Document Pack (Bookmarked) - Planning 16 04 25
West Dunbartonshire Council · 16 April 2025
Back to Planning Committee — 16 April 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Agenda Planning Committee Date: Wednesday, 16 April 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Time: 10.00 ___________________________________________________________________ Venue: Civic Space, Council Offices, 16 Church Street, Dumbarton G82 1QL ___________________________________________________________________ Contact: Nicola Moorcroft, Committee Officer Nicola.moorcroft@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Committee.admin@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Dear Member Please attend a meeting of the Planning Committee as detailed above. The business is shown on the attached agenda. Yours faithfully PETER HESSETT Chief Executive Page 1
Page 2
Distribution:- Councillor Lawrence O’Neill (Chair) Councillor Gurpreet Singh Johal (Vice Chair) Councillor Ian Dickson Councillor David McBride Councillor Fiona Hennebry Provost Karen Murray Conaghan Councillor Chris Pollock Councillor Hazel Sorrell Councillor Clare Steel Councillor Sophie Traynor All other Councillors for information Date of Issue: 3 April 2025 Page 2
Page 3
PLANNING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, 16 APRIL 2025 AGENDA 1 APOLOGIES 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members are invited to declare if they have an interest in any of the items of business on this agenda and the reasons for such declarations. 3 OPEN FORUM The Committee is asked to note that no open forum questions have been submitted by members of the public. 4 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 5 - 13 Submit for approval, as a correct record, the Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 12 February 2025 5 NOTE OF VISITATIONS 15 Submit, for information, a Note of Site Visitations carried out on 10 February 2025. 6 PLANNING APPLICATION 17 - 33 Submit report by the Chief Officer - Regulatory and Regeneration in respect of the following Planning application:- DC24/171/FUL: Application under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) in relation to variation of condition 16 and non-compliance with condition 24 of planning permission DC23/217/FUL to remove delivery hours restrictions at Land to southeast of Castle Street, Dumbarton by Aldi Stores Ltd. 7/ Page 3
Page 4
7 WDC CONSULTATION RESPONSE TO SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ENERGY CONSENTS UNIT ON SECTION 36 APPLICATION REF: ECU00004982 35 - 123 Submit report by the Chief Officer - Regulatory and Regeneration advising of West Dunbartonshire Council’s Consultation response to Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit on Section 36 application ref: ECU00004982 - Construction and operation of a 560MW Battery Energy Storage System with associated infrastructure, substation, security fencing, CCTV, security lighting and landscaping on Land at Cochno Road, Bearsden, East Dunbartonshire. Page 4
Page 5
PLANNING COMMITTEE At a Meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Civic Space, 16 Church Street, Dumbarton on Wednesday, 12 February 2025 at 10.00 a.m. Present: Provost Karen Murray Conaghan and Councillors Lawrence O’Neill, Chris Pollock, Hazel Sorrell and Sophie Traynor*. *Arrived later in the meeting. Attending: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager; James McColl, Development Management Team Leader; Amy Melkevik, Lead Planning Officer; Michelle Lynn, Asset Manager; Stephen Balfour, Project Manager; Ash Hamilton, Planning Officer; Raymond Walsh, Network Management Co-ordinator; Michael McDougall, Manager of Legal Services; and Scott Kelly, Committee Officer. Apologies: Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf Councillors Ian Dickson, Gurpreet Singh Johal and David McBride. Councillor Lawrence O’Neill in the Chair DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST It was noted that there were no declarations of interest in any of the items of business on the agenda. OPEN FORUM The Committee noted that no open forum questions had been submitted by members of the public. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 11 December 2024 were submitted and approved as a correct record. VARIATION IN ORDER OF BUSINESS Councillor O’Neill, Chair, advised the Committee that he would vary the order of business as hereinafter minuted. ITEM 4 Page 5
Page 6
NOTE OF VISITATIONS A Note of Visitations carried out on 9 December 2024, a copy of which forms Appendix 1 hereto, was submitted and noted. PLANNING APPLICATIONS Reports were submitted by the Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration in respect of the following Planning applications:- (a) DC24/181/FUL: Proposed two storey dwellinghouse with associated parking, landscaping and change of use of land to rear to garden grounds at 18 Oxhill Road, Dumbarton G82 4DG by Mr Jasbir Singh Johal. Reference was made to a site visit which had been undertaken in respect of the above application. The Development Management Team Leader was heard in further explanation and in answer to Members’ questions. The Chair invited Mr Ken Plant, the applicant’s agent, to address the Committee. Mr Plant was heard in respect of the application and in answer to Members’ questions. The Committee agreed:- (1) to grant full planning permission subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report, as detailed within Appendix 2 hereto, and that authority be delegated to the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager to issue planning permission once the payment of a green network developer contribution has been secured through a suitable mechanism; and (2) that authority be delegated to the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager to refuse the application should the aforementioned contribution not be secured within 6 months. Note: Councillor Traynor entered the meeting at this point. (b) DC24/050/FUL: Alteration and extension to existing hall to facilitate creation of new cafe area together with formation of raised deck and hard surfacing, and the installation of access lift at Napier Hall, 312 Dumbarton Road, Old Kilpatrick G60 5JH by Old Kilpatrick Food Parcels. Reference was made to a site visit which had been undertaken in respect of the above application. The Development Management Team Leader and the Network Management Co-ordinator were heard in further explanation and in answer to Members’ questions. Page 6
Page 7
The Committee agreed to grant full planning permission subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report, as detailed within Appendix 2 hereto. PLANNING APPEAL DECISION ON PLANNING APPLICATION DC23/227/FUL A report was submitted by the Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration providing an update on Planning Application DC23/227/FUL (‘Change of use from beauty salon to three residential flats at nos. 4 - 6 Greenhead Road, Dumbarton G82 1EL by Mr Sodhi Sing’) which had been referred to the Scottish Ministers following the Committee having determined that it was minded to grant planning permission. After discussion and having heard the Development Management Team Leader in further explanation, the Committee agreed to note the decision. PLANNING APPEAL DECISION ON PLANNING APPLICATION DC23/177/FUL A report was submitted by the Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration advising of the outcome of the appeal to erect at single wind turbine, 30m hub and 43m tip, the creation of access rack, substation and associated works on land adjacent to East of Broomhill Wood, Bonhill, Alexandria. After discussion and having heard the Lead Planning Officer in further explanation, the Committee agreed to note the outcome of the appeal. STREET NAMING BANK PROPOSALS A report was submitted by the Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration providing additional names to the street name bank for new developments across West Dunbartonshire. After discussion and having heard the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager in further explanation and in answer to Members’ questions, the Committee agreed to approve the list of street names set out in Appendix 1 to the report, subject to the names ‘Slant’ and ‘Fiddle’ being removed from the Clydebank section, in order to expand the existing street name bank to allocate to upcoming developments. ANTONINE WALL PROJECT UPDATE REPORT AND FUTURE PROPOSALS A report was submitted by the Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration advising of the outcome of the recent funding application to the National Lottery Heritage Fund (NLHF) to take forward phase 2 of the project and its implications for the Antonine Wall project generally, and in particular for West Dunbartonshire Council as lead authority. Page 7
Page 8
After discussion and having heard the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, and the Project Manager, in further explanation and in answer to a Member’s question, the Committee agreed (1) to note the outcome of the funding application; (2) to note the decision of the Antonine Wall Steering Group to pursue option 3 as outlined in section 4.7 of the report; and (3) to follow the decision of the Steering Group and that West Dunbartonshire Council would continue to act as lead authority until 30 September 2025. The meeting closed at 10.50 a.m. Page 8
Page 9
APPENDIX 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE NOTE OF VISITATION – 9 DECEMBER 2024 Present: Provost Karen Murray Conaghan Attending: James McColl - Development Management Team Leader SITE VISIT Site visits were undertaken in connection with the undernoted planning applications:- 68 Glasgow Road, Dumbarton G82 1HQ DC24/123/FUL: Change of use from butcher shop (Class 1A) to fish and chip shop (hot food takeaway - Sui Generis) together with installation of flue by Glasgow AP. 4 - 6 Greenhead Road, Dumbarton G82 1EL DC23/227/FUL: Change of use from beauty salon to three residential flats by Mr Sodhi. Page 9
Page 10
APPENDIX 2 DC24/181/FUL: Proposed two storey dwellinghouse with associated parking, landscaping and change of use of land to rear to garden grounds at 18 Oxhill Road, Dumbarton G82 4DG by Mr Jasbir Singh Johal. GRANT full planning permission subject to the following conditions:- 1. Prior to the commencement of development on site, exact details of all proposed external materials (inclusive of all hard surfaces), to be used in the development site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be completed in strict accordance with the approved material details and palette. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. 2. Prior to the commencement of development on site, a detailed boundary treatment and hard and soft landscaping plan, including timescales for implementation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This plan shall include details of tree loss, replacement planting and root protection measures to safeguard existing trees. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be completed in strict accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity, protection and enhancement of biodiversity and tree protection. 3. Prior to the commencement of development on site, a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan setting out how the proposal enhances biodiversity beyond the current baseline, together with the implementation on site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All measures shall then be implemented as approved. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: In the interest of biodiversity. 4. That any trees, shrubs or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged or become diseased within five years of completion of the landscaping shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and biodiversity. 5. 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 thereafter. For the avoidance of doubt, the drainage regime shall be implemented Page 10
Page 11
commensurately with the construction of the houses it serves and all surface water shall be intercepted within the site on completion of development. Reason: To ensure adequate drainage of the site. 6. That prior to the occupation of any house, the off-street parking provision hereby approved shall be completed and be available for use by residents of the associated house. The off-street parking provision shall then remain unobstructed and available for use by residents of the associated house at all times thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision is in place for development. 7. Prior to the occupation of the houses hereby permitted, the developer shall install the necessary infrastructure to enable the full development and all associated properties to be connected to the existing fibre optic network, where available in West Dunbartonshire, and in accordance with the relevant telecommunications provider’s standards. Reason: To ensure compliance with Policy CON4 of the West Dunbartonshire Proposed Local Development Plan (2020) and in the interests of securing the facilities to support communities. 8. 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 Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by creating excessive noise and disturbance at unsocial hours. DC24/050/FUL: Alteration and extension to existing hall to facilitate creation of new cafe area together with formation of raised deck and hard surfacing, and the installation of access lift at Napier Hall, 312 Dumbarton Road, Old Kilpatrick G60 5JH by Old Kilpatrick Food Parcels. GRANT full planning permission subject to the following conditions:- 1. Prior to the commencement of development on site, exact details 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. Page 11
Page 12
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. 2. Prior to the commencement of development on site, full details of all hard surfaces, including boundary treatments, shall be submitted for the further written approval of the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. 3. The external decking area hereby approved to the eastern side of the building shall only be used between the hours of 8am to 8pm daily, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard local residential amenity and avoid disturbance to residential properties. 4. That unless otherwise first agreed in writing and prior to the commencement of any development on site, a detailed specification in respect of the collection, treatment and disposal of cooking odours and pollutants be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the system shall utilise the discharge flue to the rear elevation hereby approved. The system shall then be installed as approved, inclusive of discharge flue, prior to the commencement of any cooking which discharges via the flue hereby permitted and retained as approved at all times thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by way of odour nuisance. 5. Prior to the commencement of works on site, full details of how the extract ventilation system will be suitably insulated or isolated to minimise noise and vibration transmission to the building structure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Works shall then proceed as approved and be retained as approved at all times thereafter during the lifetime of the use to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by creating excessive noise or vibration. 6. Noise from the ventilation system hereby approved shall not give rise to a noise level within any dwelling or other noise sensitive building assessed with the windows open in excess of the equivalent to Noise Rating Curve 35, between 07:00 and 20:00 hours, and Noise Rating Curve 25 at all other times, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by creating excessive noise nuisance. Page 12
Page 13
7. 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 Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by creating excessive noise and disturbance at unsocial hours. Page 13
Page 14
Page 14
Page 15
PLANNING COMMITTEE NOTE OF VISITATIONS – 10 FEBRUARY 2025 Present: Councillors Fiona Hennebry (second site only), Lawrence O’Neill, Chirs Pollock and Clare Steel. 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:- 18 Oxhill Road, Dumbarton G82 4DG DC24/181/FUL: Proposed two storey dwellinghouse with associated parking, landscaping and change of use of land to rear to garden grounds by Mr Jasbir Singh Johal. Napier Hall, 312 Dumbarton Road, Old Kilpatrick G60 5JH DC24/050/FUL: Alteration and extension to existing hall to facilitate creation of new cafe area together with formation of raised deck and hard surfacing, and the installation of access lift at Napier Hall, 312 Dumbarton Road, Old Kilpatrick G60 5JH by Old Kilpatrick Food Parcels. ITEM 5 Page 15
Page 16
Page 16
Page 17
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 16th April 2025 DC24/171/FUL: Application under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) in relation for variation of condition 16 and non-compliance with condition 24 of planning permission DC23/217/FUL to remove delivery hours restrictions at land to south east of Castle Street, Dumbarton by Aldi Stores Ltd. 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 This application seeks the variation of a condition and the non-compliance with a condition associated with a planning permission previously agreed by the Planning Committee (ref: DC23/217/FUL). 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 for this Section 42 application subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 below. 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 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 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) ITEM 6 Page 17
Page 18
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. 3.3 In September 2024, planning permission was granted (ref: DC23/217/FUL) for an alternative retail development to that previously consented through permission DC17/230. The new proposal will have a gross floor area (GFA) of approximately 1,931m², of which 1,344m² would be retail space. The structure will form a foodstore (Use Class 1A), with the prospective occupier indicated to be Aldi. The development would consist of a detached supermarket with associated parking and landscaping. 3.4 Condition 16 of the Planning Permission (ref: DC23/217/FUL) states that: No commercial vehicle making deliveries to or collecting material from the development shall enter or leave the site before 0800 or after 1800. 3.5 The applicant seeks to vary Condition 16 to clarify that this restriction is imposed only during the construction period. The proposed variation to Condition 16 as suggested by the applicant reads as follows: During construction, no commercial vehicle making deliveries to or collecting material from the development shall enter or leave the site before 0800 or after 1800. 3.6 Condition 24 of the Planning Permission (ref: DC23/217/FUL) states that: 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. 3.7 The applicant seeks the non-compliance with Condition 24 to allow a 24 hour delivery model to the store to be built on the site. The applicant believes that the condition is neither ‘necessary’, nor ‘reasonable’, in reference to the six criteria set out in Planning Circular 4/1998. The applicant has submitted a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) in support of the application and, based on the findings, the applicant considers that due to the existing levels of background noise being higher than any noise generated on the site, including deliveries, at any time throughout the night no disturbance will occur. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 West Dunbartonshire Council Environmental Health Service offers no objection noting that the request for non-compliance with Condition 24 is supported by a noise impact assessment which concludes that that there would be no adverse impact from plant or delivery noise from the operation of this development. The Page 18
Page 19
noise impact assessment included various operational procedures that were designed to reduce the noise impact from nighttime deliveries. These procedures should be incorporated into a service delivery noise management plan and submitted in support of the application. A condition is recommended in this respect. 5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 No representations received. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6.1 This application, submitted under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 (as amended), seeks the seeks to vary the terms of condition 16 and the non-compliance with condition 24 of planning permission DC23/217/FUL. The principle of development on this site has, however, already been established through the granting of this planning permission. Annex H of Scottish Government Circular 3/2022 – Development Management Procedures sets out that in determining Section 42 applications, planning authorities may only consider the issue of the conditions to be attached to any resulting permission. Whilst the effect of granting a Section 42 application is that a new planning permission is established, the current planning permission for the site was granted in September 2024, there have been no changes to either the planning policy position or the circumstances of the application site, and works have not yet commenced on site. Whilst all development plan policies relevant to the proposed development are highlighted below, the principle of the development does not require a full reassessment against these policies. National Planning Policy 4 (NPF4) 6.2 Policy 1 relates to tackling the climate and nature crises and states that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. 6.3 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. 6.4 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. 6.5 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. Page 19
Page 20
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. 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 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. 6.13 Whilst the granting of an application made under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 application would have the effect of granting a new planning permission for the site, there are no changes to the development proposal and no changes to the position relating to the above policies since the original grant of planning permission and a further assessment of the policies above is not required. Page 20
Page 21
6.14 Policy 23 is however relevant to the assessment of this application as this aims to safeguard people from environmental harm including ensuring that development proposal do not result in unacceptable noise issues. Subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a service delivery noise management plan, there will be no adverse noise impact to any residential properties and no conflict with this policy. 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 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 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 There are no changes to the development proposal and no changes to the position relating to the above policies since the original grant of planning permission and a further assessment of the Local Plan policies above is not required. Page 21
Page 22
6.20 Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high quality of respects the character and amenity of the area in which it is located. Policy H5 seeks to safeguards residential amenity. Subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a service delivery noise management plan, there will be no adverse amenity impact arising from noise disturbance to any residential properties and no conflict with 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, although it does not directly affect the development proposal under 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. 7.3 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. Page 22
Page 23
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 H4 seeks to protect, preserve and enhance residential amenity and residential character and amenity of existing residential areas at all times. In this regard and in the context of this application, 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. 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 There are no changes to the development proposal and no changes to the position relating to the above policies since the original grant of planning permission and a further assessment of the policies within proposed LDP2 is not required. 7.11 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. Policy H4 seeks to safeguards residential amenity and Policy ENV8 seeks to ensure that adverse impacts from noise do not occur to neighboring property. Subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a service delivery noise management plan, there will be no adverse amenity impact arising from noise disturbance to any residential properties and no conflict with these policies. Principle of Development and Section 42 applications 7.12 As noted in paragraph 6.1 above, the principle of development on this site has already been established through the granting of planning permission DC23/217/FUL and this does not require to be reassessed. The previous planning application was subject of an objection from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). As the Council was minded to grant planning permission, the application was referred to the Scottish Ministers who Page 23
Page 24
did not call in the application for their own determination. As this proposal only relates to conditions controlling deliveries to the site both during the construction and operational phases of the development and as SEPA previously raised no concerns relating to such matters, there was no requirement to consult SEPA. Accordingly, there would be no requirement to refer the application to the Scottish Ministers if the Council determined to grant planning permission. 7.13 This application considers only the proposed variation to Condition 16 and non- compliance with Condition 24 of the planning permission granted in terms of the potential impact on the residential developments surrounding the site, including the site south of the proposed development where there is a residential development allocation (H2(18)) in proposed LDP2 with an extant planning permission in place for residential development dating from 2006. Delivery Vehicles – Time Restrictions – Condition 16 7.14 It is accepted that the construction phase of the foodstore will produce an element of short-term noise and disruption. The consultation response from the Council’s Environmental Health Service for the original planning application 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 was secured through condition. 7.15 As part of the planning permission (ref: DC23/217/FUL), Condition 16 was attached to ensure that delivery or collection materials to and from the development by commercial vehicles shall does not occur before 0800 or after 1800. 7.16 While it is noted that the intention of the above condition is to restrict movements of commercial vehicles serving the site during the construction phase which is often more intense than during the operation phase, it is acknowledged that the wording of the condition may leave room for misinterpretation and be taken to mean any deliveries to the site, including post -construction phase. While the aspect of delivery times to the completed foodstore is controlled separately through Condition 24 (also subject to this application), it is noted that if the above misinterpretation was to be applied, the current wording of Condition 16 could result in confusion. 7.17 The applicant seeks to provide greater clarity regarding construction related deliveries. The wording of the proposed variation to Condition 16 is: During construction, no commercial vehicle making deliveries to or collecting material from the development shall enter or leave the site before 0800 or after 1800. 7.18 The proposed variation to Condition 16 provides clarity that it relates to the construction phase of the development as was the original intention of the condition, and the variation is considered acceptable. Page 24
Page 25
Store Delivery Management Plan and Hours – Condition 24 7.19 The development of a foodstore approved through decision DC23/217/FUL was assessed in terms of its impact on the amenity of both existing residential properties immediately north of the site, as well as the area south of which is identified as a residential development allocation in proposed Local Development Plan 2. This allocation forms the later phases of a residential development granted planning permission in 2006 through planning application DC03-284. This consent remains extent due to the construction of earlier phases of the wider development and can be implemented as approved. 7.20 Residential amenity was fully considered in the assessment of the planning application for the foodstore. It was acknowledged that 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 previously consented retail development on the site (planning permission DC17/230 which remains extant) be constructed. In granting planning permission for the site (ref: DC23/217/FUL), it was concluded that to prevent conflict with future residential development as already consented on the adjacent residential development allocation, and nighttime disturbance to residents, a condition was attached which prevents deliveries occurring between the hours of 11pm to 7am. This condition also included a requirement for a delivery management plan to be submitted and agreed. 7.21 The applicant seeks the non-compliance with Condition 24 to allow a 24 hour delivery model to the store to be built on the site. This is the delivery model operated by the applicant across their wider retail operation. Whilst the applicant considers that the condition as applied is neither ‘necessary’, nor ‘reasonable’, the condition as applied was both necessary and reasonable in seeking to protect residential amenity and mitigate against nighttime noise disturbance arising from deliveries. This application is accompanied by a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) which assesses the noise from the proposed foodstore, inclusive of delivery noise. The NIA concludes that there would be no adverse impact from plant or delivery noise from the operation of this development. In respect of delivery noise, it is concluded that the servicing of the store can be completed on a 24 hours basis without giving rise to any loss of amenity to adjacent residents in either existing or consented properties. However, for nighttime deliveries, it is identified that various operational procedures designed to reduce the noise impact from nighttime deliveries should be implemented. The Council’s environmental Health Service has considered the NIA and accepts the findings. The requirement for mitigation in terms of operational procedures is noted and it is recommended that these are incorporated into a service delivery noise management plan and this be secured by condition. 7.22 Given that the applicant has now demonstrated via the submitted NIA that servicing and delivery can be carried out on a 24 hours basis without giving rise to any loss of amenity, it is concluded that the non-compliance with condition 24 in respect of the restriction on nighttime servicing and deliveries is acceptable. However, to ensure the mitigation in terms of operational procedures for Page 25
Page 26
nighttime deliveries as recommended in the NIA it is considered appropriate to attach a condition requiring the submission of a service delivery noise management plan. The applicant has provided examples of such plans submitted in respect of similar planning conditions for developments elsewhere and the same approach would be supported here. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 The acceptability of the re-development of the site is already established, with the granting of planning permission (ref: DC23/217/FUL) and there is no change to the planning policy position or circumstances of the site since the previous grant of planning permission. This Section 42 application considers the proposed variation to Condition 16 and non-compliance with Condition 24 of the planning permission. The proposed variation to condition 16, is acceptable as it provides clarity to its purpose and applicability to the construction phase only. 8.2 Following consideration of the submitted NIA, it is concluded that the non- compliance with condition 24 to allow nighttime deliveries is acceptable. However, to ensure the mitigation in terms of operational procedures for nighttime deliveries as recommended in the NIA, a condition is appropriate to require the submission of a service delivery noise management plan in order to safeguard against nighttime disturbance to nearby residents. 8.3 As the effect of granting planning permission for a Section 42 application is such that a new and separate standalone permission exists for the development and given that the development has not commended on site, all other conditions associated with the planning permission (DC23/217/FUL) are re-imposed to this permission. 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, 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. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 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. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 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 Page 26
Page 27
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. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 4. That unless an alternative approach is otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, all recommendations set out within the Level 3 Flood Risk Assessment dated 5th April 2024 and submitted in association with planning application DC23/217/FUL shall be incorporated into the development to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of protection of the development from flooding and in accordance to the Flood Risk Assessment recommendations. 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. Reason: To ensure the implementation of measures to mitigate against flood risk. 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. Reason: To ensure the implementation of the approved landscaping scheme in the interests of visual amenity. 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 thereafter implemented in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the maintenance of the approved landscaping scheme in the interests of visual amenity and enhancement of biodiversity. 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. Reason: To ensure the retention of the approved landscaping scheme in the interests of visual amenity and protection of biodiversity enhancement. Page 27
Page 28
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. Reason: To ensure the incorporation of low or zero carbon generating technologies into the development in order to minimise carbon emissions. 10. All recommendations within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated October 2023 submitted in association with planning application DC23/217/FUL shall be implemented in full to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the protection of ecology and biodiversity. 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. Reason: In the interest of the protection of and avoidance of disturbance to nesting birds. 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. Reason: In the interest of the protection of and avoidance of disturbance to hedgehog. 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. Reason: In the interest of the protection of and avoidance of disturbance to Redshank. 14. Development shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in Page 28
Page 29
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 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. Reason: In the interests of the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of 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. Reason: To ensure a reasonable control of noise levels, which may be emitted from adjacent land uses and in the interests of safeguarding residential amenity. 16. During construction, no commercial vehicle making deliveries to or collecting material from the development shall enter or leave the site before 0800 or after 1800. Reason: To minimise noise and disturbance to nearby residents at unsocial hours during the construction phase. 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 Reason: To minimise noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents/occupants during construction. 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 Page 29
Page 30
surrounding properties, taking into account the guidance contained in BS 6472: 1984 'Evaluation of Human Response to Vibration in Buildings'. It shall detail any procedures which are proposed to minimise the impact of noise and vibration on the occupants of surrounding properties. This statement shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person, and the piling works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: To minimise noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents/occupants during construction. 19. 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. Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 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. Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use. 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. Page 30
Page 31
Reason: To protect public health and to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended 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. Reason: To minimise the occurrence of dust, in the interests of the amenity of the area. 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. Reason: To safeguard public health and the amenity of the surrounding area. 24. Prior to the commencement of development on site, a Service Delivery Noise Management Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The Plan shall include the procedures and mitigation measures to control noise from all service delivery operations of the store inclusive of nighttime deliveries during the hours of 11pm to 7am. The approved Service Delivery Noise Management Plan shall then be implemented and followed at all times during the operation of the store, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the surrounding residential developments. 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 Systems (SuDS) within its design, and thereafter shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the foodstore hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure adequate drainage for the development hereby approved. 26. That all surface water shall be intercepted within the site both during construction and on completion of the development and full details of Page 31
Page 32
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. Reason: To ensure adequate drainage for the development hereby approved and prevent surface water runoff to neighbouring land. 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. Reason: To ensure appropriate parking provision for the use hereby approved. Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 16th April 2025 Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager michael.mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk 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. Planning applications DC17/230, DC23/217/FUL Wards affected: Ward 3 (Dumbarton) Page 32
Page 33
¯ Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (C) Crown copyright and database right 23/07/2024. All rights reserved. West Dunbartonshire OS Licence Number 100020790. West Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street Dumbarton G82 1QL 02/04/2025 Scale: 1:1,323@A4 ITEM 6 - APPENDIX 1 Page 33
Page 34
Page 34
Page 35
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 16th April 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Subject: Construction and operation of a 560MW Battery Energy Storage System with associated infrastructure, substation, security fencing, CCTV, security lighting and landscaping on Land at Cochno Road, Bearsden, East Dunbartonshire - Section 36 application to Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit ref: ECU00004982 1. Purpose 1.1 To agree a further updated consultation response following the receipt of further and updated details from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit, on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, in connection with a proposal for the construction and operation of a 560MW Battery Energy Storage System with associated infrastructure, substation, security fencing, CCTV, security lighting and landscaping on land within the East Dunbartonshire Council area. 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended the Committee agrees that the Council provides a further updated consultation response advising that the previous concerns have been addressed and that there is no longer an objection to the proposal as neighbouring Planning Authority based on the assessment of the matters specified in the response contained in Appendix 1, and that this response is submitted to form the Council’s further updated position on the proposal. 3. Background 3.1 The Scottish Ministers received an application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and operation of a battery energy storage facility with a maximum power output of 560 megawatt. The application site is located within the East Dunbartonshire local authority area, however the assessment of the submitted application is undertaken via the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit for the Scottish Ministers. West Dunbartonshire Council were consulted as neighbouring planning authority with the application site lying generally to the north of the local authority boundary. The application is referred to under the project name of Whitehall BESS. The location of the site is shown in Appendix 2. 3.2 The proposal was considered by the Planning Committee on 8th May 2024 and the Council issued a consultation response to the Scottish Ministers on 13th May 2024. The Council objected to the proposal due to the concerns relating to the Green Belt location of the development, visual impact, impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species, potential impact upon the users of the core path network, potential impact upon adjacent residential amenity and the failure to provide a decommissioning and restoration scheme. The Council did not consider that the benefits of the proposed development outweigh any adverse impacts to the adjacent West Dunbartonshire area. ITEM 7 Page 35
Page 36
3.3 Following the submission of the Council’s objection, a revised proposal together with a range of additional and updated supporting documents have been submitted to the Scottish Ministers. These details included a revised site layout, revised equipment details, revised planting layout, a Landscape Statement, an updated Landscape and Visual Assessment, an updated Noise Impact Assessment and an Archaeological Investigation. Following consideration of the revised proposal by the Council’s Planning Committee on 11th December 2024, the Council issued an updated consultation response on to the Scottish Ministers on 13th December 2024. In the updated consultation response, the Council considered that some aspects of the concerns which formed part of the original objection had been addressed, including visual impact and the impact upon residential amenity. However, the Council considered that the applicant failed to address other concerns relating to the Green Belt location of the development, impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species and the failure to provide a decommissioning and restoration scheme. 3.4 In response to the Council’s updated consultation maintaining the objection on the points above, further supporting information has been received from the applicant in respect of the locational need for the Green Belt location together with an updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. The applicant also provides clarification on the approach to de-commissioning and restoration proposals. A date of 18th April 2025 has been agreed with the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit for the submission of the Council’s further updated consultation response. The application documents are available to view via the Energy Consents Unit website: https://www.energyconsents.scot and the following direct link: Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details . The additional details submitted are not available via the above link and are attached in appendices 5 to 7. 4. Main Issues 4.1 The site is situated on land at Whitehall Farm, Cochno Road, East Dunbartonshire and extends to approximately 29 hectares. It is located immediately north and east of the local authority boundary which follows the line of Cochno Road at this location. The site itself is located within the open countryside comprising part of the Green Belt as defined by the adopted East Dunbartonshire Local Development Pan 2. To the south, the site is bound by Cochno Road with Whitehill Farm located directly adjacent to the southeast of the site. To the west, the site is bound by Cochno Road along its southern extent before following the general line of Lower Stourfold Glen. The northern and eastern boundaries of the site generally cut across open land before following the existing tree line to Cochno Road. The nearest residential properties within West Dunbartonshire are the houses directly opposite the site at Edinbarnet, Cochno Road. Properties at Craigton Street, Burnbrae Street, Craighaw Street and Field Road lie around 170 metres from the southernmost boundary of the proposed site. Loansdean, Cochno Road is around 200 metres from the site. 4.2 The proposal is for a 560 MW Battery Energy Storage Facility with associated infrastructure. It is indicated that the development would have an operational lifespan of 40 years. The proposed development would comprise a number of containerised units to house battery energy storage systems and associated ancillary infrastructure. Each container will have the appearance of a standard metal ISO/shipping container, and it is indicated these will be soundproof. The containers would likely be finished in dark grey or green and would be prefabricated off-site. The containers would be accessed via an external galvanised metal open grid walkway supported by stairs and railings. The dimensions of the containers have been amended from being 2.6m x 2.4m x 12.2m, to being 2.9m x 2.4m x 6.1m (height x depth x width). Power conversion Page 36
Page 37
system units are of the same size and take a similar appearance. The equipment will be provided in 64 banks of 6 units. It remains that the proposal will feature a control room, sub-station compound, sub-station building. Separate switchgear compounds are no longer proposed. The access point to the development also remains located on Cochno Road, to the western edge of the site. 4.3 Battery Energy Storage Solutions provide a means of allowing for the storage of energy at times when generating stations are working at full capacity which can then be released when additional power is needed within the grid during peak times or when energy generation has dropped. As more energy sources are now renewable, such as wind and solar, balancing generation versus demand is a critical issue for grid stability. In short, the proposed battery takes in generated electricity when there is a surplus and stores it until there is a demand for electricity which can be released to meet this demand. 4.4 Appendix 1 comprises the recommended updated consultation response. There is no change to the position of National Planning Framework (NPF) 4 since the Council’s previous consultation response and it remains that 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. Whilst the Council considers 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. Therefore, it must be assessed if there are any potential adverse impacts upon West Dunbartonshire resulting from the proposed development which would be outweighed by any benefits. 4.5 In originally considering the proposal, it was concluded that no concerns arose in respect of matters relating to the impact upon the Kilpatrick Hills, flood risk, roads, and traffic, built and cultural heritage, and health and safety. There is no change to this position which remains as per the original consultation response issued. 4.6 Following consideration of the original proposal, concerns did arise in respect of the Green Belt location of the development, visual impact, impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species, potential impact upon the users of the core path network, potential impact upon adjacent residential amenity and the failure to provide a decommissioning and restoration scheme and these points formed the basis of the Council’s objection as agreed by Committee on 8th May 2024. A revised proposal together with a range of additional and updated supporting documents was subsequently submitted to the Scottish Ministers. It was considered that this revised proposal satisfactorily addressed the concerns relating to landscape and visual impact, residential amenity and the impact upon the core path network and, as agreed by Committee on 11th December 2024, the Council’s objection on these matters was removed. However, the applicant failed to address other concerns the Council maintained its objection in respect of concerns relating to the Green Belt location of the development, impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species and the failure to provide a decommissioning and restoration scheme. The additional and updated details from the applicant seeks to address these remaining concerns. Page 37
Page 38
4.7 Considering the Green Belt location, the applicant has provided additional details to justify the Green Belt location and set out why there are no suitable sites for this development outwith the Green Belt. The Green Belt location is required to take advantage of the availability of a grid connection at Windyhill sub-station. The distance of such developments from the grid connection is also an important consideration as the level of efficiency of the site reduces the further away from the connection it lies. Accordingly, the applicant has identified a 1.1km search area from the available connection in which no suitable sites exist outwith the Green Belt. It is now considered that the Green Belt location has been adequately justified, there are no suitable sites outwith the Green Belt which can take advantage of this connection and the impact within the Green Belt can be considered acceptable with reference to Policy 8 of NPF4. 4.8 Turning to the impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species, the applicant’s preliminary ecological appraisal failed to identify the adjacent Local Nature Conservation Site within West Dunbartonshire and assess the potential cross boundary impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species within West Dunbartonshire. It therefore could not be concluded that adverse impacts would not occur within the West Dunbartonshire area. The applicant has now provided an updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal which has been considered by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and now satisfactorily considers the adjacent LNCS within West Dunbartonshire and assesses the potential cross boundary impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species within West Dunbartonshire. It can therefore be concluded that significant adverse impacts should not occur within the West Dunbartonshire area. Whilst it is expected that the Scottish Ministers fully consider the appropriateness of the proposed planting and landscape mitigation within the site to ensure that it compliments the surrounding area, it is concluded that the proposal can now considered acceptable with reference to Policies 3, 4 and 11(e)(ix) of NPF4. 4.9 In response to the concerns raised regarding the lack of any details relating to the decommissioning and restoration of the site, the applicant has set out that that is common practice for decommissioning of the site to be addressed by condition with detailed decommissioning information and a restoration bond to be agreed prior to the commencement of any works on site. Examples of other, similar development proposals which have consented by the Scottish Ministers within Renfrewshire are given and these take such an approach. A recently consented development in Inverclyde also takes the same approach. Whilst the preference remains for the approach to decommissioning and site restoration to be provided upfront with the detail and implementation of the de-commissioning and restoration scheme then addressed by condition, it is accepted that this is at odds with the established approach to other similar developments. It is therefore accepted that the decommissioning and site restoration can be secured by condition and any such condition(s) must be suitably robust to ensure the complete removal of all aspects of the development and the restoration of the landform within the site to its original profile. A further condition can also ensure early decommissioning should the site cease to export electricity to the grid for in excess of 12 months. A financial provision to provide sufficient funds for the decommissioning and restoration of the site should such be required must also be secured. With such an approach, it is considered the development meets the requirements Policy 11(e)(xi) of NPF4. 5. People Implications 5.1 None. Page 38
Page 39
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 Matters relating to environmental sustainability are fully considered via the application assessment. 10. Consultation 10.1 Responsibility for wider consultation on the submitted application rests with the Scottish Ministers and Energy Consents Unit as part of the application process. 11. Strategic Assessment 11.1 The following strategic priorities of the Council are relevant: Our Communities - Resilient and Thriving Our Environment - A Greener Future Our Economy - Strong and Flourishing Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 16th April 2025 Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning & Building Standards Manager Email: Michael.Mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: James.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix 1: Council’s further Consultation Response Appendix 2: Location Plan Appendix 3: Appendix 4: Council’s original response of 13th May 2024 Council’s updated response of 13th December 2024 Appendix 5: Applicant’s covering letter Appendix 6: Applicant’s additional supporting statement Appendix 7: Applicant’s updated preliminary ecological appraisal Page 39
Page 40
Background Papers: 1. Application documents 2. National Planning Framework 4 3. Adopted East Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 4. Planning Committee Report dated 11th May 2024 5. Planning Committee Report dated 11th December 2024 Wards affected: Adjacent to Ward 4 (Kilpatrick) Page 40
Page 41
Section 36 application ref: ECU00004982 - Construction and operation of a 560MW Battery Energy Storage System with associated infrastructure, substation, security fencing, CCTV, security lighting and landscaping on Land at Cochno Road, Bearsden, East Dunbartonshire - project name Whitehall BESS. Having fully reviewed the additional and updated details submitted, West Dunbartonshire Council is now able to provide a further updated consultation response which no longer raises an objection to the above proposal as neighbouring Planning Authority. Full details of the Council’s consideration of the additional and updated details proposal are set out below. Context An application has been made to the Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) for the construction and operation of a battery energy storage facility with a maximum power output of 560 megawatt. The application site is located within the East Dunbartonshire local authority area and the assessment of the application proposal is undertaken via the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit. West Dunbartonshire Council was previously consulted as neighbouring planning authority with the application site lying generally to the north of the local authority boundary. Following consideration of the proposal by the Council’s Planning Committee on 8th May 2024, the Council issued a consultation response to the Scottish Ministers on 13th May 2024. The Council objected to the proposal due to the concerns relating to the Green Belt location of the development, visual impact, impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species, potential impact upon the users of the core path network, potential impact upon adjacent residential amenity and the failure to provide a decommissioning and restoration scheme. The Council did not consider that the benefits of the proposed development outweigh any adverse impacts to the adjacent West Dunbartonshire area. Following the submission of the Council’s objection, a revised proposal together with a range of additional and updated supporting documents was submitted to the Scottish Ministers. These details included a revised site layout, revised equipment details, revised planting layout, a Landscape Statement, an updated Landscape and Visual Assessment, an updated Noise Impact Assessment and an Archaeological Investigation. Following consideration of the revised proposal by the Council’s Planning Committee on 11th December 2024, the Council issued an updated consultation response on to the Scottish Ministers on 13th December 2024. In the updated consultation response, the Council considered that some aspects of the concerns which formed part of the original objection had been addressed, including visual impact and the impact upon residential amenity. However, the Council considered that the applicant failed to address other concerns relating to the Green Belt location of the development, impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species and the failure to provide a decommissioning and restoration scheme. Following the submission of the Council’s updated consultation response, further supporting information has been received from the applicant in respect of the need for the Green Belt location together with an updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. The applicant also provides clarification on the approach to de-commissioning and restoration proposals. The Council has reviewed the further supporting information relating to the proposal as set out below. For the avoidance of doubt, this updated response is based solely on the further supporting information emailed to the Council on 15th January 2025. ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 1 Page 41
Page 42
This updated response requires to be read in conjunction with both the Council’s original consultation response dated 13th May 2024 and updated second response dated 13th December 2024. The Council’s position in relation to the impact upon the Kilpatrick Hills, traffic and road safety, flood risk, built and cultural heritage, and health and safety was set out in the response dated 13th May 2024. Whilst there was no objection from the Council in respect of these matters, a number of points were highlighted and the position regarding these matters stand. In the response dated 13th December, the Council was able to remove its objection relating to landscape and visual impact, residential amenity and the impact upon the core path network, but highlighted a number of points and again, the position regarding these matters also stand. It remains that if the Scottish Ministers were minded to grant consent, the Council would expect the Council’s comments to be taken into account. This updated response focuses on the Council’s previous points of objection relating to the Green Belt location of the development, impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species and the failure to provide a decommissioning and restoration scheme. Site description and development proposal There is no change to the application site or the detail of the proposal since the Council’s most recent response of 13th December 2024. It remains that the site extends to approximately 29 hectares and is situated on land at Whitehall Farm, Cochno Road, East Dunbartonshire. The site lies immediately north and east of the local authority boundary which follows the line of Cochno Road at this location. The site itself is located within the open countryside comprising part of the Green Belt as defined by the adopted East Dunbartonshire Local Development Pan 2. To the south, the site is bound by Cochno Road with Whitehill Farm located directly adjacent to the southeast of the site. To the west, the site is bound by Cochno Road along its southern extent before following the general line of Lower Stourfold Glen. The northern and eastern boundaries of the site generally cut across open land before following the existing tree line to Cochno Road. The nearest residential properties within West Dunbartonshire are the houses directly opposite the site at Edinbarnet, Cochno Road. Properties at Craigton Street, Burnbrae Street, Craighaw Street and Field Road lie around 170 metres from the southernmost boundary of the proposed site. Loansdean, Cochno Road is around 200 metres from the site. The proposal is for a 560 MW Battery Energy Storage Facility with associated infrastructure. It is indicated that the development would have an operational lifespan of 40 years. It remains that as per the original proposal, the development would comprise a number of containerised units to house battery energy storage systems and associated ancillary infrastructure. Each container will have the appearance similar to ISO/shipping container and would likely be finished in dark grey or green and would be prefabricated off-site. The containers would be accessed via an external galvanised metal open grid walkway supported by stairs and railings and include external air conditioning units. The equipment will be provided in 64 banks of 6 units and the development will feature a control room, sub-station compound, sub-station building. Separate switchgear compounds are no longer proposed. The access point to the development also remains located on Cochno Road, to the western edge of the site. Appraisal This application has been submitted to the Scottish Government under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as it is development with a generating capacity of over 50MW. Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the application is made under the Electricity Act 1989 and therefore the Development Plan does not have the primacy in the determination of the application. As highlighted in previous responses it does, however, provide a basis for the Page 42
Page 43
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 East Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. Principle of Development There is no change to the position of National Planning Framework (NPF) 4 since the Council’s previous consultation response and it remains that 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. As set out in the previous responses, the Council considers that the proposal could be held to support the overarching aims of the NPF4 to achieve net zero targets and provide a stable domestic energy supply, but it must be ensured that such development happens in the right place. Therefore, it must be assessed if there are any potential adverse impacts upon West Dunbartonshire resulting from the proposed development which would be outweighed by any benefits. Policy 11(e) of NPF4 sets out in detail the matters for the project design and mitigation to address. Location within the Green Belt In originally considering the proposal, it was noted that the site is situated within the Green Belt to the north of the settlement of Faifley. Policy 8 of NPF4 sets out the types of development that are supported within the Green Belt locations. This includes essential infrastructure, and proposals that relates to the distribution and transmission of electricity grid networks fall under this definition. However, Policy 8 is clear that for development proposals in Green Belt locations, the purpose of the Green Belt must not be undermined. Policy 8 further requires that the reasons why the Green Belt location is essential must be provided together with why the development cannot be provided on a site outwith the Green Belt. It was previously acknowledged that the site has been chosen due to it’s proximity to appropriate grid connections. It is accepted that there is a requirement for battery storage sites to be located close to a viable grid connection with sufficient capacity to import and export power. In this case, while this is accepted from a technical perspective and the proximity of the site to both the Drumchapel sub-station and Windyhill sub-station which lie 3.17kms and 560m to the south east respectively is acknowledged, the Council was of the view that the applicant failed to provide any analysis of other site options that were considered outside of the Green Belt and why it was not possible to locate them in an alternative place. Accordingly, it therefore could not be concluded that no other suitable sites are available in a location outwith the Green Belt. In support of the proposal, the applicant has provided an additional supporting statement focusing on the location and siting of the development within the Green Belt. The applicant sets out that the distribution and transmission of electricity grid networks fall under the definition of essential infrastructure in NPF4 and this definition has been determined to include battery energy storage systems. This is not disputed and it is acknowledged that essential infrastructure is a type of development which can be supported, in principle, within the Green Belt as set out in the Council’s previous responses. The applicant further sets out that Battery Energy Storage developments have very specific locational requirements, which severely limits where they can be sited. It is advised that battery energy storage systems must be located within proximity of a viable grid connection that has sufficient capacity to import and export the power that will be stored by the development. Suitable points of connection include a sub-station or an overhead power line, however, the applicant advises that the ability to find connections with sufficient capacity is severely limited and not every sub-station has the capacity for such a connection. The applicant goes on to advise that in many cases, the work Page 43
Page 44
required to upgrade the sub-station can render many schemes unviable. In this case, there is capacity for a viable connection at the Windyhill sub-station. The applicant further sets out that where a suitable connection can be found, a number of other factors require to be taken into consideration. This includes the distance from a sub- station or connection point as the level of efficiency of the site reduces the further away from the connection it lies. In addition, land ownership is also a notable consideration as without a willing landowner, a development cannot take place. The applicant has identified a search area of a 1.1km radius of the Windyhill sub-station and notes that no sites outwith the Green Belt are available to allow this grid connection to be utilised. Having considered the additional information from the applicant, it is identified that the location of this development is dictated by the available grid connection at Windyhill sub-station and that no alternative locations outwith the Green Belt are available without requiring a connection over a large distance. It is therefore accepted that there is a locational requirement to site the development within this Green Belt location to allow the available grid connection to be utilised. Policy 8 of NPF4 goes on to require developments not to undermine the Green Belt, be compatible with the surrounding landscape, have an appropriate scale, massing and appearance and ensure no significant long-term impacts. The Council concluded that the revised proposal considered in it’s consultation response of 13th December was acceptable with reference to the scale of the development, landscape and visual impact, landscape screening and the separation from the settlement boundary of Faifley. The Council set out in the previous response that the development is no longer considered to be viewed in the context of the adjacent settlement. An industrialisation of the Green Belt at this location was also not longer of such a concern that an adverse impact will occur to the West Dunbartonshire Area which outweighs the benefits of the development in respect of the contribution to renewable energy targets. Overall, it is considered that the Green Belt location has been adequately justified and the impact within the Green Belt can be considered acceptable with reference to Policy 8 of NPF4. Ecology, biodiversity and protected species Policy 3 of NPF4 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets, making best use of nature-based solutions. The policy is primarily focused on designated areas including sites designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area. Policy 11 also requires biodiversity impact to be addressed. The applicant’s preliminary ecological appraisal was previously considered by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and this failed to identify the adjacent LNCS within West Dunbartonshire and assess the potential cross boundary impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species within West Dunbartonshire. It therefore could not be concluded that adverse impacts would not occur within the West Dunbartonshire area. Accordingly, the Council did not consider that the proposal could be held to be supported by Policies 3, 4 or 11(e)(ix) of NPF4. The applicant has provided an updated preliminary ecological appraisal which now considers the three LNCS within the West Dunbartonshire area adjacent to the site; Wester Cochno Parkland, Wester Cochno Burn and Edinbarnet Woodland. The appraisal sets out an understanding of the interest features, species and reasons for the designation together with the potential cross boundary impacts from the development. The Council’s Biodiversity officer has considered the updated submission and is satisfied that the three LNCS locations have now been included and considered and the applicant. The Biodiversity Officer further acknowledges that consideration has been given to the potential for watervole within watercourses which was specifically highlighted by the Council in the original consultation Page 44
Page 45
response, together with a general requirement for pre-construction surveys. It is therefore considered that the concerns regarding the lack of consideration of the three LNCSs within the West Dunbartonshire area and potential for cross boundary impacts is addressed. The original consultation response also set out the advice from the Councils Biodiversity Officer that West Dunbartonshire Council has undertaken a two year nature restoration project within the area known as Auchnacraig Estate (which is comprised of the three LNCS above), and on Faifley Knowes to the south. Both Auchnacraig and Faifley have now been connected by a new native woodland which straddles the hillside to the east of Douglas Muir Road. This has created an integrated habitat which connects the urban environment to wider Green Belt and the Kilpatrick Hills LLA. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer further advised that to the northwest of the site, Glasgow University at Cochno Farm have also been carrying out a number of nature restoration works including a large scale planting programme as well as a private forestry grant development north of Duntocher. Collectively all the work put in by the various agencies in this location has resulted in landscape and nature restoration around the proposed development site. The woodland will have a positive effect on the surrounding environment as it will provide a reservoir of species which can migrate into surrounding areas when conditions are suitable. Should the Scottish Ministers be minded to grant consent for the development, the Council requests that they satisfy themselves that the final detail of the proposed landscape mitigation and planting compliments the work in the surrounding area set out above. This includes ensuring that in terms of biodiversity enhancement, areas which currently comprise a mixed habitat and wet and marshy sections are not given over to inappropriate tree planting solely under the role of biodiversity enhancement, as these are valuable habitats of their own accord. Overall, the applicant’s updated preliminary ecological appraisal has been considered by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and now satisfactorily considers the adjacent LNCS within West Dunbartonshire and assess the potential cross boundary impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species within West Dunbartonshire. It can therefore now be concluded that significant adverse impacts should not occur within the West Dunbartonshire area. The proposal can therefore be considered acceptable with reference to Policies 3, 4 and 11(e)(ix) of NPF4. Site Decommissioning and Restoration Policy 11(e)(xi) of NPF4 requires matters relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration to be addressed. The applicant has indicated that the intended lifetime of the proposal is 40 years, after which the facility will be decommissioned and the land restored to its former state. However, it was identified in the Council’s previous responses that no other information regarding this has been submitted and this raised concerns. As previously noted, the applicant’s Supporting Statement sets out that at the end of the operational period the site will be decommissioned and the land restored to it’s former state. The updated LVIA also advises that following the completion of the operational phase, the components of the battery storage may be removed and landscape effects potentially reversed. Whilst there is thus a commitment from the applicant, it remains that there is a question over the extent of any decommissioning and a clear commitment to the approach to decommissioning and restoration. In response to the concerns raised, the applicant has set out that that is common practice for decommissioning of such sites to be addressed by condition with detailed decommissioning information and a restoration bond to be agreed prior to the commencement of any works on site. Examples of other, similar development proposals which have consented by the Scottish Ministers within Renfrewshire are given, and these take such an approach. The Council Page 45
Page 46
further notes that for a recently consented development in Inverclyde, the same approach was also taken. It remains the Council’s preference that that given the type of development together with its size and location, that details of the approach to decommissioning and site restoration is provided to ensure that the requirements of Policy 11(e)(xi) of NPF4 are met. Thereafter, the detail and implementation of the decommissioning and restoration scheme can be addressed by condition. It is, however, accepted that such a position is as odds with the approach taken by the Scottish Ministers in determining similar developments. It is disappointing that it appears to be established practice that the approach to decommissioning and site restoration is addressed by condition rather than being considered up front. The Council considers that any restoration scheme would require to be of an extent that achieves a complete reversal of any landscape harm that occurs. Given the extensive cut and fill proposed to accommodate the development, the restoration would require to include substantial ground works to ensure the restoration of the landform to its original profile following the removal of all hardstanding, infrastructure and equipment. In the event that the Scottish Ministers are minded to grant consent for the development, a robust condition(s) to address all aspects of site decommissioning and restoration would be required, and the Council would expect any such condition(s) to be clear that the decommissioning and restoration scheme must ensure the complete removal of all aspects of the development and the restoration of the landform within the site to its current pre-development profile. The Council also considers that in the event that the development fails to export electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months it will be considered to have become redundant and the components of the development removed and the site restored. In the event that consent was granted, the Council considers it essential that that this requirement is to be addressed by a condition. In the event that the Scottish Ministers were minded to grant consent for the development, the Council further considers that there is the requirement for a financial bond to ensure sufficient funds are available to decommission and restore the site. If the developer was to go out of business with unfinished works potentially being left this can be safeguarded by ensuring that a bond or other financial provision is to put in place to cover such an eventuality. The bond or other financial provision would address reinstatement works both in the event of a developer failing or being unable to complete restoration works together with any failure in the aftercare arrangements associated with the site restoration. Whilst the Council’s preference remains for the approach to decommissioning and site restoration to be provided upfront with the the detail and implementation of the de- commissioning and restoration scheme then addressed by condition, it is accepted that this is at odds with the established approach to other similar developments. It is accepted that the decommissioning and site restoration can be secured by condition. Any such condition(s) must be suitably robust to ensure that the de-commissioning and site restoration scheme results in the complete removal of all aspects of the development and the restoration of the landform within the site to its current pre-development profile. A condition relating to the decommissioning of the site should it cease to export electricity to the grid for in excess of 12 months is also required as is a bond or other financial provision to provide sufficient funds for the decommissioning and restoration of the site should such be required. With such an approach, the Council would consider that the development meets the requirements Policy 11(e)(xi) of NPF4. Page 46
Page 47
Landscape and Visual Impact, Residential Amenity, and the Impact on the Core Path Network The Council’s position on these matters remains as per the response dated 13th December 2024. Impact upon the Kilpatrick Hills, Traffic and Road Safety, Flood Risk, Built and Cultural Heritage, and Health and Safety The Council’s position on these matters remains as per the response dated 13th May 2024. Summary and conclusions As set out in the Council’s most recent consultation response dated 13th December 2024, concerns remained in respect of the Green Belt location not being justified, the impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species, and the lack of an approach to de-commissioning and site restoration. Considering the Green Belt location, the applicant has provided additional details to justify the Green Belt location and why there are no suitable sites for this development outwith the Green Belt. The Green Belt location is required to take advantage of the availability of a grid connection at Windyhill sub-station. The distance of such developments from the grid connection is also an important consideration as the level of efficiency of the site reduces the further away from the connection it lies. Accordingly, the applicant has identified a 1.1km search area from the available connection in which no suitable sites exist outwith the Green Belt. It is now considered that the Green Belt location has been adequately justified, there are no suitable sites outwith the Green Belt which can take advantage of this connection and the impact within the Green Belt can be considered acceptable with reference to Policy 8 of NPF4. Turning to the impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species, the applicant’s updated preliminary ecological appraisal has been considered by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and now satisfactorily considers the adjacent LNCS within West Dunbartonshire and assesses the potential cross boundary impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species within West Dunbartonshire. It can therefore be concluded that significant adverse impacts should not occur within the West Dunbartonshire area. Whilst it is expected that the Scottish Ministers fully consider the appropriateness of the proposed planting and landscape mitigation within the site and ensure that it compliments the surrounding area, the Council is of the view that the proposal can now considered acceptable with reference to Policies 3, 4 and 11(e)(ix) of NPF4. Finally, whilst the Council preference remains for the approach to de-commissioning and site restoration to be provided upfront with the detail and implementation of the de-commissioning and restoration scheme then addressed by condition, it is accepted that this is at odds with the established approach to other similar developments. It is accepted that the de-commissioning and site restoration can be secured by condition and any such condition(s) must be suitably robust to ensure the complete removal of all aspects of the development and the restoration of the landform within the site to its current pre-development profile. A further condition can also ensure early decommissioning should the site cease to export electricity to the grid for in excess of 12 months. A financial provision to provide sufficient funds for the decommissioning and restoration of the site should such be required must also be secured. With such an approach, the Council would consider that the development meets the requirements Policy 11(e)(xi) of NPF4. Following a full assessment of the further and updated details relating to the Council’s outstanding concerns which formed the previous objection, it is concluded that these concerns have now been addressed satisfactorily. Whilst the Council no longer objects to the proposal, Page 47
Page 48
a variety of points are, however, set out in this response together with the two previous responses dated 13th December 2024 and 13th May 2024 and it is expected that the Scottish Ministers fully consider and address these in the event that they are minded to grant consent. For the avoidance of doubt, all three responses require to be read in conjunction with each other. Page 48
Page 49
Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (C) Crown copyright and database right 24/04/2024. All rights reserved. West Dunbartonshire OS Licence Number 100020790. U Scale: 1:3,000 @a4 24/04/2024Battery Storage Consultation Map - ITEM 2 - APPENDIX 2 Page 49
Page 50
Page 50
Page 51
West Dunbartonshire Consultation Response to Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit. Section 36 application ref: ECU00004982 - Construction and operation of a 560MW Battery Energy Storage System with associated infrastructure, substation, security fencing, CCTV, security lighting and landscaping on Land at Cochno Road, Bearsden, East Dunbartonshire - project name Whitehall BESS. West Dunbartonshire Council objects to the above proposal as neighbouring Planning Authority. Full details of the Council’s consideration of the development proposal are set out below. Context An application has been made to the Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) for the construction and operation of a battery energy storage facility with a maximum power output of 560 megawatt. The application site is located within the East Dunbartonshire local authority area and the assessment of the application proposal is undertaken via the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit. West Dunbartonshire Council has been consulted as neighbouring planning authority with the application site lying generally to the north of the local authority boundary. Site description and development proposal Extending to approximately 29 hectares, the proposed site is situated on land at Whitehall Farm, Cochno Road, East Dunbartonshire. The site lies immediately north and east of the local authority boundary which follows the line of Cochno Road at this location. The site itself is located within the open countryside comprising part of the Green Belt as defined by the adopted East Dunbartonshire Local Development Pan 2. To the south, the site is bound by Cochno Road with Whitehill Farm located directly adjacent to the southeast of the site. To the west, the site is bound by Cochno Road along its southern extent before following the general line of Lower Stourfold Glen. The northern and eastern boundaries of the site generally cut across open land before following the existing tree line to Cochno Road. The nearest residential properties within West Dunbartonshire are the houses directly opposite the site at Edinbarnet, Cochno Road. Properties at Craigton Street, Burnbrae Street, Craighaw Street and Field Road lie around 170 metres from the southernmost boundary of the proposed site. Loansdean, Cochno Road is around 200 metres from the site. The proposal is for a 560 MW Battery Energy Storage Facility with associated infrastructure. It is indicated that the development would have an operational lifespan of 40 years. The proposed development would comprise a number of containerised units to house battery energy storage systems and associated ancillary infrastructure. Each container will have the appearance of a standard metal ISO/shipping container and it is indicated these will be soundproof. The containers would be arranged in parallel banks, and would likely be finished in dark grey or green and would be ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 3 Page 51
Page 52
prefabricated off-site. The containers would be accessed via an external galvanised metal open grid walkway supported by stairs and railings. The dimensions of the containers would be approximately 2.6m x 2.4m x 12.2m (height x depth x width). The containers together with other equipment will be placed on concrete plinths. In the submitted documents that concrete will be installed in a manner which can be removed at the end of the development’s life cycle, to return the land to agricultural use. The proposal would see 224 containers in total. It is further indicated that there will be 1 inverter per container and 1 transformer per 2 containers giving a total of 224 inverters and 112 transformers, arranged in formation alongside the containers. The transformers and inverters will measure approximately 2.7m x 1.4m x 2.6m, and 2.3m x 1.4m x 1.5m respectively. Underground cables would connect the facility to the grid off-site at Drumchapel and Windyhill substations. A substation measuring 3.9m x 3.7m x 13.6m is to be located in the located to the south of the site. All structures and development as laid out above will be enclosed within an acoustic fence, proposed to stand at 4m high. A 4m wide access road will be installed, with the proposed access point to Cochno Road located on the western edge of the site. It is indicated that landscape proposals for the site will seek to enhance existing landscape features, screen views of the battery containers and enhance biodiversity. Battery Energy Storage Solutions provide a means of allowing for the storage of energy at times when generating stations are working at full capacity which can then be released when additional power is needed within the grid during peak times or when energy generation has dropped. As more energy sources are now renewable, such as wind and solar, balancing generation versus demand is a critical issue for grid stability. Battery storage allows energy to be stored during peak renewable generation periods and released when demand outstrips generation. In short, the proposed battery takes in generated electricity when there is a surplus and stores it until there is a demand for electricity which can be released to meet this demand. The applicant has submitted a number of supporting documents with the application to the Energy Consents Unit, including a supporting planning statement, design and access statement, flood risk assessment, historic environment assessment, preliminary ecological appraisal, transport statement, noise impact assessment, battery safety management plan and landscape and visual impact assessment. Appraisal This application has been submitted to the Scottish Government under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as it is development with a generating capacity of over 50MW. Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the application is made under the Electricity Act 1989 and therefore the Development Plan does not have the primacy in the determination of the application. It does, however, provide a basis for the assessment of this proposal and it is established practice to take the development plan into account in such decisions. The development plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 and adopted East Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. Page 52
Page 53
Principle of Development 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 states that there is a need to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis, whilst Policy 2 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. The electricity transmitted for storage within the proposed batteries will have come from a mixture of renewable and non-renewable sources with the purpose of the batteries to ensure there is always grid stability. As renewable energy becomes more prevalent, grid stability becomes a significant issue due to the intermittent nature of renewable energy generation. Whilst the Council considers 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. Therefore, it must be assessed if there are any potential adverse impacts upon West Dunbartonshire resulting from the proposed development which would be outweighed by any benefits. Policy 11(e) of NPF4 sets out in detail the matters for the project design and mitigation to address. Landscape and Visual Impact and impact on the Green Belt The site is situated within the Green Belt to the north of the settlement of Faifley. Policy 8 of NPF4 sets out the types of development that are supported within the Green Belt locations. This includes essential infrastructure and proposals that relates to the distribution and transmission of electricity grid networks fall under this definition. However, Policy 8 is clear that for development proposals in Green Belt locations, the purpose of the Green Belt must not be undermined. Policy 11 additionally seeks to encourage, promote, and facilitate all forms of renewable energy development, including energy storage and distribution infrastructure. The policy sets out a range of criteria that proposals should be assessed against to ensure the impact of the project design and mitigation is addressed. This includes ensuring there is no adverse impact on landscape and visual impact. Policy 8 requires that the reasons why the Green Belt is essential must be provided together with why the development cannot be provided on a site outwith the Green Belt. The applicant advises that the site has been chosen due to it’s proximity to appropriate grid connections. While this is accepted from a technical perspective, the applicant has not provided any analysis of other site options that were considered outside of the Green Belt and why it was not possible to locate them in an alternative place. It therefore cannot be concluded that no other suitable sites are available in a location outwith the Green Belt. Page 53
Page 54
Policy 8 further requires that proposals must be compatible with the established countryside and landscape and be designed to ensure that it is of an appropriate scale, massing and external appearance to minimise visual impact upon the Green Belt. That a development of this nature would have a visual impact is not in doubt. The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) acknowledges that the baseline landscape character of the site would be altered as a result of the proposed development bringing adverse effects on landscape character, during both the construction and operation phases. It is identified in the LVIA that the development would introduce built elements which would be evident in its immediate landscape setting. The Council is concerned at the potential for the industrial character of the development and the harm to the visual harm to the locality, resulting in the industrialisation of the Green Belt at this location. Whilst the proposed landscape mitigation is acknowledged, the site is in close proximity to the settlement boundary of Faifley and visually, the development will likely be viewed in the context of the adjacent settlement. It will likely have negative impacts on landscape and natural setting of the Green Belt, potentially having an adverse visual impact. Whilst the development is identified as being temporary, there are no details of decommissioning or restoration. With a possible development lifespan of up to 40 years, any impacts from the operational phase of the development will occur over a long period of time. The Council is of the view that the applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other suitable sites are available in a location outwith the Green Belt. The Council also considers that the industrial character of the development will result in visual harm to the locality resulting in the industrialisation of the Green Belt. This would not be acceptable. The development cannot, therefore, be held to be supported by Policies 8(a)(ii) and 11(e)(ii) of NPF4. Impact upon the Kilpatrick Hills Notwithstanding visual impact considerations within the Green Belt, the potential impact on the landscape character and features of the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area (LLA) must also be considered. The proposed site is approximately 270m away from the boundary of the LLA. The ‘Statement of Importance’, which is the evidence underpinning the LLA explains that the lower slopes of the Kilpatrick Hills contribute to its setting, by acting as an important landscape buffer. The designation contains areas of lower slopes to protect the setting of the hills, meaning the proposed development site is removed from this buffer. The theoretical zone of visibility in the applicant’s LVIA does include southern areas of the LLA. One of the special landscape qualities of the LLA is the long views across the Glasgow conurbation, which emphasise the contrast between remote uplands and developed lowlands. Visually intrusive development between the conurbations and the Kilpatrick Hills could erode this special quality. The LVIA assesses that there would be negligible impact stating the development is unlikely to be visible from the viewpoint. Further, the tree screening mitigation would further reduce the visibility once established. Given that the site is some distance from the designation boundary and visibility is expected to be low from the LLA, the Council considers that based on the assessment within the submitted LVIA, it is unlikely there will be an adverse impact on the Kilpatrick Hills Page 54
Page 55
Ecology, biodiversity and protected species Policy 3 of NPF4 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets, making best use of nature-based solutions. The policy is primarily focused on designated areas including sites designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area. Policy 11 also requires biodiversity impact to be addressed. The applicant has submitted a preliminary ecological appraisal in support of the proposal and this primarily assesses impacts upon the proposed site. The appraisal does not identify the adjacent Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) within West Dunbartonshire, as set out on the proposals map of proposed LDP2. These comprise of three LNCS areas; Edinbarnet woodlands and Wester Cochno Parkland both of which area adjacent to the proposed site, and Wester Cochno Burn. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises that West Dunbartonshire Council has undertaken a two year nature restoration project within the area known as Auchnacraig Estate (which is comprised of the three LNCS above), and on Faifley Knowes to the south. Both Auchnacraig and Faifley have now been connected by a new native woodland which straddles the hillside to the east of Douglas Muir Road. This has created an integrated habitat which connects the urban environment to wider Green Belt and the Kilpatrick Hills LLA. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer further advises that to the northwest of the site, Glasgow University at Cochno Farm have also been carrying out a number of nature restoration works including a large scale planting programme as well as a private forestry grant development north of Duntocher. Collectively all the work put in by the various agencies in this location has resulted in landscape and nature restoration around the proposed development site. Assessing the potential impact upon the three LNCS making up Auchnacraig Estate, Auchnacraig wood is a semi-natural broadleaved woodland with a number of veteran broadleaved and conifer trees. Parts of the woodland has been established for a long time, with parts of it thought to be ancient woodland associated with the former Auchnacraig estate. Other woodland is younger native broadleaved woodland planted over the past 20 years. Diverse semi-natural woodlands of this size and age are uncommon locally, making this site important for nature conservation. Its value is enhanced by the fact that it is located on the fringe of an urban environment where wildlife habitats tend to be small and of low diversity. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises that the woodland will have a positive effect on the surrounding environment as it will provide a reservoir of species which can migrate into surrounding areas when conditions are suitable. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer further advises that a Phase 1 survey carried out at Auchnacraig recognised the importance of the varied mosaic habitats. Areas of wetland pockets were found throughout the Estate. The Estate features the Cochno burn from which a wildlife pond is supplied and this has also been restored for wildlife as part of the habitat restoration project. Any proposed development to the north of the site may have an impact on the hydrology of the LNCS site and this requires to be assessed. Page 55
Page 56
Considering specific species, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises that evidence of badger foraging and pine marten scat were found in 2023 surveys. Herpetofauna surveys of the pond were undertaken and include common toad in the species list. The open mosaic habitat is suitable for hedgehog and previous records of local bat surveys on the site have found both common and soprano pipistrelles as well as daubentons. Previous records of otter and watervole exist for both the Cochno and Hardgate burns. Recent watervole surveys have reconfirmed their presence at Faifley thus the development site requires to be considered for watercourse and fossorial watervole as they are within the distribution range of the proposed site. It is therefore possible that all of the above species found within West Dunbartonshire to the immediate west and south of the site could potentially be using the proposed development site. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises that further species specific surveys require to be carried out in respect of the proposed development site. Issues such as adverse noise, vibration, lighting and hydrology pollution are not discussed in the PEA and also require to be examined. In terms of biodiversity enhancement, the proposed area is also a mixed habitat and wet and marshy sections should not be given over to inappropriate tree planting under the role of biodiversity enhancement, as these are valuable habitats of their own accord. Overall, the applicant’s preliminary ecological appraisal has been considered by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and this fails to identify the adjacent LNCS within West Dunbartonshire and assess the potential cross boundary impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species within West Dunbartonshire. It therefore cannot be concluded that adverse impacts would not occur within the West Dunbartonshire area. The Council does not consider that the proposal can be held to be supported by Policies 3, 4 or 11(e)(ix) of NPF4. Residential amenity There is the potential for amenity impacts to occur to residents within West Dunbartonshire, with the closest residential properties being at Edinbarnet on Cochno Road, immediately to the west of the site. Infrastructure within the site would be situated around 90 to 100 metres from these properties. Further properties lie to the northern edge of Faifley, approximately 170 metres from the proposed site. The site equipment itself is around 280 metres these residential properties in Faifley together with Loansdean on Cochno Road. The applicant, however, requests micro-siting of up to 100 metres and this could result in the proposed infrastructure being substantially closer to nearby properties than the current layout suggests. The site entrance will be taken from Cochno Road, opposite the properties at Edinbarnet. Policy 11 of NPF4 requires that impacts on communities and individual dwellings including residential amenity, and noise are addressed. A noise impact assessment (NIA) has been submitted in support of the proposal and this has been considered by the Council’s Environmental Health Service. A number of points are highlighted with respect to the noise impact assessment. It is noted that the predicted noise is higher at one receptor during the night but lower at other receptors. It is questioned whether this is correct and the cause of this requires to be clarified. It is further noted that the noise impact assessment applies a 2dB penalty for tonality being just perceptible at the Page 56
Page 57
receptors. For cooling plant associated with battery storage an assessment and discussion of NR curves as per the REHIS development guide quoted in the Noise Assessment is expected. In the absence of this, it cannot be concluded that no adverse impact will occur to residential properties. In further assessing the noise assessment, Para 4.6.2 states that mitigation is required to ensure compliance with the BS4142 assessment for daytime noise. It is not clear from the results how this conclusion has been reached and furthermore there is no discussion or suggestion of suitable mitigation and its predicted effectiveness. The Council’s Environmental Health Service note that the applicant has stated that there should be flexibility around the siting of the equipment within the site boundary, with micro siting of up to 100 metres. There is no acknowledgement of this within the NIA. Any impacts from different configurations of equipment requires to be fully discussed and assessed. In the absence of this, the Council considers that it is not considered that it has been demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity resulting from the operation of the development. It is not therefore considered that the potential impacts from noise are addressed in accordance with Policy 11(e)(i). Any construction project will result in an element of noise and disturbance. In order to manage any potential noise disturbance during the construction phase of the development, in the event that consent was granted, the Councill would seek a that construction work and any ancillary operations are restricted to between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturday. No working should be permitted on Sundays or public holidays, including local holidays within the West Dunbartonshire Council area. Traffic and Road Safety Policy 11 of NPF4 requires the impacts on road traffic to be appropriately addressed, including during construction. Access to the site will be taken from the A811 via Cochno Road which is partly within the West Dunbartonshire boundary. The site access itself will adjoin a West Dunbartonshire section of Cochno Road. A 24 month construction phase is identified and the applicant’s transport statement advises that the construction phase of the development would generate around 109 two-way movements per day during the first three months (218 individual movements), with daily movements decreasing thereafter. The applicant’s Transport Statement sets out that a review of Cochno Road outlines how the carriageway has a suitable width to allow for simultaneous two-way movement, from its junction with the A810 towards the access of Law Farm. Beyond this towards the site, Cochno Road is predominantly single track, measuring circa 3.5m width. There are four formal passing places between the site and the Law Farm access, which could be used to allow small vehicles to pass in the event of conflict. Given the narrow width along sections of Cochno Road, with limited space to widen the carriageway to provide passing places for HGVs, it is proposed to stagger arrivals and departures. A detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would be developed. It is advised that no HGV movements will occur at the site during peak hours, in addition to the school closing hour. It is further advised that there will be no construction vehicle movements directly to the west of the site along Cochno Road. Overall, the applicant does not consider that the proposals would result in a severe Page 57
Page 58
impact upon the local road network. Once operational, the applicant anticipates between 10 and 20 vehicle trips to the site per annum. The Council’s Roads Service has considered the proposal and does not identify any issues or objections. It is noted that a detailed CTMP will be prepared by the applicant and the Council requests that in the event that the Scottish Ministers were minded to grant consent, this is conditioned including a requirement for any CTMP to be agreed with West Dunbartonshire Council due to the proximity of the site to the Council area and use of the road network within the Council area. Impact upon the core path network Policy 11 of NPF4 requires matters relating to public access including long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes to be suitably addressed. A variety of core paths connect Faifley to the open countryside via Cochno Road. The applicant’s supporting documents identifies East Dunbartonshire core path ED/153/1 which is located to the south and east of the site and extending northeast from Cochno Road, noting that only minor visual effects would occur in respect of users of this core path. This East Dunbartonshire Core Path connects with the West Dunbartonshire Core Path network to the opposite side of Cochno Road. The applicant’s submission does not consider the impact on the core path network and connections to the core path network within West Dunbartonshire. While no routes are physically interrupted by the proposal, there will be a visual and noise impact to users of the routes and the character of the routes will be changed. The Council considers that there is the potential for there to be adverse visual amenity impacts on core path users. Whilst landscape mitigation could seek to reduce the visual impact, the overall feeling of being in the wider countryside and in ‘nature’ would be lost should the proposal proceed. Cochno Road acts as a connection between all of these routes and the impact of construction traffic to users of these routes has not been considered or addressed. The Council does not consider that the potential impact upon the core path network has been addressed as required of Policy 11(e)(iii). Flood risk Considering matters relating to flood risk, a flood risk assessment has been submitted in support of the proposal. This does not identify the site itself as being as unacceptable risk of flooding. The proposed development is also not predicted to increase surface water runoff or flooding to the surrounding catchment. It is noted that in a consultation response to the Energy Consents Unit, SEPA offer no objection on the grounds of flood risk. Built and cultural heritage The application is accompanied by a desk-based assessment of the historic environment, which identified three heritage assets relevant to West Dunbartonshire: Edinbarnet House which is a Category B listed building, the Scheduled Monument Cochno Cup and Ring Marked Stone, and the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site buffer. Historic Envirobnment Scotland (HES) in their consultation response to the Energy Consents Unit notes that there are no designated heritage assets are located within the development site application boundary. HES are therefore satisfied that there will not be any direct impacts. HES also specifically consider the potential for impact on both the Cochno Stone and Antonine Wall buffer zone and conclude that any impact on their setting is not likely to be significant. Being guided by the response Page 58
Page 59
from HES, the Council is therefore content that there is no significant impact on historic assets within or adjacent to West Dunbartonshire. Potential archaeological matters within the site would be for the Scottish Ministers to consider. Health and safety The applicant acknowledges that there are potential hazards associated with HV electrical systems and BESS facilities, such as a fire and thermal runaway event, which could result in the formation of harmful gases. In response to this, an Outline Safety Management Plan Design has been submitted in support of the proposal. This details the operational measures, which will be included to mitigate hazards and reduce the risks to people and the environment. The key measures which will be installed to reduce risk at the BESS include the use of systems to monitor the operation of the BESS and continuously observe the temperature, voltage and other process parameters. These will immediately alert operators to potential issues. It is advised that in the event of a problem occurring, battery sections can be readily isolated automatically. A fire and gas detection system will be installed alongside conventional fire, heat and gas detectors, for the early detection of a fire event. An automatically operated fire suppression system will also be installed. It is for the Scottish Ministers to satisfy themselves that an unacceptable risk does not occur and to inform this assessment, the Council would expect the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to be consulted on the application proposal. It is noted at the time of writing, no consultation response is available online from this organisation. Site Decommissioning and Restoration Policy 11(e)(xi) of NPF4 requires matters relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration to be addressed. The applicant has indicated that the intended lifetime of the proposal is 40 years, after which the facility will be decommissioned and the land restored to its former state. However no other information regarding this has been submitted. It is essential that given the type of development together with its size and location, that full details of de- commissioning and site restoration is provided to ensure that the requirements of Policy 11(e)(xi) of NPF4 are met. In the event that the Scottish Ministers were minded to grant consent for the development, the Council considers that there is the requirement for a financial bond to ensure sufficient funds are available to decommission and restore the site. If the developer was to go out of business with unfinished works potentially being left this can be safeguarded by ensuring that a bond or other financial provision is to put in place to cover such an eventuality. The bond or other financial provision would address reinstatement works both in the event of a developer failing or being unable to complete restoration works together with any failure in the aftercare arrangements associated with the site restoration. The Council also considers that in the event that the development fails to export electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months it will be considered to have become redundant and the components of the development removed and the site restored. In the event that consent was granted, the Council considers it essential that that this requirement is to be addressed by a condition. Page 59
Page 60
Summary and conclusions The Council consider that proposals such as this can be held to support the overarching aims of the NPF4 to achieve net zero targets and provide a stable domestic energy supply. The support as a national development is also acknowledged. However, it remains that such development require to be sited in the right locations and the benefits of such developments require to be balanced with any potential adverse impacts. In considering the proposal, it is concluded that no concerns arise in respect of matters relating to the impact upon the Kilpatrick Hills, flood risk, roads and traffic, built and cultural heritage, and health and safety. However, a variety of concerns do arise. In assessing the Green Belt location to the north of Faifley, the Council is of the view that the applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other suitable sites available in a location outwith the Green Belt. The Council also considers that the industrial character of the development would be to the visual harm of the locality resulting in the industrialisation of the Green Belt. Whilst landscape mitigation is proposed, any planting would take years to develop and mature, exacerbating the visual impact within the short to medium term. This is not considered acceptable or justified. The development cannot, therefore, be held to be supported by Policies 8 and 11(e)(i) of NPF4. Turning to the impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species, the applicant’s preliminary ecological appraisal fails to identify the adjacent LNCS within West Dunbartonshire and assess the potential cross boundary impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species within West Dunbartonshire. It therefore cannot be concluded that adverse impacts would not occur within the West Dunbartonshire area. Turning to the impact on the core path network, while no routes are physically interrupted by the proposal, there will be a visual and noise impact to users of the routes and the character of the routes will be changed. The Council considers that there is the potential for there to be adverse visual amenity impacts on core path users. The overall feeling of being in the wider countryside and outwith the built-up area would be lost. Cochno Road also acts as a connection between the various core path routes at this location and the impact of construction traffic to users of these routes has not been considered or addressed. The development cannot, therefore, be held to be supported by Policies 3, 4 and 11(e)(iii) and (ix) With regard to residential amenity, the Council does not consider that it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that there would be no impact upon residential amenity within West Dunbartonshire by way of noise. Finally, the Council considers it essential that given the type of development together with its size and location, that full details of de-commissioning and site restoration is provided to ensure that the requirements of Policy 11(e)(i) of NPF4 are met. West Dunbartonshire Council therefore objects to this proposal due to the above concerns relating to the Green Belt location of the development, visual impact, impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species, potential impact upon the users of the core path network, potential impact upon adjacent residential amenity and the failure to provide a decommissioning and restoration scheme. The Council does not Page 60
Page 61
consider that the benefits of the proposed development outweigh any adverse impacts to the adjacent West Dunbartonshire area. Page 61
Page 62
Section 36 application ref: ECU00004982 - Construction and operation of a 560MW Battery Energy Storage System with associated infrastructure, substation, security fencing, CCTV, security lighting and landscaping on Land at Cochno Road, Bearsden, East Dunbartonshire - project name Whitehall BESS. Having fully reviewed the updated and revised details submitted, West Dunbartonshire Council maintains an objection to the above proposal as neighbouring Planning Authority. Full details of the Council’s consideration of the updated development proposal are set out below. Context An application has been made to the Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) for the construction and operation of a battery energy storage facility with a maximum power output of 560 megawatt. The application site is located within the East Dunbartonshire local authority area and the assessment of the application proposal is undertaken via the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit. West Dunbartonshire Council was previously consulted as neighbouring planning authority with the application site lying generally to the north of the local authority boundary. Following consideration of the proposal by the Council’s Planning Committee on 11th May 2024, the Council issued a consultation response to the Scottish Ministers on 13th May 2024. The Council objected to the proposal due to the concerns relating to the Green Belt location of the development, visual impact, impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species, potential impact upon the users of the core path network, potential impact upon adjacent residential amenity and the failure to provide a decommissioning and restoration scheme. The Council did not consider that the benefits of the proposed development outweigh any adverse impacts to the adjacent West Dunbartonshire area. Following the submission of the Council’s objection, a revised proposal together with a range of additional and updated supporting documents have been submitted to the Scottish Ministers. These details include a revised site layout, revised equipment details, revised planting layout, a Landscape Statement, an updated Landscape and Visual Assessment, an updated Noise Impact Assessment and an Archaeological Investigation. The Council has reviewed the updated details and proposal as set out below. The Council notes that a variety of supporting documents have not been updated to take account of the revised proposal including the applicant’s design statement and supporting planning statement. An updated description of the development has not been set out and as no documents have been superseded within the online case file, the Council does not consider it to be clear what the proposal currently comprises. The updated Landscape and Visual Impact submission has been Emailed to the Council but at the time of writing does not form part of the online case file. Its status is therefore uncertain. For the avoidance of doubt, this updated response is based solely on the updated submission and documents received since the Council’s previous response was issued on 13th May 2024, including the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment received by Email. ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 4 Page 62
Page 63
This updated response requires to be read in conjunction with the Council’s original consultation response dated 13th May 2024. There is no change to the in relation to the impact upon the Kilpatrick Hills, traffic and road safety, flood risk, built and cultural heritage, and health and safety. Whilst there was no objection from the Council in respect of these matters, a number of points were highlighted and the position regarding these matters stand. It remains that if the Scottish Ministers were minded to grant consent, the Council would expect the Council’s comments to be taken into account. This updated response focuses on the Council’s previous points of objection relating to the Green Belt location of the development, visual impact, impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species, potential impact upon the users of the core path network, potential impact upon adjacent residential amenity and the failure to provide a decommissioning and restoration scheme. Site description and development proposal There is no change to the application site itself and it remains that this extends to approximately 29 hectares and is situated on land at Whitehall Farm, Cochno Road, East Dunbartonshire. The site lies immediately north and east of the local authority boundary which follows the line of Cochno Road at this location. The site itself is located within the open countryside comprising part of the Green Belt as defined by the adopted East Dunbartonshire Local Development Pan 2. To the south, the site is bound by Cochno Road with Whitehill Farm located directly adjacent to the southeast of the site. To the west, the site is bound by Cochno Road along its southern extent before following the general line of Lower Stourfold Glen. The northern and eastern boundaries of the site generally cut across open land before following the existing tree line to Cochno Road. The nearest residential properties within West Dunbartonshire are the houses directly opposite the site at Edinbarnet, Cochno Road. Properties at Craigton Street, Burnbrae Street, Craighaw Street and Field Road lie around 170 metres from the southernmost boundary of the proposed site. Loansdean, Cochno Road is around 200 metres from the site. The proposal is for a 560 MW Battery Energy Storage Facility with associated infrastructure. It is indicated that the development would have an operational lifespan of 40 years. It remains that as per the original proposal, the development would comprise a number of containerised units to house battery energy storage systems and associated ancillary infrastructure. Each container will have the appearance similar to ISO/shipping container and would likely be finished in dark grey or green and would be prefabricated off-site. The containers would be accessed via an external galvanised metal open grid walkway supported by stairs and railings and include external air conditioning units. The dimensions of the containers have been amended from being 2.6m x 2.4m x 12.2m, to being 2.9m x 2.4m x 6.1m (height x depth x width). Power conversion system (PCS) units are of the same size and take a similar appearance. No updated description of the equipment to be located on site has been provided. However, from the updated site plan, it is clear that the equipment will be provided in 64 banks of 6 units. It remains that the proposal will feature a control room, sub-station compound, sub-station building. Separate switchgear compounds are no longer proposed. The access point to the development also remains located on Cochno Road, to the western edge of the site. In an effort to reduce the potential for adverse landscape and visual impacts and address the concerns raised in the consultation responses, the applicant has revised the proposed site layout. The revised site layout reduces the overall development footprint by utilising a more efficient battery system and also a reduction in the developed footprint of the sub-station area. The revised site layout increases the offsets of the development from the site boundary and this allows for additional landscape buffers ranging from 30 metres to 65 metres in depth, with built elements and fence lines set well back from the edge of the site. This allows the applicant to propose additional mitigation planting proposals in an attempt to screen the development Page 63
Page 64
within the landscape from those to the south and south east of the site, including those utilising the core path to the east of the site. Appraisal This application has been submitted to the Scottish Government under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as it is development with a generating capacity of over 50MW. Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the application is made under the Electricity Act 1989 and therefore the Development Plan does not have the primacy in the determination of the application. It does, however, provide a basis for the assessment of this proposal and it is established practice to take the development plan into account in such decisions. The development plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 and adopted East Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. Principle of Development There is no change to the position of National Planning Framework (NPF) 4 since the Council’s previous consultation response and it remains that 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 states that there is a need to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis, whilst Policy 2 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. The electricity transmitted for storage within the proposed batteries will have come from a mixture of renewable and non-renewable sources with the purpose of the batteries to ensure there is always grid stability. As renewable energy becomes more prevalent, grid stability becomes a significant issue due to the intermittent nature of renewable energy generation. As set out in the previous response, the Council considers that the proposal could be held to support the overarching aims of the NPF4 to achieve net zero targets and provide a stable domestic energy supply, but it must be ensured that such development happens in the right place. Therefore, it must be assessed if there are any potential adverse impacts upon West Dunbartonshire resulting from the proposed development which would be outweighed by any benefits. Policy 11(e) of NPF4 sets out in detail the matters for the project design and mitigation to address. Landscape and Visual Impact and impact on the Green Belt In originally considering the proposal, it was noted that the site is situated within the Green Belt to the north of the settlement of Faifley. Policy 8 of NPF4 sets out the types of development that are supported within the Green Belt locations. This includes essential infrastructure, and proposals that relates to the distribution and transmission of electricity grid networks fall under this definition. However, Policy 8 is clear that for development proposals in Green Belt locations, the purpose of the Green Belt must not be undermined. Policy 11 additionally seeks to encourage, promote, and facilitate all forms of renewable energy development, including energy storage and distribution infrastructure. The Policy sets out a Page 64
Page 65
range of criteria that proposals should be assessed against to ensure the impact of the project design and mitigation is addressed. This includes ensuring there is no adverse impact on landscape and visual impact. Policy 8 requires that the reasons why the Green Belt is essential must be provided together with why the development cannot be provided on a site outwith the Green Belt. It was previously acknowledged that the site has been chosen due to it’s proximity to appropriate grid connections. It is accepted that there is a requirement for battery storage sites to be located close to a viable grid connection with sufficient capacity to import and export power. In this case, while this is accepted from a technical perspective and the proximity of the site to both the Drumchapel sub-station and Windyhill sub-station which lie 3.17kms and 560m to the south east respectively is acknowledged, the applicant has not provided any analysis of other site options that were considered outside of the Green Belt and why it was not possible to locate them in an alternative place. No additional supporting documentation has been submitted by the applicant in this respect. It therefore remains that it cannot be concluded that no other suitable sites are available in a location outwith the Green Belt. Policy 8 further requires that proposals must be compatible with the established countryside and landscape and be designed to ensure that it is of an appropriate scale, massing and external appearance to minimise visual impact upon the Green Belt. In assessing the original proposal, the Council considered that the industrial character of the development will result in visual harm to the locality resulting in the industrialisation of the Green Belt and that this would not be acceptable. In an effort to address the potentially adverse visual impact resulting from the development, a revised site layout which reduces footprint and massing of the development has been submitted by the applicant. The revised site layout also moves the developed area away from the site boundaries and sensitive visual receptors, including nearby residential properties in Faifley to the south. Additional landscape mitigation is proposed in the form of extensive planting. It remains, however, that a development of this nature would have a visual impact sand this is not in doubt. The applicant has provided a Landscape Statement together with an updated Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which is reflective of the revised proposal. It remains that the area is identified as currently having a rural characteristic with significant woodland vegetation, notably including linear bands of trees and woodland associated with local watercourses and burns, together with blocks of woodland. Despite the amended proposal, the applicant’s updated LVIA acknowledges that the baseline landscape character of the site would still be altered as a result of the proposed development and this would have an impact upon landscape character, during both the construction and operation phases. The Council was previously concerned at the potential for the industrial character of the development and the harm to the visual harm to the locality, resulting in the industrialisation of the Green Belt at this location. Whilst the proposed landscape mitigation was acknowledged, the site is in close proximity to the settlement boundary of Faifley and visually, the development as previously proposed would likely have been viewed in the context of the adjacent settlement. The revised proposal sees a reduction in the development footprint within the wider application site. The applicant’s updated LVIA notes that approximately 6 hectares of the wider site will be developed, with the remaining 75% of the site retained as green infrastructure. The battery storage infrastructure will be surrounded in its entirety with new native woodland planting and this will create a significant visual buffer once established, and link to other woodland areas in the vicinity of the site. To the south and southwest of the site open areas will be retained and seeded with a mix of grasses and wildflowers. New hedgerow planting will be Page 65
Page 66
provided to Cochno Road together with a stone wall. Hedgerow planting is also proposed to an open section of the eastern boundary along the core path. It remains the case that landscape and visual impacts will occur during the construction phase and this is accepted. During the early years of the operational phase, the new landscape works will not yet be established and there will be limited screening of the site. Notwithstanding this, the reduction in the development area will ensure that the visual impact within the landscape at this time is reduced in comparison to the original proposal. The LVIA identifies that by 15 years, planting will have established providing screening of the development within the wider landscape. Where views are still available, the development would be seen with a well wooded backdrop. 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. As more energy sources are now renewable, such as wind and solar, balancing generation versus demand is a critical issue for grid stability. Battery storage solutions such as this proposal allows energy to be stored during peak renewable generation periods and released when demand outstrips generation, thus contributing to renewable energy targets. Whilst landscape and visual impacts will still arise from the revised proposal, the reduced development footprint, enhanced landscape mitigation and additional separation from the settlement boundary of Faifley reduces the impact. The development is no longer considered to be viewed in the context of the adjacent settlement and an industrialisation of the Green Belt at this location is not longer of such a concern that an adverse impact will occur to the West Dunbartonshire Area which outweighs the benefits of the development in respect of the contribution to renewable energy targets. The Council does, however, expect that in the event that the Scottish Ministers are minded to grant consent, robust conditions are applied to ensure the implementation, retention and maintenance of the planting and landscape mitigation proposed. Notwithstanding the updated position relating to the potential for landscape and visual impact, it remains that the applicant has not considered or addressed the Council’s previous point of objection relating to the failure to demonstrated that there are no other suitable sites available for such a development in a location outwith the Green Belt. If an alternative location was available, no landscape and visual impact would result in the proposed location. Accordingly, the development cannot currently be held to be supported by Policy 8(a)(ii) of NPF4. Ecology, biodiversity and protected species Policy 3 of NPF4 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets, making best use of nature-based solutions. The policy is primarily focused on designated areas including sites designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area. Policy 11 also requires biodiversity impact to be addressed. The applicant’s preliminary ecological appraisal was previously considered by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and this failed to identify the adjacent LNCS within West Dunbartonshire and assess the potential cross boundary impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species within West Dunbartonshire. It therefore could not be concluded that adverse impacts would not occur within the West Dunbartonshire area. Accordingly, the Council did not consider that the proposal could be held to be supported by Policies 3, 4 or 11(e)(ix) of NPF4. No updated surveys or information have been received in respect of the points raised in the Council’s previous consultation response and the position of the previous response with respect to ecology, biodiversity and protected species and potential impact within the West Dunbartonshire Area remains. Page 66
Page 67
Residential amenity As per the previous response, there is the potential for amenity impacts to occur to residents within West Dunbartonshire. The revised site layout results in the developed area being marginally further away from the closest residential properties being at Edinbarnet on Cochno Road together with properties in Faifley. Policy 11 of NPF4 requires that impacts on communities and individual dwellings including residential amenity, and noise are addressed. A noise impact assessment (NIA) was submitted in respect of the original proposal and this was considered by the Council’s Environmental Health Service. A number of points and inadequacies were highlighted in respect of the noise impact assessment and it could not be concluded that no adverse impact would occur to residential properties. The proposed micro siting of up to 100 metres was not acknowledged within the NIA and there was no consideration of the impacts from different configurations of equipment. The Council could not conclude that it had been demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity resulting from the operation of the development and raised concerns in this respect. An updated Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted. This has been reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Health Service who advise that they are happy to accept the findings of the report and that noise disturbance would not occur and no noise mitigation is necessary. It is further noted that the NIA no longer refers to any flexibility in the layout of siting of the units within the development. Accordingly, the development requires to be completed in the same configuration as was used to model the noise data (i.e. the updated site layout on which the revised NIA was based). It is noted that as the applicant’s planning supporting statement has not yet been updated to take into account the revised proposal and still makes reference to micro-siting of up to 100 metres. The Council advises that there requires to be an updated submission which removes this reference. As with any modelled noise data for an NIA, Environmental Health recommend post installation verification checks that the actual noise levels correlate with what was modelled. The Council would request such an approach is required via condition in the event that the Scottish Ministers are minded to grant consent. The Council’s position in respect of hours of work during the construction phase remains as per the original response. Impact upon the core path network Policy 11 of NPF4 requires matters relating to public access including long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes to be suitably addressed. The Council’s previous response noted that a variety of core paths connect Faifley to the open countryside via Cochno Road. The applicant’s supporting documents identified that East Dunbartonshire core path ED/153/1 which is located to the south and east of the site and extending northeast from Cochno Road, noting that only minor visual effects would occur in respect of users of this core path. This East Dunbartonshire Core Path connects with the West Dunbartonshire Core Path network to the opposite side of Cochno Road. The applicant’s submission did not consider the impact on the core path network and connections to the core path network within West Dunbartonshire. While no routes are physically interrupted by the proposal, there is the potential for visual and noise impact to users of the routes, and a change to the character of the routes. With the reduction in the developed area of the site together with additional landscape mitigation proposed, it is considered that the visual amenity impacts on core path users would now be acceptable. It remains, however, that Cochno Road acts as a connection between all of the core path routes at this location and there is still no consideration of the impact of construction traffic to users of these routes. A robust construction traffic management plan which has a specific focus on the impact upon all users of Cochno Road including those connecting between core path routes would be required, with safe routes established for such Page 67
Page 68
connections during construction. In the event the Scottish Ministers were minded to grant consent for the development, the Council considers that such an approach is imperative to allow it to be concluded that the potential impact upon the core path network has been addressed as required by Policy 11(e)(iii). Site Decommissioning and Restoration Policy 11(e)(xi) of NPF4 requires matters relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration to be addressed. The applicant has indicated that the intended lifetime of the proposal is 40 years, after which the facility will be decommissioned and the land restored to its former state. However, it was noted in the Council’s previous response that no other information regarding this has been submitted. It remains that no additional details relating to decommissioning has been provided. The applicant’s Supporting Statement sets out that at the end of the operational period the site will be decommissioned and the land restored to it’s former state. The updated LVIA advises that following the completion of the operational phase, the components of the battery storage may be removed and landscape effects potentially reversed, and this leaves a question over the extent of any decommissioning. Whilst it is accepted that the provision and implementation of a detailed restoration scheme could be addressed by an appropriate legal agreement or condition, the Council remains concerned at the lack of a clear commitment in respect of the decommissioning and restoration of the site, and an overall approach for this. The Council considers that any restoration scheme would require to be of an extent that achieves a complete reversal of any landscape harm that occurs. Given the extensive cut and fill proposed to accommodate the development, the restoration would require to include substantial ground works to ensure the restoration of the landform to its original profile following the removal of all hardstanding, infrastructure and equipment. The Council considers that it is essential that given the type of development together with its size and location, that details of the approach to de-commissioning and site restoration is provided to ensure that the requirements of Policy 11(e)(xi) of NPF4 are met. It remains that in the event that the Scottish Ministers were minded to grant consent for the development, the Council considers that there is the requirement for a financial bond to ensure sufficient funds are available to decommission and restore the site. If the developer was to go out of business with unfinished works potentially being left this can be safeguarded by ensuring that a bond or other financial provision is to put in place to cover such an eventuality. The bond or other financial provision would address reinstatement works both in the event of a developer failing or being unable to complete restoration works together with any failure in the aftercare arrangements associated with the site restoration. The Council also considers that in the event that the development fails to export electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months it will be considered to have become redundant and the components of the development removed and the site restored. In the event that consent was granted, the Council considers it essential that that this requirement is to be addressed by a condition. Impact upon the Kilpatrick Hills, Traffic and Road Safety, Flood Risk, Built and Cultural Heritage, and Health and Safety The Council’s position on these matters remains as per the response dated 13th May 2024. Summary and conclusions In the original consultation response, the Council set out that it considered that that proposals such as this can be held to support the overarching aims of the NPF4 to achieve net zero targets and provide a stable domestic energy supply. The support as a national development is also acknowledged. However, it remains that such development require to be sited in the Page 68
Page 69
right locations and the benefits of such developments require to be balanced with any potential adverse impacts. A variety of concerns did arise. A revised proposal with updated LVIA has been submitted by the applicant. Following full consideration, it is concluded that whilst landscape and visual impacts will still arise from the revised proposal, the reduced development footprint, enhanced landscape mitigation and additional separation from the settlement boundary of Faifley reduces the impact. The development is no longer considered to be viewed in the context of the adjacent settlement and an industrialisation of the Green Belt at this location is not longer of such a concern that an adverse impact will occur to the West Dunbartonshire Area which outweighs the benefits of the development in respect of the contribution to renewable energy targets. It remains that the applicant has not considered or addressed the Council’s previous point of objection relating to the failure to demonstrated that there are no other suitable sites available for such a development in a location outwith the Green Belt. If an alternative location was available, no landscape and visual impact would result in the proposed location. Accordingly, the development cannot currently be held to be supported by Policy 8(a)(ii) of NPF4. Turning to the impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species, no updated surveys or information have been received in respect of the points raised in the previous consultation response and the position of the previous response with respect to ecology, biodiversity and protected species and potential impact within the West Dunbartonshire area. It therefore remains that it cannot be concluded that adverse impacts would not occur within the West Dunbartonshire area. The development cannot, therefore, be held to be supported by Policies 3, 4 and 11(e)(iii)(ix). Considering the impact on the core path network, with the reduced development footprint together with enhanced landscape mitigation, it is considered that the visual amenity impacts on core path users would now be acceptable. It remains that Cochno Road acts as a connection between the various core path routes at this location and the impact of construction traffic to users of these routes has not been considered or addressed. However, the Council could accept this matter being addressed as part of a comprehensive construction traffic management plan in the event that consent was to be granted. With regard to residential amenity, the Council considers that the updated NIA now demonstrates that there will be no impact upon residential amenity within West Dunbartonshire by way of noise. This is based on the position of the NIA which no longer refers to any flexibility in the layout of siting of the units within the development. Accordingly, the development requires to be completed in the same configuration as was used to model the noise data (i.e. the updated site layout on which the revised NIA was based. Finally, it remains that the Council considers it essential that given the type of development together with its size and location, that details of de-commissioning and site restoration are provided to ensure that the requirements of Policy 11(e)(i) of NPF4 are met. There are no further submissions in this respect since the Council’s previous response. Some aspects of the Council’s concerns which formed part of the previous objection have been addressed, including visual impact and the impact upon residential amenity. However, the applicant has failed to address other concerns and West Dunbartonshire Council therefore maintains its objection to this proposal with reference to the above concerns relating to the Green Belt location of the development, impact upon ecology, biodiversity and protected species and the failure to provide a decommissioning and restoration scheme. Page 69
Page 70
1 Bar Lane York YO1 6JU +44 (0)1904 629258 27 Old Gloucester Street London WC1N 3AX +44 (0)207 419 5113 admin@aahplanning.com www.aahplanning.com Dear Energy Consents Unit, WHITEHALL BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) – CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 560MW BESS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBSTATION, SECURITY FENCING, CCTV, SECURITY LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING ON LAND NEAR COCHNO ROAD, EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE, G81 5QS. GRID REFERENCE: X 251107, Y 673995 ECU REFERENCE: ECU00004982 We write with reference to our application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for a 560MW BESS with associated infrastructure on land near Cochno Road, East Dunbartonshire, G81 5QS. We are aware that West Dunbartonshire Council (WDC) has been consulted as an adjoining authority and that the authority has provided a formal response as part of this consultation process. WDC considered the proposal at its meeting of the Planning Committee on 11 December 2024 and resolved to maintain its original objection (albeit on reduced grounds). Having reviewed this further formal response we are of the opinion that only 3 matters form the basis of the remaining objection which we address separately below. Green Belt Location We provide a document “Additional Supporting Statement” dated December 2024 which sets out the prevalent planning policy context against which BESS development proposals in the Green Belt should be assessed; the primary locational requirements of BESS development and analysis of the general area around the identified Point of Connection (POC) substation. This clearly demonstrates that a) BESS development is “essential infrastructure” for the purposes of applying Green Belt policy and b) no other sites within closer proximity to the POV are available which are outwith the Green Belt. In this context, the site of the proposed development is appropriate and fully justified. 18 December 2024 Energy Consents Unit 5 Atlantic Quay 150 Broomielaw Glasgow G2 8LU ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 5 Page 70
Page 71
Ecology and Environmental Impact We provide an updated PEA which addresses the concerns raised in relation to impacts outside the application site. No further impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation is required. We would remind the ECU that the application has already been the subject of a Screening Request and the development has not been identified as EIA development. As such the application is not likely to lead to any significant environmental effects. Post-Operational Treatment WDC maintain an objection on the basis of the lack of detail on de-commissioning proposals when operations cease on site. In relation to this item, it is common practice that this is dealt with via pre-commencement planning condition, with detailed decommissioning information and bond to be agreed post-permission but prior to commencement of development. This is the approach commonly taken by the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) – see conditions 8 and 9 of the attached BESS decisions (Linwood and Stanely Water). It is clear from the above that the ECU is happy for a bond and decommissioning details to be agreed post-permission but prior to commencement of development. Such an approach should be adopted here. We assume that the ECU will reconsult WDC and East Dunbartonshire Council on the basis of this information. Yours sincerely, Rob Crolla B.A (Hons), DipTP, MTP, MRTPI Development Director www.aahconsultants.co.uk Enc: Additional Supporting Statement – December 2024 Updated PEA Example decisions on decommissioning Page 71
Page 72
1 Bar Lane York YO1 6JU +44 (0)1904 629258 27 Old Gloucester Street London WC1N 3AX +44 (0)207 419 5113 admin@aahplanning.com www.aahplanning.com Dear Energy Consents Unit, WHITEHALL BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) – CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 560MW BESS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBSTATION, SECURITY FENCING, CCTV, SECURITY LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING ON LAND NEAR COCHNO ROAD, EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE, G81 5QS. GRID REFERENCE: X 251107, Y 673995 ECU REFERENCE: ECU00004982 We write with reference to our application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for a 560MW BESS with associated infrastructure on land near Cochno Road, East Dunbartonshire, G81 5QS. We are aware that West Dunbartonshire Council (WDC) has been consulted as an adjoining authority and that the authority has provided a formal response as part of this consultation process. WDC considered the proposal at its meeting of the Planning Committee on 11 December 2024 and resolved to maintain its original objection (albeit on reduced grounds). Having reviewed this further formal response we are of the opinion that only 3 matters form the basis of the remaining objection which we address separately below. Green Belt Location We provide a document “Additional Supporting Statement” dated December 2024 which sets out the prevalent planning policy context against which BESS development proposals in the Green Belt should be assessed; the primary locational requirements of BESS development and analysis of the general area around the identified Point of Connection (POC) substation. This clearly demonstrates that a) BESS development is “essential infrastructure” for the purposes of applying Green Belt policy and b) no other sites within closer proximity to the POV are available which are outwith the Green Belt. In this context, the site of the proposed development is appropriate and fully justified. 18 December 2024 Energy Consents Unit 5 Atlantic Quay 150 Broomielaw Glasgow G2 8LU ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 6 Page 72
Page 73
Ecology and Environmental Impact We provide an updated PEA which addresses the concerns raised in relation to impacts outside the application site. No further impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation is required. We would remind the ECU that the application has already been the subject of a Screening Request and the development has not been identified as EIA development. As such the application is not likely to lead to any significant environmental effects. Post-Operational Treatment WDC maintain an objection on the basis of the lack of detail on de-commissioning proposals when operations cease on site. In relation to this item, it is common practice that this is dealt with via pre-commencement planning condition, with detailed decommissioning information and bond to be agreed post-permission but prior to commencement of development. This is the approach commonly taken by the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) – see conditions 8 and 9 of the attached BESS decisions (Linwood and Stanely Water). It is clear from the above that the ECU is happy for a bond and decommissioning details to be agreed post-permission but prior to commencement of development. Such an approach should be adopted here. We assume that the ECU will reconsult WDC and East Dunbartonshire Council on the basis of this information. Yours sincerely, Rob Crolla B.A (Hons), DipTP, MTP, MRTPI Development Director www.aahconsultants.co.uk Enc: Additional Supporting Statement – December 2024 Updated PEA Example decisions on decommissioning Page 73
Page 74
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Drumchapel Ref: RDECO00078/208/01/D Date: 13.12.24 Prepared For: GPC 013 Ltd Prepared By: Dawn Thompson BSc (Hons) MCIEEM MECW Rhys Newell ACIEEM Helen Crossley BSc (Hons) MCIEEM ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 7 Page 74
Page 75
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 2 of 32 Copyright © 2024 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of GPC 013 Ltd. The report shall not be distributed or made available to any other company or person without the knowledge and written consent of GPC 013 Ltd or R & D Ecology Ltd. No part of this document may be reproduced or altered without the prior written approval of R & D Ecology Ltd. Page 75
Page 76
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 3 of 32 Contents 1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 4 2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Site Description ................................................................................................................................... 5 Scope of the Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 5 Statement of Authority ....................................................................................................................... 6 3. Legislation, Policy and Guidance ..................................................................................................... 7 Legislation and Policy .......................................................................................................................... 7 Guidance Documents .......................................................................................................................... 8 4. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 10 Study Areas........................................................................................................................................ 10 Desk Study ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Field Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 13 5. Baseline Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 14 Designated Sites ................................................................................................................................ 14 Habitats ............................................................................................................................................. 17 Species............................................................................................................................................... 24 6. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 28 Designated Sites ................................................................................................................................ 28 Habitats ............................................................................................................................................. 28 Species............................................................................................................................................... 29 7. Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A – Maps ............................................................................................................................ 32 Appendix B – Biological Records ........................................................................................................ 32 Appendix C – Site Photographs ......................................................................................................... 32 Page 76
Page 77
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 4 of 32 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) has been undertaken for the proposed development at lands near Concho Road, East Dumbartonshire. The aims of this report are to provide a current baseline of the Application Site, identify any actual or potential habitat and species constraints pertinent to the Development, and outline recommendations for avoidance, mitigation, compensation (where necessary) and enhancement for ecology. 1.2. All surveys and assessments have been undertaken with the relevant best practice guidance, including guidance set out by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). 1.3. The Proposed Development does not lie within or adjacent to any statutory designated environmental sites. Within 15km of the Application Site there are four Natura 2000 designated sites; one SAC and three SPAs. Within 5km of the Application Site there are twelve other environmental designated sites; seven SSSIs, one Ramsar, three LNRs and one CP. 1.4. An extended phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken on 21st June 2023, which identified eleven habitat types within the survey area. Habitats include (but not limited to) B2.2 Semi- improved neutral grassland, B4 Improved grassland, A1.1.1 Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland, B5 Marshy grassland, A2.1 Continuous scrub, A2.2 Scattered scrub, A3.1 Scattered broadleaved trees and G2 Running water. 1.5. During the site visit, the habitats were assessed for their potential to support protected and notable species present within the local area. 1.6. From the current survey findings and the information collected during the desk-based assessment, it is considered that with the implementation of the recommended measures outlined within this report, no significant negative impacts will occur for protected or notable habitats/species. 1.7. The creation of drystone walls, log piles and/or bug box/hotels and implementation of wildlife boxes including bird and bat boxes within the woodland area would lead to a biodiversity gain. Page 77
Page 78
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 5 of 32 2. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND 2.1. R & D Ecology Ltd. have been appointed by GPC 013 Ltd (the “Applicant”) to undertake a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) for a proposed battery storage development (the “Proposed Development”) on lands near Concho Road, East Dumbartonshire, G81 5QS (the “Application Site”). SITE DESCRIPTION 2.2. The site comprises of agricultural grass fields with woodland and scrub, with the adjacent landscape also comprising of similar habitats. Waterways are present to the east, west and south of the Site Boundary, which provides hydrological connectivity with the wider landscape. SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT 2.3. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) is the term used to describe a rapid assessment of the ecological features present, or potentially present, within a site and its surrounding area (the zone(s) of influence in relation to a specific project. 2.4. The key objectives of a PEA are to: ▪ identify the likely ecological constraints associated with a project; ▪ identify any mitigation measures likely to be required; ▪ identify any additional surveys that may be required to inform an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA); and ▪ identify the opportunities offered by a project to deliver ecological enhancement. Page 78
Page 79
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 6 of 32 STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY 2.5. Dawn Thompson is an experienced ecologist with over sixteen years of experience in ecological surveys and assessments and holds a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Biology. Dawn is a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM), and the Association of Environmental Clerks of Works (AECoW). Dawn has experience in undertaking and managing a range of surveys including badger, otter, ornithological, and other protected/notable species. Dawn also has also undertaken various assessments including Ecological Impacts Assessments, Natura Impact Assessments / Appropriate Assessments, extended phase 1 habitat, for a large number of projects. These numerous projects include a variety of developments such as renewables, residential, mixed-use, utility, roads and flood prevention schemes. Dawn is experienced in Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and regularly uses QGIS to produce maps for reports and surveying. Dawn is also a qualified tree climber for undertaking aerial preliminary roost assessments within trees. 2.6. Rhys Newell has over six years ecological surveying experience, including red squirrel, badger, otter, beaver, breeding birds, bats and phase 1 habitat surveys. Rhys is an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Projects that Rhys has worked on include a flood prevention scheme, renewables, residential and commercial developments. Rhys has experience of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and regularly uses QGIS to produce maps for reports and surveying and has completed a course in advanced thermal imaging techniques. Rhys is a qualified tree climber for undertaking aerial preliminary roost assessments within trees. 2.7. Helen Crossley has a BSc (Hons) in Botany and is a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Helen has varied experience in ecology and environmental management gained from working for an environmental consultancy and her own company. This has involved conducting; botanical surveys including: Phase 1 habitat, National Vegetation Classification (NVC), condition assessments and vascular plant surveys; protected species surveys: bat, badger, great crested newt, otter, water vole and red squirrel; herbivore impact assessment surveys and working as an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW). Report production includes; survey reports for extended Phase 1 and NVC, Ecological Impact Assessments (EcIA), habitat management plans and feasibility studies. Helen has experience of various Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and regularly uses QGIS to produce maps for reports and surveying. Page 79
Page 80
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 7 of 32 3. LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE LEGISLATION AND POLICY 3.1. This ecological assessment has been undertaken with regard appropriate legislation: ▪ Wildlife and Countryside Act 19811 ▪ The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 20192 ▪ Invasive Non-native Species (EU Exit) Scotland (Amendment etc.) Regulations3 ▪ Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 20044 ▪ Environment Act 19955 ▪ Conservation of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended)6 ▪ Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 20047; ▪ The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 20118; ▪ The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 20039 (as amended) (WEWS); ▪ Land Use Strategy for Scotland (2011)10 ▪ National Planning Framework 411; and ▪ The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 201712. 1 Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 2 Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2019/64/introduction/made 3 Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/473/contents/made 4 Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/6/contents?text=nature%20conservation#match-1 5 Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/25/contents?text=Environment%20Act%20#match-1 6 Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/contents?text=badgers#match-1 7Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/6/contents 8 Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2011/6/contents/enacted 9 Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/3/contents 10 Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/environment/countryside/landusestrategy 11 National Planning Framework 4 - gov.scot (www.gov.scot) 12 Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2017/102/contents/made Page 80
Page 81
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 8 of 32 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity13 3.2. The British Standards Institute has published BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity. Code of Practice for Planning and Development which offers a coherent methodology for biodiversity management. This document seeks to promote transparency and consistency in the quality and appropriateness of ecological information submitted with planning applications and applications for other regulatory approvals. 3.3. BS 42020:2013 cites CIEEM EcIA Guidelines as the acknowledged reference on ecological impact assessment. These guidelines are consistent with the British Standard on Biodiversity, which provides recommendations on topics such as professional practice, proportionality, pre-application discussions, ecological surveys, adequacy of ecological information, reporting and monitoring. CIEEM Guidelines 3.4. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) have produced guidance on Preliminary Ecological Appraisal14 (PEA), and Ecological Report Writing15. 3.5. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) is the term used to describe a rapid assessment of the ecological features present, or potentially present, within a site and its surrounding area (the zone(s) of influence in relation to a specific project. A PEA normally comprises a desk study and an extended phase 1 habitat survey. Other Guidelines / Documents ▪ Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey16 ▪ Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition)17; ▪ Legally protected species UK18 ▪ Bat Roosts in Trees19 ▪ Birds of Conservation Concern UK20 13 BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity. Code of practice for planning and development 14 CIEEM (2017) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. 15 CIEEM (2017) Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing 16 JNCC (2003) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for environmental audit. JNCC, Peterborough 17 Collins, J. (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines17 (3rd edition). Bat Conservation Trust 18 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-3415 19 BTHK (2018) Bat Roosts in Trees – A Guide to Identification and Assessment for Tree-Care and Ecology Professionals. 20 http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/status_explained.aspx Page 81
Page 82
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 9 of 32 ▪ Monitoring the Otter Lutra Lutra21 ▪ Surveying for Badgers – Good Practice Guidelines22 ▪ Surveying for Red Squirrels23 ▪ The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook24 ▪ Surveying for Pine Marten25 ▪ The Eurasian Beaver Handbook26 ▪ UK BAP Mammals: Interim Guidance for Survey Methodologies, Impact Assessment and Mitigation 27 ▪ Developing with Nature Guidance28 21 Chanin, P. (2003). Monitoring the Otter Lutra Lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers, Monitoring Series (No. 10). 22 Scottish Badgers (2018) Surveying for Badgers – Good Practice Guidelines 23 Gurnell J, et al (2009). Forestry Commission Practice Note 11. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. 24 Dean, M., Strachan, R. Gow, D. and Andrews, R. (2016). The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (Mammal Society Mitigation Guidance Series). 25 UK BAP Mammals: Intrim Guidance for Survey Methodologies, Impact Assessment and Mitigation (2012) 26 Cmpbell-Palmer et al. (2016) The Eurasian Beaver Handbook – Ecology and Management of Castor fiber 27 Wheeler et al. (2012) UK BAP Mammals: Interim Guidance for Survey Methodologies, Impact Assessment and Mitigation 28 NatureScot (2023) Develioping with Nature Guidance - Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot Page 82
Page 83
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 10 of 32 4. METHODOLOGY STUDY AREAS 4.1. Various ecological study areas (ESA) have been assessed during different sections of this PEA for the Proposed Development, following standard best practice measures. Each study area is outlined within Table 4-1 below. Table 4-1: Study Areas Zone of Influence Distance from Application Site Natura 2000 designated sites 15km All other designated sites 5km Biological Records 2km Phase 1 Habitat Survey Application Site Species Scoping Survey 50m 4.2. The study areas are considered to be sufficient to cover the potential zone of influence (ZoI) of the Proposed Development. DESK STUDY 4.3. A desk-based assessment was undertaken on 14th June 2023 to collate available ecological information for the Application Site and the surrounding area. This included a search of statutory designated sites within a 5km radius of the Proposed Development, including: Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), National Nature Reserves (NNRs), RAMSAR Sites and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs). In addition, all Natura 2000 designates sites (SPAs and SACs) have been included within 15km of the Application Site. The descriptions of each of these sites was obtained utilising the NatureScot website29. 4.4. National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway website30 was also searched for historical species records within 2km of the Proposed Development on 14th June 2023. 29 NatureScot SiteLink. Available at: https://sitelink.nature.scot/home 30 Available at: Explore Your Area | NBN Atlas Page 83
Page 84
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 11 of 32 FIELD SURVEY Phase 1 Habitat Survey 4.5. An extended phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken on the 21st June 2023 by Helen Crossley BSc (Hons) MCIEEM. This survey covered all land within the Application Site and wider land ownership (the ecological survey area). Survey work was carried out in accordance with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) guidelines in order to produce a phase 1 habitat map, which is contained within Figure 3, Appendix A of this document. Target notes have been used to highlight features of importance, and habitats too small to clearly demonstrate on the map. 4.6. This habitat classification method provides a standardised system to record and map semi- natural vegetation and other wildlife habitats to assess the potential importance for nature conservation. Ground Water Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems 4.7. The Functional Wetland Typology manual was reviewed to aid in the identification of wetland habitats which are reliant on ground water and surface water. Any wetland habitat observed within the ESA was assessed to determine whether it was a Ground Water Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystem (GWDTE). Species Scoping Survey 4.8. The potential for supporting protected, rare or notable species within each of the habitats was noted. 4.9. In the context of this report, rare, protected, or otherwise notable species of flora or fauna were those considered to meet any of the following criteria: ▪ Species protected by UK or European legislation; ▪ UK Post 2010 UK Biodiversity Framework priority species or Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) species; ▪ Nationally rare or nationally scarce species; ▪ Species of Conservation Concern (e.g. JNCC Red List, RSPB/BTO Red or Amber Lists). 4.10. The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended, makes it an offence to release or allow to escape into the wild any animal, plant or micro-organism not ordinarily resident in the UK (as listed in Schedule 9 of the Act). Plant species listed in Schedule 9 were searched for during Page 84
Page 85
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 12 of 32 the survey. Examples include species such as giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum), Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) and Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera). 4.11. Table 4-2 below outlines the relevant habitat and field signs that indicate the presence of protected or notable species within the survey area. Table 4-2: Indicative Habitats and Field Signs Species Indicative Habitat(s) Field Signs Bats Roosts – trees, buildings, bridges, caves, etc. Foraging habitats – woodland, hedgerow, water bodies, parkland, grassland etc. In or on potential roost sites: droppings stuck to walls, urine spotting in roof spaces, oil from fur staining round roost entrances, feeding remains (e.g. moth wings under a feeding perch). Badger Found in most rural and many urban habitats. Excavations and tracks, sett entrances, latrines, hairs, well-worn paths, prints, scratch marks on trees. Otter Watercourses and adjacent habitats. Holts, above ground resting places, prints, spraints, slide marks into watercourses, feeding signs (e.g. fish bones). Beaver Water courses and adjacent habitats. Lodge, dam, feeding signs, felled trees, prints and trails. Water vole Water bodies/water courses. Burrow entrances, prints, distinctive latrine areas, feeding signs (cropped ‘grazing lawns’ on water’s edge). Red squirrel Woodland. Dreys, feeding remains. Pine marten Woodland. Dens, scats, footprints. Reptiles Rough grassland, log and rubble piles. Shedded skins. Great crested newt Ponds within 500 m of suitable habitat within the Application Site. Suitable (terrestrial) habitat includes rough grassland, scrub and woodland, log and rubble piles and other debris, animal burrows. No specific field signs. Page 85
Page 86
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 13 of 32 Birds Trees, hedgerows, woodland, grassland, scrub and buildings etc. Nests, feathers, egg shells. Freshwater pearl muscles Waterways. Suitable substrate. Salmonids and other fish species Waterways. Suitable substrate. LIMITATIONS 4.12. Results of the assessment undertaken are representative of the time that surveying was undertaken. 4.13. The absence of records returned during the data search does not necessarily indicate absence of a species/habitat from an area, but rather that these have not been recorded or are perhaps under-recorded within the search area. 4.14. An Extended Phase 1 habitat survey does not aim to produce a full botanical or faunal species list or provide a full protected species survey but, enables competent ecologists to ascertain an understanding of the ecology of the Application Site in order to: ▪ Broadly identify the nature conservation value of a site and preliminary assess the significance of any potential impacts on habitat/species recorded; and/or ▪ Confirm the need and extent of any additional specific ecological surveys that are required to identify the true nature conservation value of a site. 4.15. All surveys were undertaken in suitable weather conditions, during the appropriate survey seasons. 4.16. No other limitations were encountered, or assumptions made during either the desk study or the field survey and it is considered that with the access gained and recording undertaken an accurate assessment of the site’s ecological value has been made. Page 86
Page 87
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 14 of 32 5. BASELINE CONDITIONS STATUTORY DESIGNATED SITES 5.1. The Proposed Development does not lie within or adjacent to any statutory designated environmental sites. Within 15km of the Application Site there are four Natura 2000 designated sites; one SAC and three SPAs. Within 5km of the Application Site there are twelve other environmental designated sites; seven SSSIs, one Ramsar, three LNRs and one CP. 5.2. Each of these sites are outlined in Table 5-1 below and can be found in Figure 2, Appendix A. The site descriptions are derived from the original site citations available from NatureScot, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). Table 5-1 Designated Sites Site Name Qualifying/Notable Features Distance and Direction Connectivity Manse Burn SSSI ▪ Permian – Carboniferous Fish/Amphibia 1.45km SE No Garscadden Wood LNR ▪ Purple hairstreak butterfly ▪ Common woodland birds ▪ Roe deer ▪ Red fox ▪ Bluebell 1.49km SE No Kilmardinny Loch LNR ▪ Habitat mosaic (wet & dry woodland & grassland) 3.24km E No Mugdock CP ▪ Woodland 3.28km NE No Craigallian Marshes SSSI ▪ Flood-plain fen 3.28km NE No Mugdock Wood SSSI ▪ Beetle assemblage ▪ Lowland dry heath 3.35km NE No Page 87
Page 88
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 15 of 32 Inner Clyde SPA ▪ Redshank (Tringa tetanus), non- breeding 3.84km SW No Inner Clyde Ramsar ▪ Redshank (Tringa tetanus), non- breeding 3.84km SW No Inner Clyde SSSI ▪ Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), non-breeding ▪ Eider (Somateria mollissima), non- breeding ▪ Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), non-breeding ▪ Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus), noon-breeding ▪ Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), non-breeding ▪ Red-throated diver (Gavia stellata), non-breeding ▪ Redshank (Tringa tetanus), non- breeding ▪ Salmarsh 3.88km SW Yes Loch Humphrey Burn SSSI ▪ Palaeozoic palaeobotany 4.07km W No The Saltings LNR ▪ Regenerated woodland and meadow, noted for its wetland habitats ▪ Orchids ▪ Common blue damselflies and common hawk dragonflies 4.47km W No Page 88
Page 89
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 16 of 32 ▪ Peacock and orange-tip butterflies ▪ Birds including cormorant, swan, grey heron, curlew and oystercatcher Dumbrock Loch Meadows SSSI ▪ Lowland neutral grassland 4.52km NE No Dumbarton Muir SSSI ▪ Upland habitat ▪ Raised bog 4.64km NW No Black Cart SPA ▪ Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), non-breeding 6.04km SW No Endrick Water SAC ▪ Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) ▪ Brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) ▪ River lamprey (Lampetra fluviatillis) 10.68km N No Loch Lomond SPA ▪ Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), breeding ▪ Greenland white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris), non- breeding 14.55km NW No 5.3. Where connectivity does not exist, there are no pathways for impacts. Therefore, only those designated sites with connectivity to the Application Site outlined above have been considered further in this assessment. Non-Statutory Designated Sites 5.4. Within 1km of the Application Site there are three non-statutory designed sites; Wester Cochno Parkland LNCS, Edibarnet Woodland LNCS and Wester Cochno Burn LNCS. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A for locations of each LNCS. Page 89
Page 90
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 17 of 32 5.5. Each of these designated sites falls within West Dumbartonshire Council. There are no non- statutory designed sites within the 1km study area present within East Dumbartonshire Council. Wester Cochno Parkland LNCS 5.6. Interest features: Old trees and common wildlife 5.7. Species rarity: common and widespread species 5.8. Reason for selection: central connection between Edinbarnet Wood and Wester Cochno Burn, which together make viable area of woodland and associated agricultural habitats. Extremely accessible to local residents. Edibarnet Woodland LNCS 5.9. Interest features: common wildlife and old trees 5.10. Species rarity: common woodland species 5.11. Reason for selection: good for general wildlife, and accessible to residents Wester Cochno Burn LNCS 5.12. Interest features: Woodland, old trees and common wildlife 5.13. Species rarity: common and widespread species 5.14. Reason for selection: good for general wildlife, and accessible to residents HABITATS 5.15. An extended phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken on 21st June 2023, which identified eleven habitat types within the survey area, each of these are outlined below along with other relevant target notes. In addition, the phase 1 habitat map is shown within Figure 3, Appendix A. Page 90
Page 91
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 18 of 32 5.16. Habitats present within the survey area are summarised within Table 5-2 below. Table 5-2 Summary of Habitats Recorded Phase 1 Habitat Habitat Area Species Present Other Observations B2.2 Semi-improved neutral grassland 6, 8, 12, 17,19, 31 Dominant species: Yorkshire fog, common bent, tufted hair-grass Other species: Broad-leaved dock, soft rush, field speedwell, creeping buttercup, common mouseear, common ragwort, pineappleweed, common sorrel. Habitat structure: Grazed grass, very short. Grass dominated, area 6 has had muck spreading Animal associations: Amphibians, ground nesting birds Management practices: Fertiliser improvement 24 Dominant species: Tufted hair-grass, soft rush Other species: Brooklime, sheeps sorrel, marsh thistle, lady’s smock, field horsetail, field woodrush, meadow sweet, ragged robin, common sedge, sharp flowered rush, devil’s bit scabious. Habitat structure: Very wet area, with channels dominated by rushes, great variety if herbaceous plants Animal associations: Amphibians, ground nesting birds Management practices: None 3, 11, 18, 20, 28 Dominant species: Tufted hair-grass, soft rush Other species: Habitat structure: Wet area dominated by tufted hair-grass. Page 91
Page 92
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 19 of 32 Creeping buttercup, Yorkshire fog, creeping thistle, broad-leaved dock, ribwort plantain, daisy, common nettle Animal associations: Cattle moving freely, ground nesting birds Management practices: None B4 Improved grassland Dominant species: Yorkshire fog, perennial rye grass, common bent, meadow foxtail, sweet vernal grass. Other species: Broad-leaved dock, creeping buttercup, field speedwell, common mouseear. Habitat structure: Grass ley Animal associations: None Management practices: Has been partly cut A1.1.1 Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland 1, 5, 10 Dominant species: Beech, sycamore, hawthorn, silver birch, common lime, ash, wych elm, sessile oak, rhododendron Other species: Holly, wild cherry, rowan, alder. Ground flora a mix of grasses herbs, fern and mosses. Greater knapweed, broad- leaved willowherb, common male fern, cow parsley, herb Robert, common hogweed, creeping thistle, Yorkshire fog, cocksfoot, meadow Habitat structure: Trees generally young 10-20m tall, some natural regeneration of ash. Trees generally in good condition, very few old trees. Animal associations: Low roosting potential for bats, although good for feeding and commuting. Nesting birds, small mammals, deer. Management practices: None Page 92
Page 93
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 20 of 32 buttercup, daisy, ground elder, sweet vernal grass, raspberry, foxglove, dog violet, bramble. 7, 26, 29 Dominant species: Silver birch, sycamore Other species: Rowan, hawthorn, ash, Scots pine. Ground flora less diverse than other areas of woodland, mostly grasses. Common bent, Yorkshre fog, cocksfoot, foxglove. Habitat structure: More open woodland, young trees 10-20m tall. Animal associations: Low bat roost potential, good for feeding and commuting bats. Nesting birds, small mammals and deer Management practices: None, cattle roam freely in area B5 Marshy grassland 2, 9, 13, 19 Dominant species: Soft rush Other species: Tufted hair-grass, creeping thistle, Yorkshire fog, Creeping soft grass, marsh thistle, broadleaved dock, lady’s smock, common sedge, sharp flowered rush Habitat structure: Wetter areas where there is no sign of grazing although lots of trampling by cattle. Animal associations: Amphibians, grazing cattle Management practices: None seen A2.1 Continuous scrub 14, 16, 21, 23, 25 Dominant species: Gorse. Area 23 has more goat willow and hawthorn as the dominant species Habitat structure: Scrub mostly of gorse but with the odd tree. Page 93
Page 94
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 21 of 32 Other species: Brambles, elderflower, goat willow, hawthorn, silver birch, field forget-me-not, meadow vetchling, broad-leaved willowherb, tormentil Animal associations: Badger, nesting birds Management practices: None A2.2 Scattered scrub 15, 22, 27 Dominant species: Gorse Other species: Creeping thistle, tufted hair-grass, soft rush, foxglove, common bent, Broad-leaved dock. Habitat structure: Scattered gorse in semi-improved grassland Animal associations: Badger nesting birds Management practices: None, cattle moving freely. A3.1 Scattered broadleaved trees 30 Dominant species: Silver birch Other species: Blueberry, Yorkshire fog, tormentil, marsh thistle, tufted hair- grass Habitat structure: Scattered trees with a more heathy ground flora Animal associations: Badgers, possible feeding for bats, nesting birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians Management practices: None G2 Running water Target Note 1 Dominant species: No vegetation in channel Habitat structure: 2-3m wide, up to 40cm deep, medium flow, bottom of sand gravel, cobbles Page 94
Page 95
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 22 of 32 boulders, banks varying up to 1m from horizontal to 90°. Banks with broad-leaved woodland and grassy understorey. Animal associations: Good commuting route for otters and possible resting places, potentially small fish, amphibians in wider area. Possible feeding and commuting route for bats. Management practices: None seen J2.5 Wall Target Notes 2, 3 & 6 Please refer to the relevant Target Notes below - J2.2.2 Species-poor Defunct Hedge Target Notes 4 & 5 Please refer to the relevant Target Notes below - J2.4 Fence N/A N/A N/A Target Notes 5.17. Table 5-3 outlines target notes recorded during the extended phase 1 habitat survey. Table 5-3 Summary Target Notes Target Note Description 1 Habitat: Running water Dominant species: No vegetation in channel Page 95
Page 96
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 23 of 32 Habitat structure: 2-3m wide, up to 40cm deep, medium flow, bottom of sand gravel, cobbles boulders, banks varying up to 1m from horizontal to 90°. Banks with broad-leaved woodland and grassy understorey. Animal associations: Good commuting route for otters and possible resting places, potentially small fish, amphibians in wider area. Possible feeding and commuting route for bats. Management practices: None seen 2 Habitat: Wall Dominant species: Hawthorn, grasses including sweet vernal grass, creeping soft-grass, mosses Polytrichum piliferum, Rhytidiadelphus loreus, Calliergonella cuspidata, Polpody and lady fern. Other species: In the water channel: water forget-me-not, soft rush, marsh willowherb, common nettle, cleavers Habitat structure: Old wall covered in vegetation with line of hawthorn growing on top and a wet ditch running down one side. Animal associations: Potential shelter for reptiles and small mammals, wet ditch good for amphibians. Management practices: None 3 Habitat: Wall Dominant species: None Habitat structure: Old stone wall, in good repair Animal associations: Good for sheltering reptiles and small mammals Management practices: None 4 Habitat: Hedge Dominant species: Hawthorn Habitat structure: Old hedge formed by hawthorn along line of old wall. Animal associations: Nesting birds Management practices: None 5 Habitat: Hedge Dominant species: Hawthorn Habitat structure: Remnants of hedge, a few straggly hawthorn. Animal associations: None Page 96
Page 97
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 24 of 32 Management practices: None 6 Habitat: Wall with scattered trees Dominant species: Sycamore, beech, Scots pine Habitat structure: Old wall which is mostly overgrown with a line of scattered trees on top. Animal associations: Resting place for reptiles and small mammals. Management practices: None Ground Water Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) 5.18. It is considered that from the baseline data collected during the habitat survey, and he site topography, the areas of B5 Marshy grassland are not GWDTEs, but are present due to surface waters shedding from adjacent land. SPECIES 5.19. Please refer to Table 7-1, Appendix B for Summary of Biological Records. Flora Desk-based 5.20. Records of invasive non-native species (INNS) within the study area were returned by the data search. Field survey 5.21. Rhododendron is a dominant species within the area of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland. No other INNS were recorded within the survey area during the recent ecological survey. Invertebrates Desk-based 5.22. A number of local biodiversity action plan priority invertebrate species within the wider area were returned by the desk-based study, including ringlet, small pearl-bordered fritillary and common blue butterfly. Page 97
Page 98
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 25 of 32 Field survey 5.23. Although no notable invertebrate species were observed during the extended phase 1 habitat survey, the mosaic of habitats within the Site Boundary offer potential to support a variety of invertebrate species. Amphibians & Reptiles Desk-based 5.24. Records of common toad, common frog and palmate newt were returned during the data search. As reptiles and amphibians are often under-recorded, an absence of records does not confirm an absence of species within the local area. Field survey 5.25. The mosaics of habitats including the semi-improved neutral grassland, marshy grassland, scattered trees with ground vegetation, water, wall and hedgerow offer suitable habitat to support a variety of herptile species. Birds Desk-based 5.26. Records of a variety of species associated with farmland, grassland and woodland were returned during the data search. Field survey 5.27. Habitats within the survey area including grassland, scrub and woodland all offer potential to support nesting birds. Mammals Badger Desk-based 5.28. No records of badger were returned during the data search. Page 98
Page 99
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 26 of 32 Field survey 5.29. Although the woodland and grassland areas are suitable to support badgers; no evidence of badger activity was noted. Otter Desk-based 5.30. Records of otter within the local area were returned by the data search. Field survey 5.31. The waterways to the east, west and south of the Site Boundary offer connectivity between the Site and the wider aquatic environment including lochs, ponds, burns and rivers. The grassland and woodland also offers suitable foraging habitat for this species. Water Vole Desk-based 5.32. Records of water vole were returned during the desk-based assessment. Field survey 5.33. No evidence of water vole was noted within the survey area; however, the waterways and wet grassland offer potential to support this species. Bats Desk-based 5.34. No records of bats were returned within the study area. An absence of records does not confirm an absence of bat species within the local area, as these species are often under- recorded. Field survey 5.35. The Site generally offer low potential for rooting bats; however, suitable foraging and commuting habitat is abundant within the Site and adjacent landscape. Page 99
Page 100
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 27 of 32 Other Mammals Desk-based 5.36. Records of pine marten, and hedgehog were returned during the desk-based assessment. Field survey 5.37. No suitable den sites for pine marten were noted within the survey area. 5.38. The mosaic of grassland, hedgerow and woodland offer potential to support hedgehog. Page 100
Page 101
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 28 of 32 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS DESIGNATED SITES Statutory 6.1. Of the 16 statutory environmental designated sites within the study areas, only one has connectivity with the Site Boundary; Inner Clyde SSSI (ornithological only). Inner Clyde SSSI 6.2. Inner Clyde SSSI has a separation distance of approximately 3.88km from the Site Boundary, with red-throated diver being the only qualifying species likely to regularly commute 3.88km from the SSSI boundary. However, as the habitats within the Site Boundary are sub-optimal for this species, it is considered that red-throated diver will not be present onsite, and therefore not impacted by the Proposed Development. Non-Statutory 6.3. The three LNCS adjacent to the Application Site have been designated for supporting local wildlife, including common flora and fauna species. 6.4. Measures have been outlined within this report to protect the local biodiversity during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development, which will also protect these LNCS and associated wildlife. These measures include pre-commencement ecological surveys to update the baseline data at the time of construction, to allow for additional appropriate mitigation measure to be implemented (if required). HABITATS 6.5. It is recommended that the areas of woodland should be avoided during the design of the Proposed Development, and that appropriate root protection zones are implemented around the woodland (or trees) directly adjacent to the final design layout. 6.6. The improved grassland areas are of the lowest ecological value within the Site Boundary. Any works within close proximity to the waterways within the Site Boundary should be protected during the construction phase, in accordance with best practice guidance, to prevent contamination of the aquatic environment. Page 101
Page 102
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 29 of 32 SPECIES Flora 6.7. Rhododendron is an invasive non-native species, and the removal of this species onsite encouraged. The disposal of the INNS plant material and contaminated soils should be undertaken appropriately in accordance with current legislation and best practice measures. 6.8. The removal of this species would open up the ground layer within the woodland, allowing for natural regeneration of native species, which would lead to a positive impact for local biodiversity. Invertebrates 6.9. It is recommended that the final design seeks to minimise the loss of semi-improved neutral grassland and wet grassland to retain habitat for a variety of invertebrate species. Retaining the woodland areas will also benefit invertebrate species onsite. 6.10. Creation of log piles and/or bug box/hotels onsite would be beneficial to invertebrate species. Amphibians & Reptiles 6.11. Retaining woodland, drystone walls, and minimising loss of semi-improved neutral grassland and wet grassland would be beneficial for herptile species. 6.12. As the current sward height within the Site offers potential shelter for herptiles, appropriate cutting is important to prevent injury to these species. 6.13. For tall grass, a first cut should be undertaken to 25cm, and then a second cut down to 10cm (or required height). Cutting should work in a general direction towards the Site Boundary to allow for any individuals to be flushed towards the safety of this area. 6.14. Creation of drystone walls along the development boundary would also be beneficial for herptiles and other small animals. Birds 6.15. Given the presence of nesting habitat within and directly adjacent to the Application Site, it is recommended that where works commence during the nesting season (March to August inclusive) a pre-commencement breeding bird check should be undertaken by a suitable experienced ecologist a maximum of 48-hours prior to works commencing (including site preparation works). Page 102
Page 103
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 30 of 32 6.16. Installation of bird boxes within the woodland area or scattered trees would be beneficial to many bird species. Mammals Badger 6.17. From the current survey findings, it is considered that the Proposed Development is unlikely to impact upon this species. However, badger are highly mobile and can excavate setts in relatively short periods of time. As suitable habitat is present within the Site Boundary, pre- commencement badger surveys are recommended. Otter 6.18. No signs of otter were observed during the field survey. However, the Site Boundary, and adjacent waterways may offer foraging habitat for otter commuting throughout the area. A pre-commencement otter survey is recommended. 6.19. The loss of grassland directly under the footprint of the Proposed Development is not considered significant loss to otter, as this is abundant in the local area. Water Vole 6.20. From the current baseline data, it is anticipated that the Proposed Development will not impact upon this species. 6.21. Where the final development layout lies within 10m of waterways, a pre-commencement water vole survey is recommended. Bats 6.22. It is recommended that the areas of woodland should be avoided during the design of the Proposed Development, which will retain suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bat species within the area. 6.23. The direct loss of habitat within the Site Boundary will not significantly impact bat species as this habitat is available in the wider landscape. 6.24. Installing bat boxes within the woodland areas would be beneficial to bat species due to the lack of roosting opportunities onsite. Page 103
Page 104
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 31 of 32 Other Mammals 6.25. The current sward height within the Application Site offers potential shelter for hedgehog. If this area of grassland is left unmanaged prior to works commencing, maintaining a tall sward, appropriate cutting is important to prevent injury to this species. 6.26. For tall grass, a first cut should be undertaken to 25cm, and then a second cut down to 10cm (or required height). Cutting should work in a general direction towards the site boundaries to allow for any individuals to be flushed towards the safety of this area. Biodiversity Enhancements 6.27. As detailed above, biodiversity enhancements that should be considered onsite include the creation of drystone walls, log piles and/or bug box/hotels and implementation of wildlife boxes including bird and bat boxes within the woodland area. Page 104
Page 105
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Page 32 of 32 7. APPENDICES APPENDIX A – MAPS Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Environmental Designations Figure 3 – Habitat Map Figure 4 – LNCS map APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RECORDS APPENDIX C – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Page 105
Page 106
Site Boundary Legend Page 106
Page 107
Site Boundary 5km buffer 15km buffer SPA to 15km SAC to 15km SSSI to 5km Ramsar to 5km LNR to 5km CP to 5km Legend Page 107
Page 108
R & D Ecology Ltd M: 07758376812 E: info@randdecology.co.uk W:www.info@randdecology.co.uk Drawing Number: 78/208/3/B Date: 10.07.23 Created By: DT Land Near Concho Road Phase 1 Habitat Map Figure 3 Site boundary TN locations A1.1.1 - Semi-atural broadleaved woodland A2.1 - Dense scrub A2.2 - Scattered scrub A3.1 - Broadleaved scattered trees B2.2 - Semi-improved neutral grassland B4 - Improved grassland B5 - Marshy grassland G2 - Running water J2.2.2 - Species-poor native defunct hedge J2.4 - Fence J2.5 - Wall Legend TN1 TN2 TN3 TN4 TN5 TN6 Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 25 Area 8 Area 16 Area 9 Area 17 Area 19 Area 10 Area 11 Area 31 Area 18 Area 20 Area 24 Area 12 Area 21 Area 13 Area 14 Area 15 Area 22 Area 23 Area 26 Area 28 Area 27 Area 29 Area 30 Page 108
Page 109
Page 109
Page 110
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RECORDS Table 7-1: Summary of Biological Records Species Records of Species within Study Area Potential for Species within Proposed Development Evidence of Species Observed within the ESA Mammals European water vole Arvicola amphibius Yes Yes No Beaver Castor fiber No No No Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus Yes Yes No Wild cat Felis silvestrus No No No Brown hare Lepus europaeus No Yes No Otter Lutra Lutra Yes Yes No Pine marten Martes martes Yes No No Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus No Yes No Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus No Yes No Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii No Yes No Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus No Yes No Red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris No Yes No Grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Yes Yes No Amphibians Common toad Bufo bufo Yes Yes No Common frog Rana temporaria Yes Yes No Palmate Newt Lissotriton helveticus Yes Yes No Smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris No Yes No Page 110
Page 111
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Great crested Newt Triturus cristatus No Yes No Reptiles Common lizard Zootoca vivipara No Yes No Slowworm Anguis fragilis No Yes No Adder Vipera berus No Yes No Grass snake Natrix helvitica No Yes No Birds Redpoll Acanthis flammea Yes Yes No Skylark Alauda arvensis Yes Yes No Greylag goose Anser anser Yes Yes No Pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus Yes Yes No Meadow pipit Anthus pratensis Yes Yes No Tree pipit Anthus trivialis Yes Yes No Swift Apus apus Yes Yes No Yellowhammer Emberiza citirinella Yes Yes No Swallow Hirundo rustica Yes Yes No Linnet Linaria cannabina Yes Yes No Curlew Numenius arquata Yes Yes No House sparrow Passer domesticus Yes Yes No Tree sparrow Passer montanus Yes Yes No Grey partridge Perdix perdix Yes Yes No Starling Sturnus vulgaris Yes Yes No Song thrush Turdus philomelos Yes Yes No Mistle thrush Turdus viscivorus Yes Yes No Lapwing Vanellus vanellus Yes Yes No Invertebrates Page 111
Page 112
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Early bumblebee Bombus pratorum Yes Yes No Common blue Polymmatus icarus Yes Yes No Green hairstreak Callophrus rubi No Yes No Small pearl-bordered fritillary Boloria selene Yes Yes No Ringlet Aphantopus hyperantus Yes Yes No Flora Round-leaved sundew Drosera rotundifolia Yes Yes No Giant hogweed Heracleum sphondylium Yes Yes No Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta Yes Yes No Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera Yes Yes No Page 112
Page 113
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal APPENDIX C – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1: Target Note 1 Photograph 2: Target Note 2 Page 113
Page 114
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Photograph 3: Target Note 4 Photograph 4: Target Note 5 Page 114
Page 115
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Photograph 5: Target Note 6 Photograph 6: Area 19 Page 115
Page 116
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Photograph 7: Area 19 Photograph 8: Area 4 Page 116
Page 117
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Photograph 9: Area 4 Photograph 10: Area 5 Page 117
Page 118
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Photograph 11: Area 5 Photograph 12: Area 26 Page 118
Page 119
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Photograph 13: Area 7 Photograph 14: Area 14 Page 119
Page 120
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Photograph 15: Area 14 Photograph 16: Area 25 Page 120
Page 121
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Photograph 17: Area 30 Photograph 18: Area 6 Page 121
Page 122
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Photograph 19: Area 24 Photograph 20: Area 24 Page 122
Page 123
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Photograph 21: Area 20 Page 123