposed development; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. Page 75
Page 76
Crown Estates Scotland. 5.24 The assets of Crown Estate Scotland are not affected by this proposal and we therefore have no comments to make. East Dunbartonshire Council 5.25 No objection to the proposed development. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) 5.26 It is agreed that there will be no significant impact on of the Loch Lomond Special Protection Area, and the Endrick Mouth and Islands SSSI in terms of protected bird species. 5.27 If the application is to be consented, the RSPB recommend the finalised Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan and corresponding biodiversity net gain should be secured by suitably worded conditions. SEPA 5.28 Based on the information available, SEPA have no objection. However, it is advised that if consent is to be given, this should be subject to conditions relating to a finalised Peat Management Plan, a finalised Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan, a final Construction Environmental Management Plan, and micro siting. If these will not be applied, then this response would require to be considered as an objection. Peat management (Consultant Response) 5.29 The results of the likelihood assessment show the significant majority of site to be of negligible likelihood of peat slide (72% of probe locations) with only 1% recording medium likelihood and no areas of high likelihood. 5.30 Communities have been discounted as being at risk of peat landslide due to distance from infrastructure and there are no roads/dwellings/other infrastructure within influencing distance. Four areas at a medium risk of peat instability were considered to have a potential impact on the proposed development’s infrastructure but were downgraded to Insignificant following more detailed review. 5.31 Mitigation is provided in section 7.0 of the PLHRA document. There is no extensive evidence for past peat instability on-site therefore a more generic and infrastructure specific mitigation and best practice is provided. This is supported by discussion of mitigation for each area of medium “risk” considered to influence the development. Overall, the mitigation presented is considered appropriate. Scottish Forestry 5.32 It is clear that the proposed development will have a direct, though limited, impact on woodland interest. The access track for the proposed development will impact a small area (approximately 0.06ha) of woodland, resulting in the felling of up to 28 mature/semi-mature beech (Fagus sylvatica) hedgerow trees and 3 mature Downy Birch (Betula pubescens) to facilitate construction of the track. Conditions are recommended relating to compensatory planting. Transport Scotland 5.33 It is noted that the use of a blade lifter is identified at the start of the Transport Assessment, but it appears that the swept paths have been run with a standard trailer. The use of a scissor lift adaptor is identified as being required at certain locations to elevate the blade tip to allow loads to over sail various obstructions without the need for intrusive ground works. In addition, it should be noted that if Blade Lifter technology/scissor lift technology is to be utilised on the trunk road, significant work Page 76
Page 77
will be required in order to satisfy Transport Scotland that the proposals can work technically, and do not represent any risk to the safe and efficient operation of the trunk road network. Transport Scotland will require a detailed methodology to be provided, with a technical approval process followed thereafter (with no guarantee of approval). This is to include a risk assessment, method statements and additional information as requested by Transport Scotland. Conditions and informatives are recommended for any granting of permission. Inverclyde Council 5.34 Whilst the Scottish Government is keen for more renewable developments to be established to meet the target of net zero emissions by 2045, they do have to be in the right location and at the right scale to ensure that other assets are not lost in the process. The views outwards from Inverclyde are important to both tourists and residents alike. They are an environmental and scenic tourism resource. Inverclyde Council would wish to see these views retained and is concerned the proposed development would impact on them to their detriment. The turbines that are proposed are more than twice the size of those at Corlic Hill above Greenock and would, be out of scale with the surrounding topography to the extent it would impact negatively on the views from Inverclyde and from the Firth of Clyde. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) 5.35 Object until mitigation proposals become more mature. The developer states (13.6.21) that the development “would be likely to cause false plots to be generated” on the radars at Lowther, Cumbernauld, Glasgow NASR-10 and Terma. Whilst NATS could take issue with the classification of this impact as “moderate” they are pleased to note the intention (13.7.4) to “agree appropriate means of technical mitigation of the proposed development’s effects” and NATS will continue to work with the applicant with the goal, which is seen as realistic. Glasgow Airport 5.36 The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and could conflict with safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, a more detailed assessment requires to be undertaken regarding the potential impact on Glasgow Airport. Glasgow Airport therefore, submit a holding objection until they are able to advise of the results of their investigations. Scotways 5.37 This application should not be considered as suitable for what is an open moorland landscape in the vicinity of a National Park. They have grave concerns regarding the direct impact on recreational amenity both within, and in the vicinity of, the application site and the change in the character of the landscape that this proposal would bring. On this basis, and for positioning of a turbine in close proximity to a core path Scotways objects to this development. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) 5.38 HES object to the development because the proposals would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle scheduled monument. These impacts would be of a severity that raises issues of national interest. The proposals therefore do not align with national policy as set out in the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) and the National Planning Framework (NPF4). NatureScot 5.39 The location, size and scale of the proposed development represents a step change in proximity and prominence of wind farms on the southern area of the Loch Lomond Page 77
Page 78
and Trossachs National Park. NatureScot consider that the proposal would have significant adverse effects on six of the Special Landscape Qualities (SLQs) of the National Park and as such that the objectives of the designation and overall integrity of the area would be compromised. NatureScot advise that the proposed development may therefore not meet Policy 4 (c) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) due to the adverse impact upon the National Park and National Scenic Area. In NatureScot’s view these effects cannot be readily mitigated. NatureScot therefore object to this proposal. 5.40 NatureScot agree with the applicant’s assessment that various designated sites, including European sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), will not be adversely affected. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 5.41 The National Park Authority objects to the proposal for a variety of reasons as follows. Given the extremely large turbine size, the proposed development would often appear dominant or very prominent in the backdrop to the southern part of Loch Lomond and its associated rural setting. With a very intrusive and industrial appearance, the turbines would considerably detract from, contrast with and often compromise a very large number of Special Landscape Qualities and key characteristics that are integral to defining this iconic part of the National Park. The views and visual amenity of a very large number of visitors and residents of several settlements would be subject to widespread significant visual effects. Parts of at least (approximately) 75km of nationally important recreational routes would be subject to significant visual impacts. The proposed development would compromise the objectives of the National Park designation and its overall integrity. The proposed development would conflict with national and local landscape-related policy. Kilmaronock Community Council (KCC) 5.42 The Community Council object to the proposal for a variety of reasons. These include that the energy that could be generated is insignificant to the national strategy as detailed in UK’s Energy Security Plan. The scale of the development is too high for its location and will result in an adverse visual impact. The proposal will result in the destruction of nationally designated peat bogland and have a negative impact on biodiversity (especially during construction). Biodiversity enhancement would not result from the proposal. The proximity to housing and impact upon property values is raised as is light pollution from the aviation lights. Balloch and Haldane Community Council 5.43 The Community Council object to the proposal due to the proximity to the National Park. This is contrary to the policy position within NPF4. 6. REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 A review of the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit website case file for this application has shown that 49 representations have been received from third parties, 39 are in objection, 8 are in support and 2 which highlight points of concern but do not specifically express either being in objection or in support of the proposal. Representations have been received from local residents, visitors to the area, Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs, the Woodland Trust, Strathavan Airfield Ltd, Pam Gosal MSP and Jackie Baillie MSP. Page 78
Page 79
6.2 The letters of objection raise issues relating to the summarised points as follows: Visual impacts • Concerns over landscape and visual impacts, noting the scale of turbines would dominate the landscape and skyline and would also require visible aviation lighting. • The height of the turbines makes them amongst the tallest proposed for an onshore wind farm in the UK. • Concerns regarding the spatial density of the proposed windfarm • Particular concerns regarding the detrimental impact on the setting of the National Park. • Residential visual amenity impact. Impact upon Heritage • Heritage impacts including on Dumbarton Castle. Aviation matters • Proximity to Glasgow Airport flightpaths. • Concern on impact on Glasgow Airport’s SVFR corridor and that a typical light aircraft in bad weather, using SVFR, at 60 knows would be just 15 seconds flying • Serious concern raised about the turbulence plume. Trees and woodland • There will be a loss of two veteran beech trees noted as alongside loss of 0.06 hectares (ha) of Barr Wood an area of woodland designated on NatureScot’s Ancient Woodland Inventory • Concerns about potential indirect impacts on Lang Craigs and other areas of ancient and long-established woodland in the locality that may be subject to increased recreational pressures and resulting deterioration. Residential amenity • Concerns regarding noise impacts. • Concerns regarding shadow flicker. • Concerns for potential vibrations being emitted. • The development ignores the 2km separation guidelines between windfarms and residential properties. Health and safety • Safety concerns in relation to the BESS including fire risk. • Concerns regarding the impacts on physical and mental health. Ecology and biodiversity • Damage done to habitats of animals. • All except T5, T8 and T9 appear to be on areas of peat. Other matters • There is no benefit to community. • The developer is from Ireland and therefore the “profits” will not be in the local area. • Tourism is one of the main employers and will be compromised. • Precedent will be set for further development. • The output is small compared to the need for energy generation. Page 79
Page 80
• No need for the proposal given the constrained operation of wind farms currently and economic costs to consumers through constraint payments. 6.3 The letters of support raise issues relating to the summarised points as follows: Energy generation benefits • The proposal will maximise renewable energy sources. • Land-based wind power and energy storage systems are the cheapest and most readily available technologies for rapidly decarbonising the atmosphere and improving the country’s energy security. • The National Park area possesses a unique combination of advantages for renewable energy production, storage and distribution. • The project will produce enough electricity to power approximately 50,000 average UK homes. • The project will make a significant contribution to UK and Scottish Government emission reduction targets. • It a highly suitable wind turbine site. Access improvements • Improved access would lead to an increase in recreational use. Economic and community benefits • “Community Benefit” funds which may arise from such developments being applied to help provide for the preservation, promotion and appreciation of the special qualities of the Parks and their surrounding areas, thereby benefiting nature, visitors, communities and businesses. • The proposed wind farm will create jobs for the local area. Other matters • These turbines will in no way detract from their surroundings. • They will not in any sense impact on the majority of people’s enjoyment of the area. • There are various measures being proposed to improve the environment on the moorland area which will have further local benefits. • The proposed site for the windfarm on bleak moorland and is currently seldom visited as it has poor access. • People are also very adaptable and quickly get used to new features. 6.4 Whilst many of the points raised both in objection and in support are considered as part of the Council’s wider assessment of the proposal as set out in Section 8 below, it is for the Scottish Ministers as the determining authority to consider the representations submitted to them. 7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 7.1 NPF4 aims to create places in line with six overarching spatial principles, including the Just Transition and Rebalanced Development. The Just Transition directs development towards achieving the transition to net zero in a way that is inclusive and fair. Rebalanced Developments directs development to areas of past decline, which would include West Dunbartonshire, given the de-industrialisation that has taken place in the area. While these are high level principles, they are cross cutting and NPF4 contains a clear steer that outcomes of Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 11 and Policy 25 are interlinked. Page 80
Page 81
7.2 Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure is a Scotland wide national development (National Development 3), making it a clear priority across Scotland. Regional Spatial Priorities for the Central Region also direct development to “provide net zero energy solutions” and to “build community wealth to overcome disadvantage”. These high level aims and connections between policies should be considered by the decision maker. 7.3 Policy 1 gives significant weight to the climate and nature crisis, with an intended policy outcome of being zero carbon and nature positive. Renewables, including onshore wind and battery storage, are considered an important part of Scotland’s approach to meeting its carbon emission reduction targets. Policy 2 requires development to minimise the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of development as far as possible. An important element in the case of this development is the location of the turbines and infrastructure, and borrow pits, relative to the location of peat and other carbon rich soils. 7.4 Policy 3 requires development to contribute to biodiversity enhancement, including the restoration of degraded habitat and improving connections between them. As a national development part b) of the policy applies. Part d) of this policy also applies, requiring the planning and design of development to minimise adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the development on biodiversity and the natural environment. 7.5 Policy 4‘s intent is to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. Part a) of the policy does not support development where the type, location or scale will have a significant effect on an unacceptable effect on the natural environment. Part b) of the policy, sets out a requirement for an appropriate assessment. Part c) of the policy sets out the limited criteria in which development will be acceptable where it will affect a National Park, National Scenic Area, SSSI or National Nature Reserve. While the proposal is not within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park it will be visible from the National Park. Part d) of the policy identifies the limited circumstances where development within local landscape designations and nature conservation sites are acceptable. Which are: i. The objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the areas will not be compromised; or ii. Any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance. 7.6 Policy 5 relates to soils. Part a) of this policy addresses the need to avoid and minimise, in line with the mitigation hierarchy, disturbance to soil and undeveloped land to protect it from erosion, compaction and sealing. Part c) ii. of this policy enables the development of renewable energy generation on carbon rich soils where it optimises the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Part d) of this policy requires developers to undertake assessments of the depth, condition and quality of carbon rich soils, effects of development on the peatland and the net effects on climate emissions and loss of carbon. Policy 6 supports proposals that enhance, expand or improve woodland and tree cover. Part b) of the policy states that loss of ancient woodland, veteran trees, or woodland of high biodiversity value is not supported. 7.7 Policy 7 requires development with potential impacts on historic assets or place to be accompanied by an assessment of that asset or place, including cumulative impacts. There are a number of non-designated heritage assets within the site boundary, including archaeological remains meaning that part o) of the policy applies. At a Page 81
Page 82
distance of up to 20km from the site are listed buildings, historic battlefields, Gardens and Designed Landscapes. This means that parts i) and j) also apply. 7.8 Proposals within a greenbelt are covered in Policy 8. The access track for the development Is located within the green belt. Development proposals within a green belt designated within the LDP will only be supported in a limited set of circumstances including for essential infrastructure. The proposal falls into the definition of essential infrastructure. 7.9 Policy 11 relates to energy and the policy intent is to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of renewable energy development onshore and offshore. This includes energy generation, storage, new and replacement transmission and distribution infrastructure and emerging low-carbon and zero emissions technologies including hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS). Part a) policy supports proposals for renewable technologies, including wind farms under part i. and battery storage under part iii. Wind farm proposals are not supported in National Parks as stated in part b). The proposal is not within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. 7.10 Part c) of the policy requires renewable development to maximise economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits. Part e) of the policy requires the project design and mitigation to address a number of issues. In considering the impacts significant weight is placed on the contribution of the proposal to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Impacts to be addressed are: i. impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including, residential amenity and visual. ii. significant landscape and visual impacts. iii. public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes. iv. impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording. v. impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. vi. impacts on road traffic and on adjacent trunk roads, including during construction. vii. impacts on historic environment. viii. effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk. ix. biodiversity including impacts on birds. x. impacts on trees, woods and forests. xi. proposals for the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration. xii. the quality of site restoration plans including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. xiii. cumulative impacts. 7.11 Policy 12 requires development to reduce, reuse or recycle materials in line with the waste hierarchy. It also supports developments that enable materials and components to be disassembled and reused at the end of their life. 7.12 Policy 13-part b) supports development where it is demonstrated that transport requirements are considered within the sustainable travel and investment hierarchies and sets out a list of criteria development should comply with. In order to meet these policy requirements the design of the junction will be required to meet par iv of the policy, by being designed to incorporate safety measures, including safe crossings and the reducing the number and speed of vehicles. Part g) of this policy states that Page 82
Page 83
proposals that have the potential to impact the Strategic Transport Network (which includes trunk roads in the definition provided in NPF4s glossary) will be fully assessed with regards to capacity and safety. 7.13 Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale as per Policy 14. Development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported in accordance with Policy 14. 7.14 Policy 18’s intent is to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. Energy supplies and energy generation are included in the definition of infrastructure. Part a) of the policy states that development proposals which provide (or contribute to) infrastructure in line with that identified as necessary in LDPs and their delivery programmes will be supported. 7.15 Policy 22-part a) states that Development proposals at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported in a limited set of circumstances, including for essential infrastructure where the location is required for operational reasons. 7.16 Policy 23 protects people and places from environmental harm, mitigates risks arising from safety hazards. Part e) notes that development proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. 7.17 Alongside part c) of policy 11, Policy 25 makes community benefit a material consideration in planning decision. Part a) of the policy sets out that community benefit can include “improving community resilience and reducing inequalities; increasing spending within communities; ensuring the use of local supply chains and services; local job creation; supporting community led proposals, including creation of new local firms and enabling community led ownership of buildings and assets.” 7.18 Policy 32 is relevant due to the borrow pits included to construct the development. Part d) of this policy sets out the circumstances under which the sustainable extraction of minerals will be supported. Part e) of the policy sets out where borrow pits are supported. This includes that they are time limited, that they comply with the other criteria within the minerals policy in part d) of the policy, and appropriate restoration proposals are enforceable. 7.19 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail in Section 8 below. Based on that assessment, it is concluded that the proposal is not in accordance with NPF4. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan (2010) 7.20 The application site is located within the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Whilst at the time of writing Policy RSA1 related to the former Regional Scenic Area, the overarching position with remains relevant in conserving the high-quality landscape of the Kilpatrick Hills as an important Area. There is a general presumption against proposals that would have an adverse impact on the landscape quality, character, visual amenity, or nature conservation value of the area. 7.21 Policy DC6 relates to renewable energy proposals and states that development will be permitted where it can be established without unacceptable detriment to the landscape, natural and build heritage, sport and recreation interests and local amenity. Development should be considered against the following criteria: visual impact and Page 83
Page 84
effect on landscape character, including the landscape character of the Kilpatrick Hills RSA; nature conservation interests; the historic environment and its setting, including scheduled ancient monuments; local amenity such as noise, traffic or broadcast interference; and any cumulative impact. 7.22 Policy E1 states that the Council will further the conservation of biodiversity. Policy E2A lays out the requirement for development that are likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. Policy E2B sets out the circumstances in which development that affects a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) may be permitted. Policy E3A states that the Council will seek to maintain and enhance the environmental resources of the Plan area by protection of habitats, species and natural features which are vulnerable and/or specifically protected, including Local Nature Conservation Sites. It also states that proposals should not have an adverse effect on the integrity or character of Local Nature Conservation Sites and that satisfactory arrangements for habitat creation/site enhancement elsewhere should be made to compensate where development would cause the total or partial loss of a Local Nature Conservation Site. There are five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which could be impacted by the development, either directly or indirectly Policy E5 relates to development affecting trees and states that Development proposals should take account of trees at the beginning of the design process. Policy SUS1 states that all development should seek to conserve and enhance environmental resources and ensure environmental impact is minimised. Policy E9 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact upon landscape character. 7.23 Policy GB 1 - Green Belt The proposal takes access through a section of Green Belt as designated in both the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 and as such Policy GB 1 applies. This policy states that within the areas of Green Belt there will be a general presumption against development other than certain exemptions. This includes where there is a specific locational requirement and established need for the development and it cannot be accommodated on an alternative site. 7.24 Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high quality of design and respects the character and amenity of the area. Policy DC3 states that within the Glasgow Airport Safeguarding Zone, development which adversely affects the operational integrity or safety of the airport will not normally be permitted. 7.25 Policy BE2 seeks to ensure the setting of listed buildings is not adversely impacted upon and Policy BE5 relates to Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other Archaeological sites. The Council will resist any development proposals that would have an adverse impact on or affect the setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument, or upon other nationally or locally important archaeological sites. Policy BE7 further seeks to ensure that Gardens and Designed Landscape designations are not adversely impacted upon. 7.26 Policy GN1 seeks to promote, protect and improve the Green Network. It states that development which is detrimental to the green network will be considered contrary to the Plan, and that new development should contribute positively to the protection and improvement of the green network. The Kilpatrick Hills are recognised as an important green network resource in West Dunbartonshire owing to their landscape value, the habitats and species found there and the outdoor recreation opportunities they offer. 7.27 The Council will encourage responsible pedestrian, cycle and horse-riding access, access to inland waterways, and will pursue opportunities to establish additional paths in accordance with Policy R5. Page 84
Page 85
7.28 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail in Section 8. Taking that assessment into account it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to adopted Local Plan. 8. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 8.1 On 15 March 2023, the Planning Committee took a decision that the Council would not adopt Local Development Plan 2. The Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), incorporating the recommended modifications of the Examination Report received on 22 April 2020, which were accepted by the Planning Committee of 19 August 2020, remains the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore afforded significant weight in the assessment and determination of planning applications, subject to compatibility with NPF4. The Scottish Ministers’ Direction relating to the adoption of LDP2, dated 18 December 2020, is also a material consideration, although it does not directly affect the development proposal under consideration. 8.2 Whilst Policy RE2 of the proposed Plan relates to the Spatial Framework for Wind Energy and would previously have been relevant, it conflicts with the approach set out in Policy 11 of NPF4. Policy 11 of NPF4 therefore has primacy. 8.3 Any development proposed within the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area must; protect and enhance the landscape character; protect and enhance the integrated network of habitats and important geological features; and protect and enhance the Hills as an accessible recreation resource in accordance with policy KH1. Policy GB1 restricts development in the green belt to a limited number of circumstances. This includes with infrastructure with a specific locational need. 8.4 Policy ENV1 sets the approach towards development and designated sites. Policy ENV2 relates to landscape character. Development proposals should be sited and designed to relate to the local landscape character of the area and ensure that the integrity of this landscape character is maintained and, where appropriate, enhanced. Policy ENV3 restricts development resulting in the disturbance, drainage or excavation of peat, with the exception of renewable energy where a balance of advantage in terms of climate mitigation is achieved. Policy ENV4 relates to forestry, trees and woodland. The loss or fragmentation of long-established woodland, high conservation value or areas covered by tree preservation orders will only be supported where any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by significant social or economic benefits. 8.5 Policy ENV5 mainly focusses on water courses and water bodies. Hydrology is important to the upland and peat habitats and so could be considered part of the water environment. Part d) of the policy addresses minimising pollution of all waterbodies and ground water resources. Policy ENV8 requires minimisation or adequate mitigation of any air light and noise pollution resulting from development. 8.6 Policy H4 of the LDP2 relates to residential amenity. The policy states that the Council will protect, preserve and enhance the residential character and amenity of existing residential areas at all times. In this regard, there will be a general presumption against the establishment of non-residential uses within, or in close proximity to, residential areas which potentially have detrimental effects on local amenity or which cause unacceptable disturbance to local residents. Page 85
Page 86
8.7 Policy CON3 is not supportive of development which disrupts or adversely impacts on any existing or potential core path, right of way, bridle path, or footpath, including off- path access rights, used by the general public for recreational or other purposes. 8.8 Policy BE1 states that unscheduled archaeological sites should be preserved insitu where possible. Where not possible, provision should be made by the developer to undertake the excavation, recording analysis, publication and archiving of the archaeological remains. Policy BE2 and BE7 take the same position in relation to Listed Buildings and Garden and Designed Landscapes as the adopted Plan. Development that would adversely impact on the operations of Glasgow Airport or would be adversely affected by aircraft noise will not be permitted in accordance with Policy E7. 8.9 The borrow pits would constitute mineral workings and proposals for new mineral workings will only be supported under Policy MIN1 where it is demonstrated that there would be no significant negative impact, either individually or cumulatively, from mineral workings on: a) The natural environment, including habitat networks, peat and other carbon rich soils; b) The green network, including path networks; c) Landscape, including visual impact; d) Built heritage, particularly Scheduled Monuments and other archaeology; e) Residential amenity and the operation of other businesses; f) Trunk and Local Road Networks. 8.10 Policy CP1 requires new development to take a design led approach to creating sustainable places which puts the needs of people first and demonstrate the six qualities of successful places. Policy CP2 requires all development to demonstrate that green infrastructure has been integrated into the design approach from the outset. 8.11 The matters relevant to the assessment against the above policies are addressed in detail below. It is concluded that the proposal is not in accordance with proposed Local Development Plan 2. Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area – Statement of Importance 8.12 This Statement of Importance explains the reasons why the Kilpatrick Hills have been selected for the designation. The special qualities of the Kilpatrick Hills are identified as being: • Strong sense of remoteness, wildness and open horizons; • Distinctive geomorphology and topographical features; and • A unique diversity of views. 8.13 The impact of the proposed development on these special landscape qualities of the Kilpatrick Hills is assessed below, and it is concluded that the proposal would significantly detract from the special qualities of the Local Landscape Area. Renewable Energy Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan) Planning Guidance November 2016 8.14 This guidance is written in the context of proposed Local Development Plan 1 together with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), both of which no longer form a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications. This document provides guidance on planning for wind energy including a Spatial Framework and guidance on the factors that will be considered in assessing wind energy proposals. The spatial framework applies to “wind farms” which are defined by the Council as: • Any development containing a turbine of 50m and above to tip height; or Page 86
Page 87
• Any development of 3 or more turbines, containing a turbine of 30m above to tip height. 8.15 As this proposal is for ten turbines and 250m to blade tip it would have fallen within the threshold for assessment under the spatial framework. However, the Spatial Framework conflicts with the approach set out in Policy 11 of NPF4. Policy 11 of NPF4 therefore has primacy over this guidance. 8.16 Notwithstanding the above, many of the matters for which guidance is provided remain relevant to the assessment of a proposal of this nature. This includes considering matters pertaining to landscape character, forestry and woodland, the water environment, the path network, built heritage, aviation, residential amenity in respect of noise, shadow flicker and visual intrusion, economic benefit, contribution towards renewable energy targets, effect on soils, impact on the road network and decommissioning. These matters are fully assessed in detail below. Scottish Government Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity 8.17 This guidance sets out the Scottish Ministers’ expectations for implementing NPF4 policies which support the cross-cutting NPF4 outcome ‘improving biodiversity’. Core principles which can be followed when designing development so that nature and nature recovery are an integral part of any proposal are laid out within the document. Biodiversity matters are fully assessed below. Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal 8.18 This policy provides a strategic framework for appropriate woodland removal. Whilst there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting Scotland’s woodland resources it is also noted that woodland removal, with compensatory planting, is most likely to be appropriate where it would contribute to a list of outcomes including helping Scotland mitigate and adapt to climate change. No specific concerns arise with reference to this policy, and this is a document for the Scottish Ministers to consider in detail with reference to the proposal. Principle of Development 8.19 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) sets out the long-term vision for the development of Scotland through the National Spatial Strategy. NPF4 aims to meet Scotland’s climate ambition which will require a rapid transformation across all sectors of the economy and society. This proposal constitutes a National Development as it supports renewable electricity generation, repowering, and expansion of the electricity grid under National Development 3: Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure. NPF4 recognises that additional electricity generation from renewables and electricity transmission capacity of scale is fundamental to achieving a net zero economy. Policy 1 of NPF4 states that there is a need to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis, whilst Policy 2 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. The electricity generated will be from a renewable source with the additional battery storage element of the proposal additionally ensuring grid stability given the intermittent nature of renewable energy generation. 8.20 Whilst it can be considered that the proposal could therefore be held to support the overarching aims of the NPF4 to achieve net zero targets and provide a stable domestic energy supply, it must be ensured that such development happens in the right place. There is thus a requirement in assessing any such developments to take into account all relevant considerations and policies. Therefore, it must be assessed if there are any potential adverse impacts arising from the proposed development which Page 87
Page 88
would be outweighed by any benefits. This assessment can be guided by Policy 11(e) of NPF4 which sets out in detail the matters for the project design and mitigation to address. Landscape and Visual Impact: Considerations 8.21 The construction of ten wind turbines each to a height of 250m together with the associated infrastructure, works and battery storage facility at this location will have a significant visual impact, and this is not in doubt. The applicant sets out in their submission that most apparent effects of the development in terms of the visual impact arise from the presence of the wind turbines which are indicated to be temporary. The applicant’s position is therefore that the impact is reversible as the turbines would be removed on decommissioning. However, given that it is anticipated that the operational lifespan of the development is 40 years, the impacts that will occur are considered to be long term. 8.22 The geographical extent to which the wind farm would be visible has been established by a ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’ (ZTV). This was created using mapping tools to calculate where the wind farm will potentially be visible from in the surrounding area, taking account of topography. The ZTV establishes the locations from which the turbines may potentially be visible and where there is no visibility, receptors are discounted from the assessment. ZTV mapping is presented in the applicant’s submission with both 45km and 20km study areas in order that both the local and wider context of the proposal can be considered. The ZTV demonstrates that the wind farm, or parts thereof, would be visible from an extensive area including Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven, Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, Dunoon, Balfron, Luss and Ben Lomond. 8.23 As part of the EIA, the assessment of landscape and visual effects is informed by a series of viewpoints that represent visibility from a variety of different vantage points. These include recognised viewpoints, designated landscapes, settlements and travel routes. Vantage points within the settlements of Dumbarton and Alexandria, together with other vantage points within the Authority area including Dumbarton Rock and Doughnot Hill are assessed as are vantage points which are within the West Dunbartonshire part of the National Park such as Balloch Castle and a location on the John Muir Way to the east of Balloch. A range of viewpoints are also provided from the wider area including south of the River Clyde at Langbank and Port Glasgow as well as Luss, Conic Hill, Ben Bowie, Beinn Dubh and Ben Lomond. The visibility of the windfarm from all these locations indicates potential widespread visual impact. It is acknowledged that photomontages can be influenced by weather conditions, the position of the camera and the particular details of the lens used, but they are nevertheless representative overall in terms of the scale and position of the proposed turbines relative to the landscape and the skyline. The photomontages focus on the impact arising from the turbines themselves and do not include associated details such as the access tracks and battery storage facility. Landscape and Visual Impact: Impact adjacent to the site 8.24 Doughnot Hill is a high point situated within the Kilpartick Hills, within the Kilpartick Hills Local Landscape Area (LLA). It is clear from the visuals submitted that the proposed turbines will be a very significant feature when viewed from this location, with the application documents noting that they will be approximately 1500m from the summit (from where the viewpoint is taken) and extend across 47 degrees of the view. Doughnot Hill and the surrounding landscape features popular recreational walking routes extending from Overtoun House. These initially follow the core path network before extending across open countryside and generally gaining in height. The landscape is characterised by sweeping moorland together with forestry plantations and Doughnot Hill provides a local destination for the experience of wilderness and Page 88
Page 89
because of the views from the summit. Panoramic views are provided from this location across the Kilpatrick Hills and towards the National Park. The applicant recognises that this viewpoint has a high susceptibility to change as those who experience this view would be engaging in outdoor recreation and are likely to have a specific focus on the scenery and surrounding landscape. The EIA identifies that the combination of the high susceptibility to change of the view and its medium-high value results in a high sensitivity for this viewpoint. 8.25 The proposed turbines would, on the basis of the applicant’s submitted visuals, comprise an extremely dominant feature within the landscape at this location. They will impact upon the views over the local landscape and most notably compromise the views to the northwest towards Loch Lomond and the wider National Park area. The overall experience of recreational receptors at Doughnot Hill and the surrounding area would be significantly changed by the development with the overall sense of isolation being lost. Whilst not included in the visuals, in addition to the turbines themselves, the network of tracks together with the battery storage site would introduce further visual man-made clutter which is not presently experienced in the natural landscape. It is likely that that similar impacts would be experienced from elsewhere within the Kilpatrick Hills 8.26 Within the wider landscape, a variety of core paths are found, and these facilitate recreational use. Many of these extend out from the built-up area where usage is likely to be high with those from the urban area utilising paths close to home and the magnitude of change experienced by users is likely to be substantial and the visual impact high. Scotways objects to application noting the adverse impact on the recreational amenity of the area. Landscape and Visual Impact: Impact upon residential properties and settlements 8.27 The applicant identifies 12 residential properties that lie within 2km of the development site, the closest of which is Braeburn Cottage at 1.77kms. A Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) has been provided by the applicant in respect of these properties. All but one of these properties are located along Auchencarroch Road to the northwest of the proposed site. The final property is Highdykes Farm which is accessed from Broomhill Crescent to the southwest of the site. Properties would experience varying degrees of visual impact as a result of the proposed wind turbines. Some properties would experience impacts limited to only a small number of turbines, or parts of turbines including hubs and some blades whilst other properties, most notably Highdykes Farm despite not being the closest residential property at 1.86kms away, would experience views of all turbines and sometimes viewing much of the structures themselves with limited screening. Properties would also experience nighttime visual impacts from the visible aviation lighting required on account of the height of the proposed turbines. 8.28 The RVAA indicates that seven of the 12 properties included are likely to experience a significant visual effect as a result of the proposed development. Of these seven properties, one would have a high magnitude of change (Highdykes Farm). The RVAA found that the effect on this property would not reach the Residential Visual Amenity Threshold due to the location of the turbines in a peripheral aspect of the view, so that the key open view from the property would not be directly affected. It has therefore been concluded that despite the effect of views of the turbines together with the impacts associated with the visible aviation lighting, this property, as well as others in West Dunbartonshire, will not experience such impacts as would be described as exceeding the threshold of residential visual amenity. The battery storage and other ancillary developments are not of a scale and nature likely to result in any notable impacts on residential visual amenity. Page 89
Page 90
8.29 Turning to the impact upon settlements, it is clear that the proposed turbines would have a visual impact from the built-up area within West Dunbartonshire. Viewpoint 3 considers the impact from a location beside the A82 near Lomondgate on the north- western edge of Dumbarton. In the submitted EIA, the applicant sets out that the proposed turbines are 3.8 kms away from this viewpoint and that the urban edge is characterised by woodland. The majority of nearby views, including views from properties, are likely to have some degree of screening by vegetation. The EIA identifies that the effect on this view would be major and significant. This is due to a combination of the factors that lead to the medium-high magnitude of change on the view and the high sensitivity of the viewpoint. The proposed turbines would be very readily apparent at reasonably close proximity with some turbines seen at nearly full height on the skyline, increasing their vertical impact. The turbines would not be seen in the context of the elevated and distinctively upland landscape of the Kilpatrick Hills, but appear at a lower elevation, with the hill landform screened by intervening woodland. This has the potential to result in a perceived lack of separation, whereby the turbines appear to be seen in the same context as the viewpoint. 8.30 Viewpoint 5 considers the impact within the Vale of Leven at a location on the A811 in Alexandria / Balloch and here, the proposed turbines are identified as being 4.3kms away. This urban area is characterised by trees and woodland, and the majority of nearby views, including views from properties, are likely to have some degree of screening or filtering by vegetation as shown in the photomontage. The EIA identifies that the effect of the turbines on this view would be major and significant due to a combination of the factors. The Kilpatrick Hills currently provide an undeveloped backdrop to the largely urban outlook and the proposed development would introduce large-scale development into this backdrop. The turbines would be seen in the context of foreground residential development, with which scale contrasts may arise. 8.31 For the previous planning application proposal considered in 2013 it was concluded that the whilst the location of the wind farm is such that it will be visible from residential areas of West Dunbartonshire, including Balloch, Alexandria and Dumbarton the impact on these settlements was not considered to be unacceptable, The current proposal sees turbines within largely the same location but to a height more than double that previously proposed (250m compared to 110m previously). It is likely that for receptors within these settlements, attention will be drawn to the turbines on the hill to the north and the impact will be notable. Given the height of the turbines now proposed, it is considered that the scale of the proposal will comprise a considerable feature which has the potential to impact upon a considerable number of receptors including both residents together with those visiting and passing through these towns. 8.32 In their consultation response which objects to the proposal, The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority highlight that the settlements of Balmaha (viewpoint 17), Croftamie, Drymen (viewpoint 14), Gartocharn and Balloch would be subject to significant effects. The impact upon the National Park is considered in detail in paragraphs 8.38 to 8.46 below. Whilst not objecting to the proposal, Inverclyde Council have expressed significant concern regarding the proposal noting that views outwards from Inverclyde are important to both tourists and residents alike. They are an environmental and scenic tourism resource. It is such outlooks that assist Inverclyde in attracting tourists, both day-trippers and passing through. The views have helped the area to stage major events such as The Tall Ships Race and provide a backdrop for the many tourists arriving on cruise ships at Ocean Terminal travelling on to Glasgow. Inverclyde Council therefore set out the desire for these to view to be retained and is concerned the proposed development would impact on them to their detriment. The potential impact upon the timber ponds at Parklea is raised as a Page 90
Page 91
concern as would the significant impact on the skyline when viewed from Port Glasgow (viewpoint 18) and Greenock (viewpoint 25). It is concluded by Inverclyde Council that the proposal would be out of scale with the surrounding topography to the extent it would impact negatively on the views from Inverclyde and from the Firth of Clyde. 8.33 Overall, it is considered that the proposal has the potential to result in wide ranging significant and adverse visual impact from a variety of locations. Landscape and Visual Impact - Landscape Character 8.34 Landscape character is the distinctive pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a landscape leading to the way that it is perceived. Landscape sensitivity is concerns with the inherent character of the landscape and the likelihood that this character would be changed by the introduction of development. Landscape capacity refers to the degree to which a particular landscape type or area is able to accommodate change without significant effects on its character, or overall change of landscape character type. As the ZTV for the proposed development would extend over a wide area, it would have an impact on numerous different landscapes. The NatureScot 2019 dataset divides the landscape into tracts that are referred to as landscape character types (LCTs). Ten LCTs are included in the detailed assessment within the EIA due to level of influence and visibility of the proposed development. The EIA identifies the vast majority of the proposed development lies within Rugged Moorland Hills LCT. This designation covers the southern part of the Kilpatrick Hills, as well as parts of the Campsies/Kilsyth Hills and Renfrewshire Heights. The proposal would be seen as a new man-made element within the open hills and may affect the sense of scale of the landscape. 8.35 The applicant’s EIA sets out that the effects on the Kilpatrick Hills element of Rugged Moorland Hills LCT would vary. The effect on southern and south-eastern parts are considered not to be significant due to lack of or very limited visibility and influence of the proposed development. The EIA does highlight that there would, however, be a major or major/moderate and significant effect on the Site area itself and the areas in closer proximity that gain visibility of the majority of the proposal. Whilst the EIA contends that the “sense of apparent naturalness, wild character and remoteness” of the northern part of the Kilpatrick Hills has been affected by the Auchencarroch Recycling and Resource Management Facility, which lies approximately 500m to the north of the nearest turbine in the proposed development, the Council considers that this facility does not form a prominent feature within the landscape which impacts upon the Kilpatrick Hills beyond its immediate setting and the topography of the site reduces its impact. 8.36 In further considering the range of LCT assessed within the EIA, significant effects within part of the area are identified within Lowland Hill Fringes – Central, Lowland Loch Basin – Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, Lowland Loch Basin – Islands, Open Ridgeland – Glasgow and Clyde Valley, River Valley Farmland and Estates, Rolling Farmland – Glasgow and Clyde Valley and Rolling Farmland - Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. In their consultation response, the National Park Authority also highlight Highland summits and Steep Ridges and Hills LCT noting that as illustrated in Viewpoint 29 from Ben Lomond the turbines would appear very noticeable in the lower- lying backdrop to Loch Lomond. The introduction of large-scale industrial infrastructure would detract from the appreciation of several key characteristics that exhibit a semi- natural, natural and/or wild and rugged character. Significant effects are predicted on open parts, including from Ben Lomond. 8.37 It is considered that there would be potential for a significant impact on the character of the landscape. The scale of the turbines proposed is such that there are no existing Page 91
Page 92
features in the landscape which are of a similar size or scale. The development comprises extremely large turbines which are more likely to be suited to areas where they may benefit from separation distance between communities and sensitive receptors without exerting an inappropriate influence on the sensitivities of the Kilpatrick Hills. Inappropriately scaled and sited turbines have the potential to diminish the apparent scale of landscapes to the detriment of landscape character, and also to impinge upon the appreciation of the landscape from viewpoints valued for their scenic qualities. Landscape and Visual Impact - Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park 8.38 The application site is located around 1.7km from the edge of the National Park boundary, which is one of only two National Parks in Scotland. In their consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers, both the National Park Authority and NatureScot object to the proposal. The Park note that it was consulted on the previous proposal for a wind farm in the Kilpatrick Hills, raising an objection due to the predicted significant adverse visual impact. The Park specifically note that the turbines now proposed would be up to 250m to blade tip height which is more than double the height of the previous proposal. Currently, the closest operational windfarm to the southern boundary of the National Park, is Corlic Hill/Inverclyde which is 14km southeast and has 8 turbines which are 110m high to blade tip. Both the National Park Authority and NatureScot consider that the location, size and scale of the proposed development represents a step change in respect of the proximity and prominence of wind farms to the National Park, and the scale of the wind turbines (being more than twice the size of the closest operational wind farm). 8.39 Although the National Park is not itself a landscape designation, the landscape is one of the main reasons for which the Loch Lomond and Trossachs area is designated as a National Park. National Parks are defined as extensive areas of the very highest value to the nation for their scenery and wildlife, and their cultural value. The Park is valued for the scenic quality of its landscape due to its diverse landscape character. Some of the special qualities identified in the Park include diverse landscapes and diverse experiences, mountains and moorlands. Whilst the Kilpatrick Hills are outwith the National Park boundary, they contribute to the landscape setting of the National Park, appearing as a natural landscape boundary close to its southern edge. NatureScot notes that the size of the proposed turbines and their anticipated prominence in southward views on the skyline formed by the Kilpatrick Hills would conflict with the current expansive large scale of the landscape where human elements are currently small in scale. 8.40 In the consultation response from the National Park Authority it is highlighted that the Special Landscape Qualities of Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Report 2010 commissioned by NatureScot defines special landscape qualities as the characteristics that, individually or combined, give rise to an area’s outstanding scenery. The general special landscape qualities which apply to the entire National Park are: • A world renowned landscape famed for its natural beauty; • Tranquillity; • Wild and rugged highlands contrasting with pastoral lowlands; • Settlements nestled within a vast backdrop; • Famous through routes; and • The easily accessible landscape splendour. 8.41 The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) predicts significant effects on two Special Landscape Qualities (SLQ) within the National Park. The first of Page 92
Page 93
these is Wild and rugged highlands contrasting with pastoral lowlands where it is set out that the proposal would have some effect on the perceived wildness of upland landscapes. The second is Immensity of loch and landscape where the applicant judges the effect to significant as while the majority of this SLQ would not be affected, in areas where they are clearly apparent the turbines can lead to scale comparisons that alter the baseline perception of the “Immensity of loch and landscape”. 8.42 Both the National Park Authority and NatureScot consider the applicant’s assessment of the Special Landscape Qualities of the National Park underplays the significance of effects. In the consultation response, it is set out that National Park Authority’s Landscape Adviser predicts significant effects on these and an additional eight of the Special Landscape Qualities as follows: • A world-renowned landscape famed for its rural beauty • Settlements nestled within a vast natural backdrop • Famous through routes/ The easily accessible landscape splendour • Tranquillity • Two lochs in one • A multitude of beautiful islands • Ben Lomond, widely known, popularly frequented • Banks of broadleaved woodland 8.43 The Park Authority’s consultation response goes on to set out that with a very intrusive and industrial appearance, the proposed turbines would significantly detract from, contrast with and often compromise a very number of Special Landscape Qualities and key characteristics that are integral to defining this iconic part of the National Park. “Settlements nestled within a vast natural backdrop” is highlighted as an example in the response including the southern setting of Loch Lomond and the surrounding rural landscape. This area has a long and rich history of habitation with houses and other structures confined to lower-lying land. These settlements are often small-scale, nestled within the backdrop of vast landforms of mountain, hill, glen and loch. This gives a strong sense of surrounding, all-enveloping nature which would be fundamentally compromised by the introduction of highly intrusive turbines. This includes the settlements of Balmaha, Croftamie, Drymen, Gartocharn and Balloch which would be subject to significant effects. 8.44 Similarly, “Immensity of loch and landscape”, with Loch Lomond being the largest expanse of freshwater in Britain with surrounding mountains and hill ranges, the landscape and sense of place is expansive and large-scale. By comparison, human made elements appear small and modest, they are barely discernible against the larger backdrop and substantial horizontal landmass. With the introduction of highly intrusive turbines, the naturally majestic surroundings where human made elements appear small and modest would be fundamentally compromised, as would the enjoyment of the highly scenic setting provided by the wide range of recreational infrastructure around the loch, affecting the experience of a very large number of people. NatureScot are also concerned at the impact upon this Special Landscape Quality noting that the size of the proposed turbines and their anticipated prominence in southward views on the skyline formed by the Kilpatrick Hills would conflict with the current expansive large scale of the landscape where human elements are currently small in scale. The effect would be significant within the southern area of the Park. NatureScot go on to consider that a further five SLQs would experience significant effects as follows: 8.45 The National Park Authority recognise the key strategic role that renewable energy development has to play in addressing the climate crisis but consider the proposal to present a significant visual intrusion, including on some of the most iconic views Page 93
Page 94
enjoyed by visitors and our communities. Both the National Park and NatureScot consider that there would be significant adverse effects on the Special Landscape Qualities of the National Park and the Landscape Character Types which define what is so unique about the National Park. The Park Authority also consider that the proposal will have a significant detrimental effect on a number of settlements in the National Park and the experience of views of walking routes, road routes and viewpoints popular with both visitors and residents in the Park. NatureScot go on to conclude that they consider that the adverse effects from the proposal are unlikely to be overcome through re-design or removal of turbines. 8.46 Whilst it is accepted that the proposed turbines will not be visible or prominent from large parts of the Park due to its location and the distances involved, it will be extremely visible from some of the most important, iconic and popular areas such as from the Loch itself, Luss, Conic Hill and parts of the West Highland Way. Although the EIA concludes that only two of the Special Landscape Qualities of the Park will be significantly affected, it is considered that the actual impact will be far greater and this view is strongly supported by both NatureScot and the National Park Authority in their objections to the Scottish Ministers. Being guided by the detailed assessment undertaken by both the National Park Authority and NatureScot, it is considered that the proposal will have a detrimental and unacceptable impact due to the significant adverse impacts on the landscape setting of the National Park and it is concluded that the potentially significant impacts on the Park resulting from the proposal are not in doubt. Landscape and Visual Impact - National Scenic Areas (NSA) 8.47 NSAs are defined as areas of outstanding scenic value in a national context. There are three NSAs within the 45km ZTV. These are: Kyles of Bute NSA, Loch Lomond NSA and The Trossachs NSA. The Kyles of Bute NSA lies at least 37km to the west of the proposal and is shown to gain no theoretical visibility. The Trossachs NSA is at least 23.5km north-north-east and is shown to gain minimal theoretical visibility, restricted to localised high points, including Ben Venue (Viewpoint 31). These two locations are not assessed any further in the EIA and there is no objection to this approach. Loch Lomond NSA is located within National Park. 8.48 Whilst it is accepted that the proposed wind farm would not be visible from large parts of the NSA, it would be highly visible from some of the most important, iconic and popular areas within the NSA. It is considered that due to the extent of the area that the wind farm will be visible from and the importance of these locations such as on the Loch itself, Balmaha Harbour and Luss within the NSA, With the concerns regarding the impact upon the National Park itself, it follows that there are also concerns regarding the potentially detrimental and unacceptable impact on the landscape setting of Loch Lomond NSA. Landscape and Visual Impact - Kilpatrick Hills LLA 8.49 The Kilpatrick Hills stretch from Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven in the west to Strathblane in the east. The rugged upland landscape provides a stunning backdrop to the settlements which fringe them, including Balloch, Bonhill and Dumbarton. To the north of the hills lies the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. The Kilpatrick Hills form a distinctive rugged upland landscape, inextricably linked with their surroundings: ‘borrowed’ views, unique and relatively accessible panoramas, and a plethora of high-quality vistas, both to and from the Kilpatrick Hills, make the area key to defining the identity of nearby settlements and in providing a setting for nationally important landscapes. The local landscape identity of the Kilpatrick Hills is focused around prominent hills, escarpments, plateau moorland and the abrupt transition from surrounding urban areas and farmed lower slopes. There is a high perceived quality of Page 94
Page 95
wildness and sense of apparent naturalness and remoteness, particularly in the central areas of the Kilpatrick Hills, derived in part from the limited visual influence of modern development, in contrast to nearby urban areas. 8.50 Within West Dunbartonshire, the following special landscape qualities of the Kilpatrick Hills are identified as being of special interest: Strong sense of remoteness, wildness and open horizons; Distinctive landforms; and A unique diversity of views. The proposed wind farm will be located within the Kilpatrick Hills LLA and will result in direct changes to the landscape. The site is readily visible from a wide area and the EIA concludes that there would be significant effects on these SLQs. In relation to the first two SLQs, the influence of the proposal is identified as being more apparent in the north-western part of the LLA, where the proposal is located and from where it has the highest level of visibility. In the case of views towards the LLA, views from the area around the north-western part of the LLA would be most affected. In the case of the third SLQ, the accessibility of the routes themselves would not be physically affected, but views from the specific routes would be affected. 8.51 The scale of the turbines proposed is such that there are no existing features in the landscape which are of a similar size or scale. The proposed turbines will be a dominant feature within the LLA, particularly from areas close to the turbine locations. It is therefore likely that the LLA designation, based on the scenic attributes of the area, will be compromised. The Kilpatrick Hills form a distinctive rugged landscape, inextricably linked with their surroundings. They are relatively accessible, providing panoramas and a number of high-quality vistas, both from the LLA including Doughnot Hill (Viewpoint 1) and to other locations such as the National Park and the Loch Lomond NSA. They are a key backdrop which helps to define the identity of nearby settlements and provide a setting for the nearby nationally important landscapes. The wind farm would detract from the sense of remoteness and wildness provided by the Kilpatrick Hills. It is considered that locating a wind farm within the Kilpatrick Hills would have a significant impact on their setting and detract from their uniqueness. Landscape and Visual Impact - Regional/Country Parks 8.52 Balloch Castle Country Park is situated around 4km from the proposed site. Viewpoint 4 considered the visual impact from the Country Park. The EIA notes that the strong westwards orientation of landform and extensive woodland cover within the main part of the Park greatly limits visibility of the proposal with the chosen viewpoint being from the access road as it will be a view gained by a large number of visitors. The visual impact from the proposal development at this location is identified as having a significant effect due to a combination of the factors that lead to the medium-high magnitude of change on the view and the high sensitivity of the viewpoint. It is noted that visibility from the main part of the park is identified as being limited. The potential for impact upon the Balloch Castle Garden and Designed Landscape is discussed separately at paragraph 8.90. 8.53 The Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park is situated approximately 13km from the proposed site. Whilst the proposed wind farm may be visible from the Regional Park including from Misty Law (viewpoint 28), it is concluded in the EIA that the proposal would not have direct effects within the Park and would not significantly affect the priorities and objectives of the Park. It is agreed that it is not considered that there would be any significant or detrimental impact on the setting or character of the Regional Park. 8.54 The impact upon Mugdock Country Park around 10 km from the proposed site is considered in the EIA and it is concluded that a combination of limited theoretical visibility and screening by woodland and forestry within and around the Park would ensure that actual visibility is likely to be very limited. A viewpoint location was sought Page 95
Page 96
but could not be identified due to lack of visibility. Gleniffer Braes Country Park is some 18km from the application site and is not considered in the EIA. Due to the distance, it is not considered there would be any potential for any significant impact. Landscape and Visual Impact – Cumulative Impacts 8.55 The proposal would be the first wind farm development to be located in the Kilpatrick Hills, so there would be no localised cumulative impacts. The LVIA concludes that there would be no significant cumulative effects arising either from the combined effects of all wind farms, including the proposal, or from the addition of the proposal to other wind farms, and as a result, it would not lead to a perception that views or landscape character are defined by the presence or influence of more than one wind farm. It is considered that the site is physically and visually well separated from other large scale wind farm developments. Overall, no cumulative change of significance is identified in respect of the Kilpatrick Hills, although the proposal could set a precedent and could have future cumulative consequences for the Kilpatrick Hills and/or the National Park through wind turbine developments. Designated sites 8.56 Whilst there are no statutory nature conservation designations within the site, the proposed site lies within 100m of two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). These are Dumbarton Muir SSSI to the east and the smaller Auchenreoch Glen SSSI to the southwest. The EIA sets out that Auchenreoch Glen SSSI is located 68m from the site boundary and 98m from the route of the proposed access track. Given the distance to the SSSI and the nature of construction works on the site access, it is not expected there would be any adverse effects on the qualifying features of this SSSI which comprise lowland calcareous grassland, and springs (including flushes) and it is scoped out of the assessment. Dumbarton Muir SSSI is designated for its blanket bog and raised bog habitats. This SSSI is 75m from the application site and the closest proposed infrastructure to the SSSI is the turning head to for turbine 4 located 94m away. The EIA concludes that it is not expected there would be any adverse effects on the qualifying features of this SSSI. Both SSSIs are scoped out of further assessment. NatureScot are satisfied that these sites will not be adversely affected by the proposal. 8.57 Five other SSSIs are identified in the EIA as being locations within 5km of the application site however it is considered that there is no connectivity between t these designated sites and as such they are scoped-out of the assessment. Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC), classified for its salmon, river lamprey and brook lamprey populations, is 6.8 km downstream of the Proposed Development with partial hydrological connectivity. Given the distances from the Site the EIA does not anticipate that any potential effects would materialise on these designated sites, and as such they are scoped-out of the assessment. NatureScot concludes that they consider it unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests either directly or indirectly. 8.58 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that the applicant fails to consider or assess local designations relative to the proposed site. It is identified that there are five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which would be impacted by the development, either directly or indirectly. These are Murroch Glen, Blairvault Burn and Pappert Muir, Auchenreoch Muir Bonhill Muir and Pappert Hill, and West Dumbarton Muir. It therefore cannot be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites. Habitat 8.59 The proposed site comprises primarily open upland habitats, with blanket bog and marshy grassland predominant and accounting for over 73% of the application site. Page 96
Page 97
The remaining area is made up of smaller proportions of many other habitat types such as wet dwarf shrub heath, wet modified bog, acid grassland, flushes and bracken. Direct impacts upon habitats are those which would arise from the land taken for the development (i.e. the habitats lost to create turbine bases, tracks, borrow pits etc.), whereas possible indirect impacts might include changes to hydrology due to site drainage, pollution of watercourses from spillages or run-off, and fragmentation of habitats as a result of track construction. The EIA identified that over 10.3 ha of various habitat types would be directly lost as a result of the proposed development. For the majority of habitat types, no concerns arise in respect of the potential impact and these are scoped out. 8.60 One area of ancient woodland falls within the application boundary, and this is identified as an important ecological feature. The woodland in question is where the site access is proposed to pass through a narrow strip of woodland known as Barr Wood. The EIA identifies 0.06hn direct habitat loss to access track infrastructure. The EIA sets out that the area of ancient woodland to be directly impacted by the development is primarily comprised of beech with some Scots pine, some immature birch and a single oak. Due to grazing, there is no underscrub vegetation or regenerating trees/saplings present. The loss of a narrow of woodland is not considered by the EIA to lead to any notable potential fragmentation effects. Overall, the EIA concludes the effect on Ancient Woodland to be minor adverse to not significant. 8.61 Blanket Bog and Wet Modified Bog are also identified as important ecological features. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that Blanket Bog is a priority habitat for conservation on the Scottish Biodiversity list and also a UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat for conservation. Blanket bog vegetation coverage is also essential for the peat development underneath. The proposed development would result in direct and indirect habitat loss for blanket bog and wet modified bog habitats. Direct loss would occur in areas where permanent infrastructure such as access tracks, turbine foundations, and hardstandings are sited on these habitat types. The excavation of these habitat types for temporary infrastructure would also lead to the losses of blanket bog and wet modified bog due to the long-term effect on the ecological and hydrological structure and function of these habitat types. In addition, there may be indirect losses as a result of drainage around infrastructure and disruption to hydrological flows and the Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that blanket bog is particularly susceptible to changes in hydrology and any impact for foundations and access should be approached cautiously. NatureScot consider the loss of blanket bog and wet modified bog and makes recommendations in respect of the proposed levels of restoration to achieve offsetting. 8.62 The EIA is informed by a detailed review of the distribution and depth of peat at the site and the site design has largely avoided areas of deep peat. Where peat would be encountered by the proposed development, the EIA details that this can be readily managed and accommodated within the layout without significant environmental impact. A Peat Management Plan has been submitted by the applicant and this details how peat and carbon rich resources on site can be safeguarded. No surplus peat would be generated, and the limited volumes of peat generated from the proposed excavations would be used to reinstate track verges, turbine bases, crane hardstandings and restoration of onsite borrow pits. 8.63 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer further considers peatland habitat and notes that a peatland restoration programme on the vast swathes of class 2 peatlands would be more impactful in terms of net zero commitments and would provide an abundance of biodiversity benefit whilst retaining the landscape character of the Kilpatrick Hills. The Page 97
Page 98
Biodiversity Officer goes on to highlight that there is no data provided by the applicant for 0.5m to 1m depth which is the national standard for determining deep peat. Only peat depths of over 1m have been provided. It is noted that Turbine 2 is to be situated on Class 2 peat and Turbine 4 on Class 1 peat. An estimate of 18% habitat loss is noted, regardless of mitigation or enhancements. Nature Scot also highlights the requirements for greater ambition in terms of the extent of proposed peatland restoration and make a variety of recommendations in this respect. It is noted that 90ha of peatland restoration is offered by the applicant but NatureScot highlight that a figure of 200ha should be sought. 8.64 Overall, it is considered that subject to suitable mitigation measures including a habitat management plan together with the following the recommendations from NatureScot being followed, specifically with reference to peatland restoration, and the Scottish Ministers ensuring that the impact upon peatland is fully understood taking account of the comments of the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and minimised as much as possible, the impact of the proposal upon habitats would likely be acceptable. Protected and other ecological species 8.65 Informed by an initial desk study, a protected species field survey has been undertaken. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that the survey work focusses on ornithology and the various surveys highlight the wealth of the species found within the Kilpatrick Hills and demonstrate the importance of the vast open habitat that the species recorded require to support them. No field signs of water vole, pine martin or red squirrel were found on site. Seven features with the potential for use as holts by otter were recorded. None of these features fell within 200m of the application boundary. Several of the burns within the survey area were found to have good suitability for otter, with trees and gullies providing shelter. Four badger setts were identified, two outlier setts and two larger ones for which the status could not be determined. None of the badger setts or signs recorded are within 100m of the application boundary. Potential feeding signs were recorded within woodland in Gllangad Glen and along Finland Burn. Pathways used by badgers were recorded in woodland around Finland Burn and on the edge of Nobleston Wood. A variety of features offer good suitability for badgers. Turning to reptiles, two common lizard sightings were recorded, all in the southern part of the survey area. Twelve potential hibernacula features were also recorded. These were mostly attributed to dry stone wall features and rock piles. Several of the potential hibernacula features recorded were within the application boundary. Two mammal holes, one within and one outwith the application boundary, were identified but no specific signs of protected species signs were identified, as well as two well-used mammal pathways. 8.66 Considering bats, a preliminary bat roost assessment was undertaken in July 2020 and March 2022. There were 42 features recorded with potential suitability for roosting bats, all being tree features. No key features that could support maternity roosts and significant hibernation and/or swarming sites were recorded within 200m plus rotor radius of a proposed wind turbine location. 8.67 In further considering bats, once operational there is a known risk of commuting and foraging bats colliding with turbine blades and for bats to be affected by barotrauma when flying in close proximity to moving turbine blades. Bat detectors at 13 locations within the site were deployed from May to September in 2020 over a total period of 42 days, with bats detected on all of the 42 nights. A total of four bat species and two genera were recorded for these locations. Clearly bat activity exists within the area and it is set out in the EIA that mitigation to avoid collisions will include the feathering of blades whilst idling. The EIA concludes that with proposed mitigation, the effect significance of bat collision risk is considered minor adverse and not significant. Page 98
Page 99
8.68 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that a variety of bat species have been recorded in the area in the last 15 years. NatureScot also consider bats in their consultation reply and welcome the proposed mitigation. They note there is no mention of the standard 50m buffer between blade tips and high-value bat habitats, however, and they recommend that it would be helpful to obtain clarification on whether this this form of mitigation is also included. NatureScot also recommend that a detailed post- construction bat monitoring plan should be submitted to and approved by the planning authority prior to development commencing. Subject to following the recommendations of NatureScot, the impact upon bats would be considered acceptable. 8.69 Watercourses within the application boundary form tributaries to Murroch Burn to the south, which feeds into the River Leven and the Clyde estuary, and Gallangad Burn to the north, feeding into the Endrick Water. The applicant’s protected species survey noted that consultation with the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust (LLFT) undertaken as part of the 2011 Merkins Wind Farm Environmental Statement suggested that although the watercourses in the north of the Site have connectivity to the River Endrick, waterfalls in the Finland Burn and the upper reaches of the Catter Burn are likely to act as a barrier to Atlantic salmon and lamprey. LLFT suggested that only resident brown trout populations are likely to be present. The River Endrick is over 6.8 km from the proposed development. 8.70 The Murroch Burn was surveyed and contains populations of both brown trout and salmon. It is considered that subject to good practice measures to prevent pollution and changes to hydrology it is considered that the impact on fish life within and downstream of the site would be minimal. Deer are likely to use the area but effects on deer are also scoped out of the assessment. With no deer fencing proposed as part of the development, deer may use and pass through uninhibited with the only potential disturbance being during the construction phase. 8.71 Considering ecological species in general, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer notes that the open moorland has been shown by the relevant species surveys to be valuable wildlife habitat that supports a number of protected ground nesting birds, raptors, mammals. It is the nature of the undisturbed open ground that contributes to making the habitat suitable for these species. The suite of upland habitat types found in the Kilpatrick Hills and the habitat connectivity to the wider landscape is the reason for the wealth of species found here. Although much of the area has previously been modified for agriculture and forestry, there are still large swathes of natural priority habitat types that are untouched, and these must be protected from inappropriate development. It is the value of the habitat and the vast open space of the Kilpatrick Hills that allows it to host such valuable species, many of which are of conservation concern. Opening up of access over this land will change the recreational value of this site. It is likely to be easier to access from both the main access route and from the northwest in from Pappert Wood. This additional disturbance, could include additional walkers, cyclists, trail bikes and dogs onto the site which would reduce its value as an open habitat and breeding site for ground nesting birds. 8.72 Overall, it is expected that the Scottish Ministers in determining the application will fully consider the points highlighted by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer, ensure identified mitigation measures are taken forward, follow the recommendations set out in NatureScot’s consultation response and require the implementation of a suitable Habitat Management Plan to ensure any effects of the development are minimised. The Councils Biodiversity Officer also specifically highlights the requirement for species protection plans and these would be expected. With this approach, the impacts of the proposed development upon protected species and wider ecology could be Page 99
Page 100
considered acceptable. It remains, however, that as highlighted in paragraph 8.58 it cannot currently be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites Any potential impacts upon ecology within these would require to be suitably considered and addressed. Ornithology 8.73 In order to determine baseline conditions to inform the ornithology impact assessment, field surveys were undertaken following NatureScot guidance between March 2019 to August 2022. Data collected between September 2008 to August 2009 for the Merkins Windfarm proposal was also considered as part of the baseline. A wide range of species were scoped out from further assessment for a range of reasons where it was concluded that adverse effects were considered very unlikely. Osprey, Goshawk and Black Grouse were identified as having potential for significant effects from the proposal and these were further assessed. In terms of ornithological impact relating to designated sites, The EIA advises that it was agreed during consultation with NatureScot that all designated sites, with the exception of the Loch Lomond SPA/ Ramsar site and Endrick Mouth and Islands SSSI can be scoped out due to a lack of potential connectivity. It is further set out that NatureScot advised that the breeding capercaillie designated feature of the Loch Lomond SPA should also be scoped out, leaving the remaining designated feature, non-breeding Greenland white-fronted goose, to be assessed. 8.74 The habitat within and directly surrounding the proposed development comprises mainly blanket bog and heather moorland without waterbodies, which is considered to be of limited suitability to foraging geese. It is also assessed as being likely that the Loch Lomond SPA and Ramsar site population is relatively sedentary throughout the winter, and as such, connectivity with the application site, and therefore displacement, barrier effects or collision impacts are very unlikely. it can be reasonably concluded that there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of Loch Lomond SPA / Ramsar site, and no further consideration is required. 8.75 Two pairs of ospreys are identified as breeding in forestland 2.5 km northeast from all proposed infrastructure. As no turbine locations or infrastructure is situated within 750m of either nest location, construction disturbance will not directly affect osprey nesting. A BBPP would be in place to ensure that any future osprey breeding activity is undisturbed during the construction phase. A pair of goshawks are also found to breed in forestland 2.9 km northeast from all proposed infrastructure. At this distance the EIA considers it is unlikely that this breeding location would be significantly affected by construction disturbance. As goshawks breed and forage in woodland, and the habitat within the Site is primarily composed of blanket bog and heather moorland without forested areas, it is not likely that goshawk would be directly affected by habitat loss during construction. 8.76 Baseline surveys in 2009 recorded one black grouse lekking area within the 1.5 km study area with one lek of up to six males and one female recorded at Auchenreoch ruins approximately 560m from the nearest proposed turbine (T8) and 300m from the proposed construction compound. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises that the Black Grouse lek site is only 300m from proposed battery storage area and this is against recommended disturbance of a minimum of 500m. Surveys in 2019 recorded a pair of black grouse flying over Auchenreoch ruins in November and a single male flying over the site in May, but no lekking birds were recorded in either 2019 or 2022. The EIA considers that on balance it is likely that the local lek is now extinct, although it is possible that the site is still occasionally used by foraging or dispersing birds. Proposed mitigation includes pre-construction surveys and restriction measures within a BBPP which would avoid disturbance to any lekking or breeding birds, should pre- Page 100
Page 101
construction surveys record them within 750m of planned construction activities, including the construction compound. 8.77 Considering collision potential during the operational phase, the collision risks for the three species were assessed as follows: • Osprey – One bird every 47 years • Goshawk – One bird every 88 years • Black Grouse – No collision risk identified 8.78 These risks are statistically insignificant in terms of the bird populations concerned. No notable concerns are identified in respect of potential displacement although Black Grouse could be impacted by noise from the sub-station. The EIA advises that there is little evidence to indicate that any species would be significantly impacted by wind turbine aviation lighting requirements Overall, the effects are identified as not being significant. 8.79 NatureScot in their consultation response do not raise notable concerns regarding Ornithology but make recommendations in respect of Black Grouse and the sub- station. It is noted that the RSPB offer no objections to the proposal, noting the biodiversity net gain proposals and recommend that the finalised biodiversity enhancement management plan is secured by condition. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises that a range of ornithological species are round within the area including black grouse, goshawk, golden plover, hen harrier, herring, gull, osprey, pink footed goose. Moorland breeding birds including curlew, snipe and lapwing were also recorded. Breeding snipe have been recorded close to the positions of turbines 1, 2, 5 and 6. Breeding ground habitat suitability for merlin and hen harrier were also identified. 8.80 Overall, subject to appropriate mitigation and protection plans being secured in conjunction with the position set out in paragraph 8.72 above, it is considered that the impact of the development upon ornithological interests would be acceptable. Biodiversity Enhancement 8.81 It is expected that wide ranging biodiversity enhancements are embedded into the final detail of the proposal, if approved. Points with regard to enhancements from peatland restoration are addressed in paragraphs 8.63 and 8.64 above. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that as part of proposed enhancements native woodland planting areas are proposed outside of development site boundary and this could lead to self-seeding on the adjacent SSSI which should remain as calcareous grassland. Woodland block proposals could also be detrimental to proposed calcareous grassland management and may also impact upon wetland flush areas. A Biodiversity Management Plan should further include a detailed management plan for all protected species on site. The Scottish Ministers should ensure that proposed biodiversity enhancement proposals are both secured and appropriate, if minded to grant the proposed development. Hydrological & Hydrogeological Impact 8.82 It is indicated by the applicant in the EIA that the proposed wind farm layout has been designed to minimise impacts upon geological, hydrological and hydrogeological constraints identified, with a variety of design iterations having been considered to avoid or minimise likely effects. The impacts upon watercourses are considered within the EIA with proposed mitigation to minimise impact including maintaining a 50m buffer zone between watercourses and other development. It is set out that in addition to good construction practices and methodologies, detailed design and construction Page 101
Page 102
practices would need to consider the particular ground conditions and the specific works at each location throughout the construction period. An experienced and qualified engineering geologist/geotechnical engineer would also be appointed as a supervisor. The EIA indicates that measures for dealing with pollution / sediment and flood risk during construction will be addressed via a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and a site specific drainage plan would be produced. Water quality monitoring during the construction phase would be undertaken for the surface water catchments to ensure no adverse impacts. This monitoring scheme would also allow the quality of water draining toward Dumbarton Muir SSSI and Auchenreoch Glen SSSI to be assessed and quantified. 8.83 The proposal will incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to attenuate run off and intercept sediment prior to run off entering watercourses. Due to the underlying geology of the site, there is relatively low infiltration and relatively high run off rates at present and over the whole of the site the new areas of hardstanding would cover a minimal proportion of the ground, so it is not considered that there is any likelihood of causing flooding. Various mitigation measures are proposed to avoid pollution and sedimentation of the water environment. SEPA do not object to the proposal, provided that in the event of planning permission being granted, a condition is attached which requires the submission of a surface water management plan. The Council’s Roads Service also do not raise an objection on flooding grounds but advise that if permission is given the applicant would require to demonstrate that the proposed development would not increase the flood risk downstream. Four new watercourse crossings are required and it is indicated that the crossings would be designed to pass the 200 year flood event. During the operational phase routine maintenance of infrastructure is expected such as maintaining access roads and drainage and carrying out maintenance of turbines. Should any maintenance be required onsite during the operational life of the project which would involve construction activities; mitigation measures would be adhered to along with the measures in the final CEMP to avoid potential effects. The EIA concludes that no significant residual effects on soils and peat, geology, surface water or groundwater receptors are predicted during the construction and operational periods of the development. Overall it is considered that with appropriate mitigation and the Scottish Ministers addressing a variety of matters by condition, the impact on hydrology and hydrogeology would be acceptable. Management of Peat/Soil 8.84 Works within peat bog areas can cause instability within the surrounding peat and result in peat slides, which seriously degrade peatland habitat. A Peat Landslide and Hazard Risk Assessment has been prepared by the applicant to assess and show how peat landslide risk is mitigated. The Assessment sets out the complicated inter- relationship between all the aspects that have an effect on the stability of peat. The overall conclusion regarding peat stability is that there are minimal areas of medium risk of peat instability across the proposed development and most have been avoided during the design process. Four medium risk areas are identified and for these, a hazard impact assessment was completed and this concluded that with suitable mitigation measures, all of the areas can be considered as an insignificant risk. Additional mitigation measures are further proposed in the areas where hazards are identified, despite these hazards being insignificant. This will further reduce the risk. to further reduce the risk of potential hazards occurring. Mitigation includes an experienced geologist/geotechnical engineer being appointed to supervise and provide advice during the setting out, micrositing and construction phases of the proposed development. Drainage measures which seek to avoid saturation of peat would also be implemented. The Energy Consents Unit commissioned Ironside Farrar Ltd to technically assess the Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment and this assessment concludes the approach is sufficiently robust in all respects and although Page 102
Page 103
some recommendations may be made for clarity, no further revisions are required. Based on the information within the EIA Report and taking account of the view Specialist Consultants, it would appear risk of peat landslide is not likely to be high and the Council would accept the recommendations made as appropriate and do not raise any concerns regarding peat landslide hazard risks. It is therefore considered that subject to the implementation of suitable preventative measures, there should be no significant impacts on peat stability. Borrow Pits 8.85 The proposed development would require crushed stone to construct new tracks, create hardstanding areas for the cranes and lay the turbine foundations. To avoid the need to bring significant amounts of material to site from elsewhere, which would greatly increase construction traffic, and includes a proposal to form a number of borrow pits within the site. Borrow pits are small quarries used to obtain rock for construction of the wind farm, primarily in the formation of the access tracks. It is not proposed to retain any of the proposed borrow pits post-construction. Materials are available locally so any requirement for rock aggregate during the operational phase, which would likely be minimal, would be met from those sources. The EIA sets out that it is anticipated that there would be a planning condition imposed upon consent with a requirement to agree the approach to restoration. 8.86 The application submission does not identify precise locations for the borrow pits at this stage. It is set out in the application submission that locations for up to three borrow pits have been identified within identified search areas which have been chosen due to their low peat measurements and rock exposure. The precise siting and size of borrow pits could be dealt with by way of a planning condition, but as they are a significant part of the overall wind farm development proposal it is appropriate to consider their likely environmental impacts. 8.87 In terms of landscape and visual impacts, this is considered in detail in paragraphs 8.21 to 8.55 above for the development overall. Focusing on the borrow pits, each borrow pit would cover a relatively small area and it is likely that their visibility would be reduced by localised screening, topography, the muted colours of the rock, and horizon effects (i.e. when seen close to the horizon they would be hard to make out against the bright skyline). It is considered unlikely that there would be any impact on long-distance views of the site, and the visual impact of the borrow pits would be relatively minor compared to that of the wind turbines. Whilst the borrow pits could be visually intrusive depending on the final details on location and size, they would be most visible during construction, but over time any remaining exposed rock in the borrow pits would weather and vegetation would become re-established, making the borrow pits less prominent and more difficult to make out from the access track and surrounding land. The borrow pits would be seen in the context of other infrastructure works associated with the wind farm development such as access tracks. Whilst they would be visible, they would be seen as part of the overall site construction rather than as separate developments. The restoration of any borrow pits required on site could be dealt with by way of a planning condition. Overall, it is considered that the visual impact of the borrow pits would be acceptable. The ecological and habitat implications of the development as a whole is already assessed above. Built and Cultural Heritage 8.88 No historic buildings or monuments are located within the site, although it does contain areas of archaeological interest. In their consultation response to the Scottish Ministers, West of Scotland Archaeological Service advises that the construction of the Page 103
Page 104
turbines and their associated infrastructure is likely to have both a direct impact on heritage features present within the development area itself, and an indirect effect on the settings of sites present in the surrounding landscape. WOSAS consider that it is difficult to see how the effect of the proposed wind farm on the settings of sites in the surrounding landscape could be reduced or mitigated without substantial redesign to the location of the development or the height of the turbines. They go onto recommend that any granting of permission include a condition relating to a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation within the red line boundary. It is considered that the Scottish Ministers require to satisfy themselves that an appropriately robust approach is taken to securing the required archaeological works. 8.89 There are a number of scheduled monuments in the vicinity of the site, but there would be no direct impact on these from construction or operation of the wind farm. There would be a potential impact upon the setting of the Knockupple, long cairn and the Lang Cairn, chambered cairn and cairn at Gallangad Muir which are 1.2 km to the east of the nearest turbine, but whilst noting the potential adverse impact, Historic Environment Scotland have not objected to the proposal on this basis and it is not considered that the impact on these scheduled monuments would be unacceptable. 8.90 The wind farm would be visible from the category A listed Balloch Castle and associated garden and designed landscape which lies 4.28kms from the nearest turbine and locations which also have views of Balloch Castle such as Duck Bay. However, it is not considered that there would be a significant detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building or its associated designed landscape. The category A listed Overtoun House and associated garden and designed landscape is located 2.5 km south of the nearest proposed turbine. Whilst the wireframe diagrams indicate that the turbines would potentially be visible from this location, the photomontage indicate that at ground level these views are entirely screened by existing established landscape features. However, from the first floor of the building, in which there are principal rooms, the woodland screening would become less effective and there may be more visibility of the wind farm. The potential impacts on any important views from principal rooms has not been considered in the submitted EIA and the Scottish Ministers would require to satisfy themselves that the potential impacts are understood. 8.91 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) have considered the proposal and in a consultation response to the Scottish Ministers they have considered the potential impact upon a variety of scheduled monuments, category A listed buildings and Garden and designed landscapes in the vicinity of the proposed development on which the proposals may have an impact. Having taken into account the information provided in the EIA Report, the supplied visualisations and HES’s own assessment, with the exception of Dumbarton Castle, the impacts of the proposed development are not considered to be of such significance as would warrant an objection from Historic Environment Scotland. HES’s position in this regard is accepted. 8.92 Considering the impact upon Dumbarton Castle, HES note that the EIA recognises that the presence of turbines in views of Dumbarton Castle from the south would challenge the dominance of the monument. The EIA goes on to suggest that views of the Castle from the south would only be impacted across a relatively small area and subsequently concludes that the proposed development would result in an adverse effect which is not significant. HES do not agree with this assessment and consider the impact to be underestimated. It is considered that proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the setting of the monument, adversely affecting key views from directly to its south. As demonstrated by the visualisations provided in support of the application, the turbines would appear above and be framed in wider views of Page 104
Page 105
monument. In some of these key views from the south the turbines would appear directly behind the monument. the turbines would create a very large visual distraction and become the most dominant features in these views. Consequently, HES consider the development would significantly and adversely impact on the ability to experience, understand and appreciate this key feature of the setting of the monument. The scale of impacts would significantly adversely affect the integrity of the setting of the monument when viewed from the south and would be of a magnitude to raise issues of national interest. HES consider the proposed Vale of Leven Wind Farm to be contrary to national policy as set out in the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland and NPF4 because of its adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle. Accordingly, they object to the proposed development. 8.93 It is clear that the proposed development would have the potential to impact upon a variety of built and cultural heritage designations and assets. Having fully reviewed this potential and being guided by the position of Historic Environment Scotland and West of Scotland Archaeological Service, it is considered that there would not be significant detrimental impact on the majority of the designations and assets. However, the serious concerns of Historic Environment Scotland in respect of the adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle are noted and HES object on this basis. Being guided by the position of HES, the impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle as a scheduled monument and key historic national asset within West Dunbartonshire is therefore clearly of significant concern and cannot be considered acceptable. Residential Amenity 8.94 Residential amenity can be affected in a variety of ways. This includes noise from construction and operation of the proposed windfarm and associated development, shadow flicker from individual turbines as they rotate and impacts on air quality affecting adjacent residential areas. 8.95 In first considering air quality, this was scoped out of the EIA as it was not considered that there was any potential for adverse impacts upon air quality. The Council’s Environmental Health Service offer no disagreement with this approach. In the event permission was granted, it would be expected that a Construction Environmental Management Plan would address any short-term impacts during construction. 8.96 Any development will produce noise during the construction phase and this has to be accepted. Environmental Health raise the requirement to ensure that the site is managed in such a way during construction so as not to cause undue disturbance and this could be addressed by appropriate conditions if required, including relating to hours of work and construction noise. Considering noise from the operation of the windfarm itself, there are two distinct types of noise sources within a wind turbine; the mechanical noise produced by the machine and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the air. Noise impact has been assessed in the EIA and supporting documentation. Noise level monitoring to collect background noise levels was completed at two properties; Gallangad Lodge 2.4kms from the closest turbine and Highdykes Farm 1.8 kms from the closest turbine. A noise monitor at a third property was removed at the request of the occupants. Informed by this data, noise modelling of the proposal predicts a negligible impact at noise sensitive receptors; the effects of the proposals are therefore negligible and not significant. Therefore, the EIA concludes that the operation of the proposed development would cause no significant effect and no mitigation would be required. 8.97 The Council’s Environmental Health Service does not object to the proposal but identifies a number of matters to be further considered and addressed. It is noted that predictions of the operational noise levels have been based on the candidate turbine Page 105
Page 106
being the Vestas 172.2MW but the test results for this specific turbine are not yet available and representative noise data has been adopted from similar Vestas V136 turbine. Environmental Health advise on the requirement for the noise impact assessment to be updated based on the actual wind turbines proposed. 8.98 Environmental Health further consider that an updated report that determines the impact of noise from the turbines proposed at the development on nearby dwellings and any noise sensitive premises taking cognisance of the Scottish Government document Planning Advice Note 1/2011 Planning and Noise and using the principles set out in the document “The Assessment and rating of Noise from Wind Farms (ETSU- R-97) is provided. It is identified that the applicant shall ensure that noise associated with the proposed development shall not exceed 35dB, measured as LA90.10min or the prevailing background noise level +5dB, during the daytime period and shall not exceed 43dB measured as LA90.10min or the prevailing background noise level +5dB, during the nighttime period. It is further advised that the applicant will require to consider the cumulative effects of any nearby wind turbine developments. Environmental Health go on to advise that where the tonal noise emitted by the development exceeds the threshold of audibility by between 2dB and 6.5dB or greater, then the acceptable noise specified in above, shall be reduced by the penalty level identified within section 28 of 'The Assessment and rating of Noise from Wind Farms- ETSU-R-97’. The definition of audibility for the purposes of this condition shall be as described in ETSU-R-97. The penalty shall only apply at properties where the tonal noise is measured and shall only relate to the wind speeds at which the tonal noise occurs at. Environmental Health further consider that a noise assessment to specifically determine the impact of noise from the proposed Battery Energy Storage Facilities on nearby dwellings and any noise sensitive premises is required. 8.99 Environmental Health also highlight the requirement for an agreed approach for assessing noise complaints noise complaint assessment, logging wind speed, wind direction and power generation data shall be continuously logged and a nominated person have been submitted in writing to the Planning Authority for the development who will act as a point of contact for local residents. 8.100 Turning to shadow flicker, it is accepted that if adequate separation is provided between turbines and nearby dwellings shadow flicker should not be a problem. The Council’s Environmental Health Service highlight the requirement for a shadow flicker assessment. The EIA sets out that in line with the Scottish Government guidelines on shadow flicker assessments, 10 rotor diameters (1.7km) from each proposed wind turbine has been established as the shadow flicker Study Area. The assessment identified that no residential dwellings fall within the shadow flicker Study Area and, therefore, no shadow flicker effects are anticipated on any residential receptors within the vicinity of the proposed development. 8.101 Overall, subject to the Scottish Ministers ensuring that all matters raised in respect of noise impact are addressed in the event that they were minded to grant consent, the impact upon residential amenity will be acceptable and there are no objections to the proposal on the impact upon residential amenity. Impact upon Tourism 8.102 The degree to which wind turbines influence the tourism industry is difficult to quantify. Some people are not concerned about the appearance of wind farms, with some people actively liking their appearance, and where wind farms open up public access to previously inaccessible parts of the countryside, they can themselves generate visits by walkers and cyclists. On the other hand, some people dislike the appearance of wind farms either in general or within specific locations, and the construction of a wind Page 106
Page 107
farm may reduce the enjoyment of their visit to the area and make them less likely to visit again. 8.103 Whilst the precise impact of wind farms on tourism is not known, it is clear that appropriately sited and scaled developments with limited consequences for landscape character, scenic quality or major tourism assets have much less potential to influence the decisions of potential visitors than an inappropriately scaled and sited development. 8.104 As highlighted above in paragraphs 8.24 and 8.25, Doughnot Hill for example provides a local destination for the experience of wilderness and because of the views from the summit. Panoramic views are provided from this location including across Kilpatrick Hills and towards the National Park. The development of an electricity generating station on the site will change the very nature of the experience of the landscape that presently attracts visitors. The applicant’s submission also demonstrates that the wind farm would be visible from important areas within the National Park, including Conic Hill, areas around Luss, the Loch itself and Balmaha Harbour. The National Park designation is an important visitor and tourist attraction and one of only two National Parks in Scotland. It is reasonable to conclude that the scenic value of the wider area around West Dunbartonshire, Loch Lomond and the National Park, is significant in terms of scenic value and tourism importance. It is to be expected that there will be significant implications for the tourism value of the surrounding area should the proposal be implemented, given that a significant number of visitors in Scotland are attracted by the scenic value of the natural landscape. Accordingly, inappropriately scaled man-made structures and development in a wider panoramic landscape is not considered to be in the interests of tourism. Whilst there is not a specific objection on the grounds of tourism impact, it is expected that the Scottish Ministers would require to satisfy themselves that no adverse impact was to occur and it is expected that this would be fully considered with reference to the objection from the National Park Authority. Aviation Safety 8.105 Aviation related issues are considered in the EIA and it is stated that the applicant is in dialogue with the relevant stakeholders about appropriate mitigation measures. Prestwick Airport and the Ministry of Defence offer no objection to the proposal in their consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers. Glasgow Airport advise that the proposal could conflict with safeguarding criteria and that a more detailed assessment requires to be undertaken regarding the potential impact on Glasgow Airport. They have submitted a holding objection in this respect. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) object until mitigation proposals become more mature. The Scottish Ministers would require to satisfy themselves that there was no potential for impact upon aviation safety and the objection from NATS is addressed and that any potential for impact upon Glasgow Airport is fully assessed should they be minded to grant consent. Electro-Magnetic Interference to Communications Systems 8.106 BT, the Joint Radio Operators and the Met Office offer no objection to the proposal and there is nothing to suggest that there would be any impacts on any telecommunications assets. Traffic, Transport and the Impact on the Road Network 8.107 The proposed development will be accessed via a new access road from the A813 Stirling Road, located immediately to the south of the access junction to Murroch Farm. The access will take the form of a priority junction which is designed to accommodate all predicted loads and traffic for both the construction and operational phases of the development. Considering the impact upon the road network and infrastructure, the Page 107
Page 108
EIA sets out that with the exception of the turbine components, most traffic would be normal construction plant and include grading tractors, excavators, high-capacity cranes, forklifts and dumper trucks. Most of this would arrive at the site on low loaders. It is expected that equipment, cabling and also the battery storage components will also arrive by HGVs. Whilst it is anticipated that on-site borrow pits will be able to meet up to 100% of the aggregate requirements, it is indicated any deliveries associated with concrete materials, such as cement powder, water and sand/aggregates will be sourced from local concrete suppliers. 8.108 The turbine components will be delivered on a variety of road transport platforms. In addition to the turbine deliveries, up to two high-capacity erection cranes would be needed to offload a number of components and erect the turbines. The cranes are likely to be mobile cranes with a capacity up to 1,000 tonnes that are escorted by boom and ballast trucks to allow full mobilisation on site. It is anticipated that turbine components will be delivered by ship to Clydebank with all abnormal load traffic leaving from Cart Street, Clydebank before travelling to Kilbowie roundabout and then westwards on the A82 to Lomondgate roundabout before turning onto the A813 Stirling Road to the site entrance. Whilst an alternative routing, detail and delivery access is noted in the accompanying Transport Assessment, it is assumed that this does not reflect the most up-to-date proposal as set out in the EIA itself. It would be expected the Scottish Ministers to clarify and satisfy themselves of the correct routing, ensuring up-to-date supporting documents are submitted. 8.109 The peak of construction in terms of vehicular movements is indicated to be up to 116 daily round trip journeys (40 Car/Lights and 76 HGV journeys). This is estimated to occur in five of the months of the overall 21-month programme. Construction traffic is generally expected to travel from the south of the site via the A82 and onto the A813 at Lomondgate. The distribution of construction traffic on the road network is indicated to vary depending on the types of loads being transported. Traffic mitigation measures identified during the construction period include the preparation of a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan. An Abnormal Load Transport Management Plan, On-site Path Management Plan and Staff Travel Plan will also be prepared. The EIA concludes that any impacts relate solely to the peak of construction activities and that the construction period is short lived and the effects transitory in nature. Both Transport Scotland and the Council’s Roads Service have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions regarding a variety of issues. There is thus no objection to the proposal on roads and traffic grounds. Health and Safety 8.110 Nothing arises in the consultation responses undertaken by the Council or received by the Energy Consents Unit to suggest that any concerns regarding health and safety arise. It is for the Scottish Ministers to satisfy themselves that an unacceptable risk does not occur from the development. With reference to the battery storage element of the proposal, it would be expected that the Scottish Ministers consult Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Decommissioning 8.111 Should the Scottish Ministers determine to grant planning permission for this proposal, it would be expected that a requirement for decommissioning and site restoration would be expected to be included in the conditions and suitable mechanism for site restoration, which will be triggered by either the expiry of the permission or if the project ceases to operate for a specific period. It would be expected that at the end of the proposal’s operational life the turbines would be decommissioned and principal elements removed; the site restored to its former use leaving little if any visible trace of the turbines; the foundations, tracks and hardstandings; the electrical substation Page 108
Page 109
building removed and the battery storage area fully restored with all infrastructure removed. The approach would be expected to follow the Naturescot - Decommissioning and Restoration Plans for Wind Farms Guidance Community and Economic Benefit 8.112 The Applicant is proposing a Community Benefit Fund although full details have not been provided other than a commitment to offering £5,000 per MW per year in community benefits across seven Community Council areas. The community benefit offer from the proposal is indicated to be equivalent to £0.4 million annually, or £14.4 million during a 40-year operational lifetime. The suggested benefit would be in line with the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments which notes the Scottish Government’s continued promotion of community benefits to the value equivalent to £5,000 per MW per annum index linked for the operational lifetime of the development. Notwithstanding this, a community benefit package is not a material planning consideration as clarified within the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Development. 8.113 The Council’s Economic Development Manager has stated in a consultation response that if funding was reinvested into energy efficiency and clean heat initiatives in line with the Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy (LHEES), alternative income streams such as this will help address fuel poverty at local level. It is accepted, however, that the use of community benefit funding will be determined by local communities. The Applicant is also committed to offering shared ownership of the proposed wind farm, allowing the community the opportunity to invest in and have a share of the wind farm. The Economic Development Manager has stated in their consultation response that the developer has indicated that up to 15% could be available for shared ownership. 8.114 The EIA indicates that the proposed will generate economic benefits, both during its construction, and during the operation and maintenance phase. During construction the economic benefits that are expected are £4.2 million Gross Value Added (GVA) and 54 years equivalent employment in West Dunbartonshire and £20.7 million GVA and 322 years equivalent employment in Scotland. The operation and maintenance of the development would bring lesser benefits with £0.4 million GVA and 2 jobs in West Dunbartonshire and £1.6 million GVA and 17 jobs in Scotland. 8.115 The Council’s Economic Development Manager further advises that that there is the potential for the Vale of Leven windfarm project to play an important role in decarbonising West Dunbartonshire and tackling fuel poverty. Ultimately the net economic benefits would be dependent upon the success or otherwise of the development and any initiatives and investments made by the Applicant. However, it is concluded that it likely that the proposed development will provide a net economic benefit to the local area although this would require to be balanced with any potential for loss of tourism income. 9. CONCLUSION 9.1 The approach to the assessment of this proposal reflects the fact that the Council is not the determining authority but rather a consultee under The Electricity Act 1989. 9.2 This application has been submitted to the Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as it is a development with a generating capacity of over 50MW. Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless Page 109
Page 110
material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the application is made under the Electricity Act 1989 and therefore the Development Plan does not have the primacy in the determination of the application. It does, however, provide a basis for the assessment of this proposal and it is established practice to take the Development Plan into account in such decisions. The Development Plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 and adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010. The proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2020 is the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore also afforded significant weight in the assessment. 9.3 The contribution of up to 70mw renewable energy generating capacity, with the potential for an additional 20mw if the applicant proceeds with the Battery Energy Storage System element of the proposed development, would draw strong support in term of renewable energy targets and supporting the overarching aims of NPF4 to achieve net zero targets. Notwithstanding this, by their very nature wind farms are major pieces of infrastructure which often require exposed upland sites which tend to be environmentally sensitive and relatively conspicuous within the landscape. In assessing this particular proposal, it has been necessary to consider whether the acknowledged impacts upon the environment and landscape are sufficiently great in this instance to outweigh the benefits of expanding renewable energy generation and/or any economic benefit which would be brought to West Dunbartonshire. 9.4 Policy 11 of NPF4 is one of the primary policies for the assessment of the development type proposed. Wind farms have the potential to impact on a wide range of features which is evident from the above assessment. The turbines proposed as part of the Vale of Leven wind farm are extremely large with a blade tip height of up to 250m. With a proposal of this scale, together with associated infrastructure inclusive of Battery Energy Storage System, significant adverse landscape and visual impacts are inevitable. 9.5 It is clear that the proposal has the potential to result in wide ranging visual impacts from a variety of locations. This includes from within existing settlements and it also follows that the proposed turbines will form a very significant feature within the landscape surrounding existing settlements. However, Policy 11(e)ii. of NPF4 explicitly accepts localised significant landscape and visual impacts and in this respect the position is thus weighted towards development’s contribution to renewable energy targets. In further considering the impacts It is considered that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape and the visual amenity of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area, and the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Loch Lomond and the surrounding area is a landscape asset of national importance, which is currently relatively unspoiled by major man-made development within the landscape. The large turbines proposed would occupy a prominent position within the setting of the National Park, and the introduction of a significant man-made element on the horizon could significantly detract from the setting of the National Park / National Scenic Area, the Lomond and the Trossachs National Park being only one of two National Parks in Scotland. Both the National Park Authority and NatureScot object to the proposal on this basis. The wind farm would also detract from the sense of remoteness and wildness provided by the Kilpatrick Hills and locating a wind farm in this location would have a significant impact on their setting. The existing landscape affords the opportunity for recreational use and users of existing paths for example and the wider landscape will also experience a significant and adverse impact. It is not considered that the benefits of the development would outweigh these significant impacts upon the National Park / National Scenic Area and the Kilpartick Hills which form part of the setting of the park. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be Page 110
Page 111
supported by Policies 4 and 11(e)ii and iii of NPF4 together with a range of policies within the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan including GN1, GD1, and DC6. The proposal is also not supported with reference to policy KH1 of the Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. Whilst Policy RE2 of the proposed Plan relates to the Spatial Framework for Wind Energy and would previously have been relevant, it conflicts with the approach set out in Policy 11 of NPF4. Policy 11 of NPF4 therefore has primacy. 9.6 Built and cultural heritage assets would also be impacted. Having fully reviewed this potential and being guided by the position of the consultation responses to the Scottish Ministers, it is considered that, subject to appropriate mitigation, there would not be significant detrimental impact on the majority of the designations and assets. However, the serious concerns of Historic Environment Scotland in respect of the adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle are noted and Historic Environment Scotland object on this basis. The impact upon the setting of the scheduled monument of Dumbarton Castle/Rock – a national asset is therefore clearly of significant concern and with an objection from the government agency responsible for the care and promotion of Scotland’s Historic Environment, the impact cannot be considered acceptable and is therefore not supported by Policies 7 and 11(e)vii of NPF4 together with Policy of the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and Policy BE1 of the proposed Local Development Plan. 9.7 Biodiversity matters such as the impacts upon designated sites, habitat, peatland, ecology, protected species and ornithology will be impacted upon by the proposed development. A variety of habitats will be impacted including blanket bog and wet modified bog. It is considered that subject to suitable mitigation measures including a habitat management plan together with the following recommendations from NatureScot, notably with reference to peatland restoration, the impact of the proposal upon habitats would be acceptable. In terms of protected and other species, it is expected that the Scottish Ministers in determining the application will fully consider the points highlighted by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer, ensure identified mitigation measures secured, follow the recommendations set out in NatureScot’s consultation response and require the implementation of a suitable Habitat Management Plan to ensure any effects of the development are minimised. Species protection plans would also be required. With this approach, the impacts of the proposed development upon protected species and wider ecology could be considered acceptable. 9.8 Notwithstanding the above, in terms of the consideration of the impact upon designated sites, the applicant fails to consider or assess local designations relative to the proposed site. It is identified that there are five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which would be impacted by the development, either directly or indirectly. It therefore cannot be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites. Given this, a conclusion with reference to Policies 3, 4(d) and 11(e)ix of NPF4 together with Policy E3A of the Local Plan and Policy ENV1 of the Proposed Plan. 9.9 It is expected that wide ranging biodiversity enhancements are embedded into the final detail of the proposal and there is the question on whether any proposed biodiversity enhancements meet the requirements of Policy 3 of NPF4. It will ultimately be for Scottish Ministers as determining authority to consider this and ensure that conditions secure the delivery of meaningful biodiversity enhancement and nature networks across the site. NatureScot’s position that greater ambition is required in terms of the extent of proposed peatland restoration is specifically noted and it is expected that the extent of peatland restoration proposed will be considered in detail by the Scottish Ministers. Page 111
Page 112
9.10 In assessing residential amenity, impacts in respect of residential visual amenity have been considered and it is concluded these would be acceptable. Impacts in respect of air quality, noise and shadow flicker have also been considered, informed by the consultation response from the Council’s Environmental Health Service. Subject to the Scottish Ministers ensuring that all matters raised in respect of noise impact are addressed in the event that they were minded to grant consent, the impact upon residential amenity will be acceptable and there are no objections to the proposal on the impact upon residential amenity. 9.11 The various consultee responses to both the Scottish Government and the limited responses to the Council suggest that subject to conditions to address a range of different matters, the proposed development would not result in any unacceptable impacts on the remaining matters assessed in this report. The exceptions are currently NATS and Glasgow Airport whose consultation responses to the Scottish Government are currently objections. Ultimately, however, Scottish Ministers are the determining authority in this case and it is for them to consider the consultation responses and how they wish to address the concerns raised in coming to any conclusion on the application. 9.12 The planning history of the site is also a relevant consideration. In 2012 planning permission was applied for the erection of ten wind turbines (max hub height 79m and max blade tip height 120m) with a total installed capacity of around 20MW and associated works including the erection of a meteorological mast, control building, ancillary infrastructure, temporary ground works and construction compound. Whilst the current proposal is not related to this previous proposal, it is sited within the same area as the current proposal albeit with a different access route. The application was considered by Planning Committee and refused due to the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the Kilpatrick Hills Regional Scenic Area/Local Landscape Area, the significant adverse visual and landscape impact on the setting of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park and the Loch Lomond National Scenic Area. The National Park Authority note in their objection to the Scottish Ministers that it was consulted on the previous proposal and raised an objection due to the predicted significant adverse visual impact. The Park specifically note that the turbines now proposed would be up to 250m to blade tip height which is more than double the height of the previous proposal. NatureScot (as Scottish Natural Heritage) also objected to this previous proposal on the grounds that it would have an adverse impact upon the integrity of the National Park and Loch Lomond National Scenic Area (NSA). 9.13 Overall, it is considered that there would be a significant adverse impact upon the National Park / National Scenic Area together with the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Considering the impact upon the historic environment, the integrity of the setting of Dumbarton Castle would also be unacceptably impacted upon. The adverse effects must, however, be weighed against the positive benefits of the proposal. It is accepted that it likely that the proposed development will provide a net economic benefit to the local area and community benefits would also likely be realised. The proposal will also contribute to renewable energy targets. However, the potential benefits cannot come at any cost. In respect of the National Park, National Scenic Area and Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area, significant adverse landscape and visual impacts are likely and it is concluded that these warrant objection from the Council to the proposal. Historic Environment Scotland highlight a significant adverse impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle also raises concerns to the point that it is considered that the potential impact upon this key historic national asset within West Dunbartonshire also warrants an objection from the Council. Finally, in terms of the potential impact upon the five Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) which the Council’s Biodiversity Page 112
Page 113
Officer advises has not been considered, a holding objection is warranted pending an assessment of the impact upon these locally designated sites being provided by the applicant for review. 9.14 It must be noted that should the Planning Committee accept the recommendation to formally object to the proposed Vale of Leven Windfarm, this will trigger a Public Local Inquiry in terms of Section 62 and Schedule 8 of the Electricity Act 1989 unless the Council subsequently withdraws its objection. 10. COUNCIL’S POSITION ON THE APPLICATION 10.1 It is recommended that this Committee Report is forwarded in full to the Scottish Ministers as presenting the Council’s full formal response to the consultation and that it is highlighted that the Council objects to the application for the following reasons: • The Council objects to the proposal as the introduction of a wind farm into the Kilpatrick Hills could have a significant adverse impact upon the National Park / National Scenic Area together with the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be supported by Policies 4 and 11(e)ii and iii of NPF4 together with a range of policies within the adopted West Dunbartonshire Local Plan including GN1, GD1, and DC6. The proposal is also not supported with reference to Policy KH1 of the Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. • The Council also objects to the proposed windfarm as it could have a significant adverse impact upon the setting of Dumbarton Castle as a scheduled monument and it would therefore be considered contrary to Policies 7 and 11(e)vii of NPF4 together with Policy BE5 of the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and Policy BE2 of the proposed Local Development Plan. • The Council further submits a holding objection to the proposal in respect of the failure of the applicant to consider or assess local nature conservation site designations relative to the proposed site. In the absence of this, it therefore cannot currently be concluded that the development proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon locally designated sites in accordance with Policies 3, 4(d) and 11(e)ix of NPF4 together with Policy E3A if the Local Plan and Policy ENV1 of the proposed Plan. 10.2 Finally it is recommended that, in as far as required, reviewing and responding to any additional details submitted in respect of the holding objection set out in paragraph 10.01 together with all matters arising in respect of any Public Local Inquiry are delegated to the Chief Officer - Regulatory and Regeneration. Alan Douglas Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Date: 7th August 2024 ______________________________________________________________ Page 113
Page 114
Person to Contact: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: james.mcColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix 1: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application documents 2. National Planning Framework 4 3. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 4. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended 5. Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area – Statement of Importance 6. Renewable Energy Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan) Planning Guidance November 2016 7. Naturescot - Decommissioning and Restoration Plans for Wind Farms Guidance 8. Scottish Government Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity 9. Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal Wards affected: Ward 2 (Leven) Page 114
Page 115
ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 1 Page 115