Document Pack (Bookmarked) Planning Committee 16 11 22
West Dunbartonshire Council · 16 November 2022
Back to Planning Committee — 16 November 2022 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 November 2022 __________________________________________________________________ Time: 10.00 __________________________________________________________________ Venue: Civic Space Council Offices, 16 Church Street, Dumbarton __________________________________________________________________ _ Contact: Email: Nicola.moorcroft@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Committee.admin@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Dear Member Please attend a meeting of the Planning Committee as detailed above. The business is shown on the attached agenda. Yours faithfully PETER HESSETT Chief Executive Page 1
Page 2
Distribution:- Councillor Lawrence O’Neill (Chair) Councillor Gurpreet Singh Johal (Vice Chair) Councillor Karen Conaghan Councillor Ian Dickson Councillor Diane Docherty Councillor Daniel Lennie Provost Douglas McAllister Councillor June McKay Councillor Chris Pollock Councillor Hazel Sorrell All other Councillors for information Date of Issue: 3 November 2022 Page 2
Page 3
PLANNING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2022 AGENDA 1 2 APOLOGIES 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 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5 - 15 Submit for approval as a correct record, the Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 12 October 2022 4 NOTE OF VISITATION 17 - 18 Submit, for information, Note of Visitations carried out on 10 October 2022. 5 OPEN FORUM The Committee is asked to note that no open forum questions have been submitted by members of the public. 6 PLANNING APPLICATION 19 - 38 Submit a report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager in respect of the following planning application:- DC20/253 - Amendment to Condition 1 of planning permission DC07/233/FUL to extend the time of the approved landfilling operation and restoration by 15 years at Auchencarroch Landfill Site, Auchencarroch Road, Jamestown, Alexandria by Barr Environmental Ltd. 7/ Page 3
Page 4
7 39 - 213LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 – SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager advising of the outcome of consultation on draft Supplementary Guidance and seeking approval of the finalised version of the Guidance. 8 PLANNING APPEAL DECISION – COFFE SHOP WITH 215 - 217 DRIVE-THROUGH, MORRISONS CAR PARK, 36 GLASGOW ROAD, DUMBARTON Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, advising that an appeal relating to a Committee decision to refuse planning permission for a drive-through coffee shop on part of the Morrisons supermarket car park on Glasgow Road, Dumbarton, has been dismissed. Page 4
Page 5
PLANNING COMMITTEE At a Meeting of the Planning Committee held in Council Chamber, Clydebank Town Hall, 5 Hall Street, Clydebank on Wednesday, 12 October 2022 at 10.00 a.m. Present: Provost Douglas McAllister and Councillors Karen Conaghan, Ian Dickson, Diane Docherty, Gurpreet Singh Johal, June McKay, Lawrence O’Neill, Chris Pollock and Hazel Sorrell. Apologies: An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Councillor Daniel Lennie. Attending: Pamela Clifford, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager; Alan Williamson, Team Leader, Development Planning and Place; James McColl, Acting Development Management Team Leader; Nigel Ettles, Section Head – Litigation (Legal Officer); and Nicola Moorcroft, Committee Officer. 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. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The Minutes of Meetings of the Planning Committee held on 3 August 2022 and 21 September 2022 were submitted and approved as a correct record. OPEN FORUM The Committee noted that no open forum questions had been submitted by members of the public. PLANNING APPLICATIONS The following reports were submitted by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager – in respect of the following planning applications:- Page 5 ITEM 3
Page 6
(a) DC22/049/MSC – Approval of matters specified in conditions 1, 3, 5 and 7 of PPiP approval DC19/203 for the erection of 99 dwelling houses, formation of access, landscaping, open space, SUDS and associated infrastructure at Farm Road, Duntocher, Clydebank by BDW Trading Ltd. Reference was made to a site visit that had been undertaken in respect of the above application. The Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager was heard in further explanation of the report and in answer to Members’ questions. The Chair invited Mr Gordon Lindsay, objector, to address the Committee. Mr Lindsay was heard in support of his objections and in answer to Members’ questions. The Chair invited Mr Harry Borthwick, objector, to address the Committee. Mr Borthwick was heard in support of his objections and in answer to Members’ questions. The Chair invited Mr Lewis Breen, objector, to address the Committee. Mr Breen was heard in support of his objections and in answer to Members’ questions. The Chair invited Ms Jeanne Robinson, objector, to address the Committee. Ms Robinson was heard in support of her objections and in answer to Members’ questions. The Chair invited Mr David Jinks on behalf of the applicant (Barratt Homes), to address the Committee. Mr Jinks was heard in respect of the application and in answer to Members’ questions. After discussion and having heard the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager in further explanation and in answer to Members’ questions, Provost Douglas McAllister, seconded by Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, moved: I note and recognise that in September 2020, Planning Permission in Principle was granted on appeal. I accept that this Council has exhausted all legal routes to appeal Planning Permission in Principle for residential development on this site. Accordingly, Planning Permission in Principle remains granted. We can’t revisit that now, and I understand the frustration of local residents that we can’t now revisit their representations such as traffic concerns, Green Belt concerns, pollution concerns and ecological concerns. I cannot understand why anyone thinks a singular access road from Farm Road is workable or realistic in practice. The local road network at Farm Road is already severely congested. That is not my reason for moving refusal nor is my reason for moving refusal the loss of wildlife within the site and the loss of nature as highlighted by the slides during a representation this morning by a local resident, which I agree is heart breaking. My reasons for refusal are none of the above. Page 6
Page 7
My objection to the planning application is in relation to the layout and design of the application. Policy GD1 maintains that any new development must respect character and amenity of the area. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) requires or introduces a presumption in favour of sustainable development. A development must be socially sustainable. The aim of the National Scottish Planning Policy is to achieve the right development in the right place; and not allow a development at any cost and that a development must create better places. This application does not. I also move refusal on the basis of Policy CP1 which seeks to ensure that housing is of a high-quality, adaptable, and is designed to be suitable for a mix of occupants. It also indicates that all new developments will be expected to contribute towards creating successful places by having regard to the six qualities of a successful place, one of which is the quality easy to get to/move around and this application certainly doesn’t achieve that. The application does not minimise the visual impact, in fact it will have an adverse effect, the visual impact of the development within the landscape will detract from the local amenity and will detract from the overall character of the local settlement and the adjoining Kilpatrick Hills. I don’t consider that the proposed development is appropriate in terms of layout and design and therefore move refusal.’ The motion to refuse planning permission was agreed by the Committee (b) DC22/072/FUL – Residential development, landscaping and associated infrastructure at the former Our Lady and St Patrick’s High School site, Hawthornhill Road, Dumbarton by Persimmon Homes. Reference was made to a site visit that had been undertaken in respect of the above application. The Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager was heard in further explanation of the report and in answer to Members’ questions. The Chair invited Mrs Violet Struthers, objector, to address the Committee. Mrs Struthers was heard in support of her objections and in answer to Members’ questions. The Chair invited Mr Thomas Struthers, objector, to address the Committee. Mr Struthers was heard in support of his objections and in answer to Members’ questions. The Chair invited Mr Kevin Murphy on behalf of the applicant (Persimmon Homes), to address the Committee. Mr Murphy was heard in respect of the application and in answer to Members’ questions. After discussion and having heard the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager in further explanation, and in answer to Members’ questions, the Committee agreed that it was minded to grant planning permission Page 7
Page 8
and delegated authority to the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager to issue the decision subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 of the report, as detailed within Appendix 1 hereto and to the satisfactory conclusion of a legal agreement or other suitable mechanism to secure a financial payment towards open space provision/ green infrastructure improvements in the local area. PROCUREMENT OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SOFTWARE A report was submitted by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager seeking approval to enter a process for the procurement of Geographic Information System software. After discussion having heard the Team Leader, Development Planning and Place, in further explanation, and in answer to Members’ questions, the Committee agreed to approve the undertaking of a procurement exercise for the supply of Geographic Information System software. CLYDE CLIMATE FOREST A report was submitted by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager seeking approval of a concordat in relation to the Clyde Climate Forest. After discussion having heard the Team Leader, Development Planning and Place, in further explanation, and in answer to Members’ questions, the Committee agreed to approve the Clyde Climate Forest concordat. The meeting closed at 11.58 a.m. Page 8
Page 9
Appendix 1 DC22/072/FUL – Residential development, landscaping and associated infrastructure at the former Our Lady and St Patrick’s High School site, Hawthornhill Road, Dumbarton by Persimmon Homes. GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:- 1. Prior to the commencement of development on site, exact details, specifications and samples of all proposed external materials to be used for the houses within 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. 2 Further to condition 1 above, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the brick type to be used for the elevation treatment of all houses within the development site shall be of the ‘Forterra Victorian Mixture’ specification and variety. 3. Further to Conditions 1 and 2 above, prior to the approved brickwork associated with any house being constructed or installed on site, a sample panel of this brickwork shall be constructed on site in order for it and the associated mortar to be reviewed, inspected and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be completed in strict accordance with the approved brick details. 4. The approved hard and soft landscaping and all associated approved planting details shall be implemented within a timescale to be agreed prior to the commencement of works on site with the Planning Authority. 5. Notwithstanding the approved plans , an updated planting schedule to incorporate Hawthorn planting and clarify the suitability of the planting within the SuDS area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works on site and shall be implemented with a timescale to be agreed with the Planning Authority. 6. That any trees, shrubs or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged or become diseased within five years of completion of the landscaping shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. 7. That full details of maintenance and management for the landscaping approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the start of construction of the development hereby permitted. Management and maintenance shall commence upon completion of the landscaping. Page 9
Page 10
8. That prior to each house hereby permitted being occupied, all new roads and footways leading to it shall be surfaced to a sealed base course. 9. That within 4 weeks of the last of the houses hereby permitted being completed, all roads and footways within the application site shall be completed to a final wearing course. 10. That prior to the occupation of any house, the off-street parking provision shall be completed and be available for use by residents of the associated house. The offstreet parking provision inclusive of garages where they part of this parking provision shall be shall then remain unobstructed and available for use by residents of the associated house at all times thereafter. 11. No construction works except ground investigation works shall commence on site until the existing pedestrian crossing on Cardross Road shall be relocated and be fully operational in the new position. 12. No construction works shall commence on site until full details of the new position of the existing bus stop on Cardross Road currently in the position of the relocated pedestrian crossing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with SPT with the relocation taking place and the bus stop being available for use by services 13. That the approved drainage regime inclusive of the SuDS pond shall be fully implemented. For the avoidance of doubt, the drainage regime shall be implemented commensurately with the construction of the houses it serves. 14. That all surface water shall be intercepted within the site both during construction and on completion of the development and full details of measures to ensure that surface water run-off is contained within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing ty the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works on site. The measures shall be implemented and maintained as approved. 15. No site clearance works shall be undertaken during the bird nesting September inclusive unless first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, any such agreement will require a full nesting bird survey prior to the commencement of works on site, the methodology and findings of which shall be submitted to the Planning Authority. 16. That prior to the commencement of any works on site, full details of the incorporation of low or zero carbon generating 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. 17. Prior to the commencement of development with the site, details of the location and design of electric charging points/units and associated infrastructure and ducting to serve the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved car charging points/units/ducting and associated infrastructure shall thereafter be installed Page 10
Page 11
in accordance with the approved details at a timescale agreed by the Planning Authority and maintained at all times thereafter. 18. Prior to the occupation of the first house within the site, the developer shall install the necessary infrastructure to enable the full development and all associated properties to be connected to the existing fibre optic network, where available in West Dunbartonshire, and in accordance with the relevant telecommunications provider’s standards. 19. Details of the provision of grit bins for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be in place prior the occupation of the first house within the site and thereafter maintained for the lifetime of the development. 20. Prior to the commencement of works on site, details of any street furniture shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and shall be implemented within an agreed timescale. 21. No house shall be occupied until the contents of a Travel Information Pack which encourages reduced dependency on the private car by highlighting the location of local amenities, public transport services and active travel routes is submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, on the occupation of each dwelling, the approved Travel Information Pack shall be provided to new residents. 22. No development (other than investigative work) can take place until such time as a comprehensive site investigation has been carried out to the appropriate Phase level and submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The investigation shall be completed by a suitably qualified and competent person and completed in accordance with advice given in the following: • Planning Advice Note 33 (2000) and Part IIA of the Environmental Protection • Act 1990 (as inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995) • BS 10175:2011+A1:2013 – British Standards institution ‘The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice’. • Land Contamination and Development Management - Guidance.https://www.epscotland.org.uk/wp[1]content/uploads/2019/09 /ConLanDevGuide_12-Aug19-FINAL.pdf 23. If the Phase 1 investigation indicates any potential pollution linkages, a Conceptual Site Model must be formulated and these linkages must be subjected to risk assessment. If a Phase 2 investigation is required, then a risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages will require to be submitted. 24. If the risk assessment identifies any unacceptable risks then an appraisal of remedial options followed by a detailed remediation scheme will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. No works other than Page 11
Page 12
investigative works shall be carried out on site prior to receipt of the Planning Authority’s written approval of the remediation scheme. 25. 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 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. 26. The approved remediation scheme shall be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority shall be notified in writing of the intended commencement of remediation works not less than 14 days before these works commence on site. 27. Upon completion of the remediation works and prior to the site being occupied, a verification report which demonstrates the effectiveness of the completed remediation works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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 12
Page 13
Page 13
Page 14
31. No development shall commence on site until such time as a noise control method statement for the construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This statement shall identify likely sources of noise (including specific noisy operations and items of plant/machinery), the anticipated duration of any particularly noisy phases of the construction works, and details of the proposed means of limiting the impact of these noise-sensitive properties. The construction works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. 32. 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 33. 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. 34. No commercial vehicle making deliveries to or collecting material from the development shall enter or leave the site before 0800 or after 1800. 35. No piling works shall be carried out until a method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This statement shall include an assessment of the impact of the piling on surrounding properties, taking into account the guidance contained in BS 6472: 1984 ‘Evaluation of Human Response to Vibration in Buildings’. It shall detail any procedures which are proposed to minimise the impact of noise and vibration on the occupants of surrounding properties. This statement shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person, and the piling works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement. 36. Notwithstanding condition 36 above, full details of the design, height and location of an acoustic fence adjacent the sports pitch shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The fence shall then be erected prior to the occupation of any dwellinghouse on plots 32 to 44 inclusive. Page 14
Page 15
37. No development shall commence on site until details for the storage and the collection of waste arising from the development and the location of grit bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be in place prior the occupation of the first housing unit/property within the site and thereafter maintained for the lifetime of the development. Page 15
Page 16
Page 16
Page 17
PLANNING COMMITTEE NOTE OF VISITATIONS – 10 OCTOBER 2022 Present: Councillors Diane Docherty, Gurpreet Singh Johal, June McKay and Chris Pollock Attending: Pamela Clifford - Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager SITE VISITS Site visits were undertaken in connection with the undernoted planning applications:- Farm Road, Duntocher, Clydebank by BDW Trading Ltd. DC22/049/MSC - Approval of matters specified in conditions 1, 3, 5 and 7 of PPiP approval DC19/203 for the erection of 99 dwelling houses, formation of access, landscaping, open space, SUDS and associated infrastructure. Former Our Lady and St Patrick’s High School site, Hawthornhill Road, Dumbarton by Persimmon Homes DC22/072/FUL – Residential development, landscaping and associated infrastructure Page 17 ITEM 4
Page 18
Page 18
Page 19
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 16th November 2022 _____________________________________________________________ DC20/253: Amendment to Condition 1 of planning permission DC07/233/FUL to extend the time of the approved landfilling operation and restoration by 15 years at Auchencarroch Landfill Site, Auchencarroch Road, Jamestown, Alexandria by Barr Environmental Ltd 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 The application seeks to amend the terms of a condition of a planning application originally determined by the Planning Committee. The application also relates to a landfill operation which has an annual waste capacity of over 25,000 tonnes and therefore the original application would, if submitted afresh, would comprise a major development as defined by The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. Under the terms of the approved Scheme of Delegation, it therefore requires to be determined by the Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 That the Committee indicate that it is Minded to Grant planning permission for the operation of the site until 30th June 2024 and completion of the final restoration by 30th June 2026 and delegate authority to the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager to issue the decision subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 and the satisfactory review of the extant legal agreement and conclusion of a new or updated legal agreement or other suitable mechanism to secure an increased restoration bond value. 3. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 Auchencarroch Landfill Site is located to the south-east of Jamestown and lies between the open hills of Auchencarroch and Pappert Hill. It sits in a natural plateau and although the site itself is hidden by the rising landform in front, the access road is visible from Auchencarroch Road. The site has few neighbouring sensitive receptors, the closest residential property being Mid Auchencarroch Farmhouse, the owner of which is an interested party cited on the existing legal agreement. Other agricultural holdings, primarily used for livestock grazing, surround the site in all directions. 3.2 The existing landfill site has been operational since 1995 and planning permission was granted in 2004 (DC02/324) to increase the life span of the area by extending the area of the landfill facility. Application DC07/233/FUL allowed for the further ITEM 6 Page 19
Page 20
extension of the site to the south-east. This area is a natural valley between Auchencarroch and Pappert Hills and comprises a mix of semi-improved upland pasture, heathland, and blanket bog. The proposal allowed for land raising to continue the overall height of the existing restored landform in an easterly direction. The finished landform of the existing and proposed landfill granted form a low hill covered with heathland vegetation. This is a lower height than Auchencarroch Hill (210m) and Pappert Hill (257m) and maintains surface drainage profile by having gentle slopes on the east and west approaches. In terms of site area, the area extended the landfill workings to 27.4ha within a total area of 43.2ha. Adjacent to the site, also operated by Barr, is a materials recycling facility (MRF) which was granted permission in 2013. The MRF separates out recyclable material from waste, before the waste material goes to landfill. 3.3 Since the granting of planning permission in 2008, the volume of material and rate of landfill has reduced, and it is anticipated this will continue to reduce with further reductions in the waste that can be sent to landfill. Accordingly, existing capacity remains on the site with the applicant indicating that eight cells for landfilling remain unutilised. A programme for landfilling to utilise these cells is set out by the applicant with the final cell due for completion by November 2037. 3.4 Planning permission is sought to amend condition 1 of planning application DC07/233/FUL which was granted permission on the 3rd of September 2008 for the extension to landfill site including on-site recycling facility. Condition 1 states that: “The development hereby permitted shall enure for the benefit of the applicant only with the approved landfill operations to be completed by 31 December 2022 and the final restoration of the site by 2024 unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority”. 3.5 Permission is sought to extend the time of the approved landfilling operation and restoration by a further fifteen years. There is no physical extension to the landfill proposed. The reason for the proposed time extension is due to the rate of landfilling (amount of material coming on site) over the years since 2009, being significantly less than originally anticipated due to a number of factors. This includes reduction of waste being sent to landfill because more is now recycled, increasing landfill tax and the opening of the Auchencarroch Materials Recycling Facility which has increased on-site recycling rates. In addition to this there is an upcoming landfill ban for household waste coming into force in 2025. For the avoidance of doubt, the total landfill volume will not change, just the time period over which the operation will take place. 3.6 It is proposed to operate the landfill under the same restrictions placed on them via previous planning consents. The landfill would be for the disposal of non- hazardous waste and the site would operate between 7.30am and 5.00pm Monday to Saturday with any additional working hours by written agreement with the Planning Authority. The number of deliveries of landfill material to the site would be restricted to a maximum of 116 in any one working day (232 HGV movements per day) in accordance with the existing permission. Page 20
Page 21
3.7 The landfill operations during the proposed extended operational period would be a continuation of those currently undertaken at Auchencarroch. The types of wastes landfilled include residual household waste for West Dunbartonshire, Inverclyde and Argyll and Bute local authorities. The site also accepts wastes from local carriers. Residual wastes are those wastes left after the kerbside collection and recovery of materials that can be recycled. 3.8 The restoration after landfill would continue to be progressive during the life of the site, initially to grassland to stabilise the soil restored on the capped surface of the landfill but ultimately to dry heath vegetation and grassland for pasture. New planting proposals around the perimeter of the site have been identified with the majority taking place after restoration. On conclusion of the restoration, the surface water treatment lagoon and reedbeds would be restored to wetland habitats. 3.9 The original application was a development that required the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). For the purposes of the Section 42 application and updated EIA forms part of the application submission together with a range of supporting documentation including a Planning Statement, Transport Assessment, Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Habitat Management Plan, Flood Risk Assessment and Management Plans for Dust and Odour. 3.10 Following the submission of the application it was requested by the applicant that processing of the application was sisted for business and operational reasons. This resulted in the application being on hold for over a year. The applicant has now requested that the application is progressed to a determination as originally submitted. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service and Environmental Health, SEPA, NatureScot, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park and West of Scotland Archaeological Society have no objection to the proposal. 4.2 West Dunbartonshire Council Biodiversity Officer has no objections in principle however a number of points require to be considered in determining the appropriateness of a time extension to the operation of the site including the validity of the Ecological Appraisal, the ongoing Habitat Management proposals and the requirement for a Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan. 4.3 Scottish Water have not responded at the time of writing this report. 5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Objections from three individuals were received in connection with the application. The detail of each submitted representation is available in the electronic planning file for the application and available for public viewing. The concerns raised can, however, be summarised as follows: Purpose of Site • There is no requirement for the site given recycling requirements. Page 21
Page 22
Light Pollution • There are issues from excessive illumination. • None of the photos submitted are taken at night and this does not show the large amount of lighting that is on all night. • The lighting in a rural location is very intrusive. • Lighting should be directed downwards so it only illuminates below and not all round. Odour • There have been odour problems for the past 25 years so severe at times you become nauseous. • The odour problems are directly affecting a local business over recent years. Noise • Loud noises are coming from the newly extended site. Vehicle movement • There has not been adequate assessment of traffic levels along Auchencarroch Road. • Buses, waste vehicles, commercial vehicles and vehicles from the sawmill use this road. • Vehicle speed is not regulated. • Measures should be put in place to control speed. Environmental Impact • An assessment of the carbon footprint and environmental impact of the haulage commercial vehicles and plant that are used in the delivery of this site should be undertaken. • There should be an environmental assessment of the vehicle and plant operations including vehicle travel time, plant operations on site and the associated commercial vehicles needed to operate the site. 5.2 The points and concerns raised will be considered in Section 7 below. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 6.1 The 2017 Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan (Clydeplan) sets out a strategic vision to be implemented through a spatial development strategy and advises on planning for zero waste inclusive of the role landfill plays in dealing with waste. Policy 11 advises on development proposals for waste management facilities. Clydeplan recognises that even with high recycling targets, there will be wastes from which no further value can be recovered and which will require to be put to landfill. Accordingly, a requirement for a ten-year rolling capacity for landfill has been set by the Scottish Government. However, it is recognised that this will reduce over time in order to achieve the long-term zero waste plan (ZWP) target of a maximum of 5% to landfill by 2025. The ten year rolling landfill capacity requirement for the Clydeplan area is 10.1 million tonnes. Currently there is adequate capacity within existing and approved sites within the city region to Page 22
Page 23
satisfy this requirement. The ten-year rolling landfill capacity requirements is to be updated annually by SEPA and this will be kept under review by Clydeplan 6.2 The proposal does not seek to extend the capacity of the site, but rather extend the operation time period to utilise existing capacity due to a lower rate of landfilling than anticipated. This presents no conflict with Clydeplan and accordingly is subject to an assessment against the Local Development Plan. West Dunbartonshire Adopted Local Plan 2010 6.3 Policy PS1 seeks to protect established public utility, social and community facilities as identified on the Proposals Map. The existing landfill site at Auchencarroch is identified on the Proposals Map under this policy and forms a public utility, the operation of which the Council seeks to protect. Policy PS4 advises on proposals for new or extended waste management infrastructure and facilities including landfill sites and sets out the criteria for the assessment of such proposals. This includes according with relevant waste strategies and plans, being within or adjacent to an existing facility and complying with other Local Plan policies. The proposal relates to an existing landfill site and does not seek to extend the land take of the site, nor its capacity. It does seek to extend the time period for the operation of the site to utilise existing consented, but unused capacity. 6.4 Policy E1 seeks to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and Policy E3A seeks to ensure that development proposals do not have an adverse effect on the integrity or character of Local Nature Conservation Sites. Policy E9 requires that development proposals will have regard to the landscape character and distinctiveness of the Plan area and of adjoining areas. Proposals which are detrimental to the landscape will not generally be supported. Policy BE5 seeks to ensure that cultural heritage resources such as archaeological sites are not adversely affected. Policies F1 and F2 aim to ensure that new development is not at risk from, and does not increase the risk of flooding, and has suitable SuDS drainage infrastructure. 6.5 Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development respects the character and amenity of the area and sets out a range of criteria for the assessment of all development proposals. 6.6 The overall principle of the proposal to extend the time period for the operation of the site is considered to comply with the policies of the adopted Local Plan. However, it is assessed fully in Section 7 below, it is considered that a short term extension to the time period is appropriate. 7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The application is made under section 42 of the Planning Act 1997 which is an application for planning permission for the development of the land but without compliance with a condition or conditions on the original permission. In this case, the applicant seeks not to comply with the terms of condition 1 of planning permission DC07/233/FUL which requires landfill operations to cease by 31st December 2022 and restoration operations to be completed by 2024. The effect of a Section 42 application, if successful, is to grant planning permission again for the whole development but with the amended conditions replacing those that were Page 23
Page 24
issued previously. The original application, as approved, has commenced and therefore if granted it must be ensured that any conditions attached to the new permission are relevant to the continued operation of the site. Planning Authorities, if minded, may attach new or updated conditions if permission is granted. National Policy 7.2 National Planning Framework (NPF) 3 requires all Scotland’s resources, including waste, to be managed sustainably. NPF3 states that a decentralised network of processing facilities will be needed for a circular economy where waste is recognised as a resource opportunity and Planning Authorities are therefore expected to work with the market to identify viable waste solutions with sustainability central to all waste management. 7.3 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) introduces a presumption in favour of sustainable development. SPP also sets out that Scotland has a zero waste policy which includes minimising landfill use to 5% of all waste output by 2025. SPP also promotes the delivery of waste infrastructure at appropriate locations and waste management should be prioritised through the Scottish Government’s waste hierarchy. The hierarchy identified in Paragraph 176 is waste prevention, reuse, recycling, energy recovery and waste disposal. Paragraph 182 goes on to advise that that the planning system should support the provision of a network of infrastructure to allow Scotland’s waste and secondary resources to be managed in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies, in order to protect the environment and public health. 7.4 The proposal does not seek to extend the capacity of the site but rather to extend the operation time period to utilise existing capacity due to a lower rate of landfilling than anticipated. The site currently has existing infrastructure in place that is suitable for its continued use, is sited in an appropriate location and will continue to provide a waste disposal facility which does not conflict with the aims of National Policy. Zero Waste Plan Scotland (2010) 7.5 Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan sets out a vision that seeks to ensure that resource use is minimised, valuable resources are not disposed of in landfills, and most waste is sorted into separate streams for reprocessing, leaving only limited amounts of waste to go to residual waste treatment. Adjacent to the landfill site is a material recycling facility granted planning permission in 2013 and this separates recyclables from waste before it goes to landfill. Accordingly, it is considered that the operation on site does not conflict with Zero Waste Scotland policy as it currently provides the opportunity to sort waste, to reuse it and recycle and to reduce the amount that is deposited in landfill. West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 7.6 The modified Plan and associated documents was approved by the Council on 19 August 2020. The Council has advised the Scottish Ministers of its intention to adopt the Plan. On 18 December 2020, the Scottish Ministers issued a Direction in relation to the housing land chapter of the Plan. None of the policies considered in the determination of this application are affected by that Direction. Therefore, Local Development Plan 2 is the Council’s most up to date policy position and is Page 24
Page 25
afforded significant weight in the assessment and determination of planning applications. 7.7 The site is identified as an existing waste management facility and by Policy ZW1 and associated Table 10. Policy ZW1 requires that all such development meets with the aims of the Zero Waste Plan and follow the development principles of the Waste Hierarchy. The criteria for the assessment of new waste management facilities is set out in the Policy, however it remains that this is not a new facility, but rather a time extension to the operation of the existing facility to utilise consented but unused capacity. Policy MIN2 requires appropriate financial guarantees in respect of restoration. Whilst the policy relates to minerals extraction rather than landfill sites, the general principles of the Policy are considered relevant. 7.8 Policy ENV1 addresses nature conservation and requires developments to conserve biodiversity and habitat networks both within and adjacent to sites of special designation together with non-designated habitats and protected species. Policy ENV2 requires development to be sited and designed so as to relate to the existing landscape character and ensure the integrity of landscape character is maintained. Policy BE1, ENV4 ENV5 and ENV6 are similar to the cultural heritage, water environment and flooding policies of the adopted Local Plan. Policy CP1 requires all new development to contribute towards creating successful places. 7.9 The overall principle of the proposal to extend the time period for the operation of the site is considered to comply with the policies of proposed Local Development Plan 2. Principle of Development 7.10 The site is currently an existing landfill site operating in accordance with planning permission DC07/233/FUL. In terms of the current operation, the site allows the controlled disposal by landfill of a variety of waste including from both household and commercial sources. The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 as a waste management site. In assessing this application which has been submitted under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), it is noted that Section 42 of the Act states the Planning Authority shall consider only the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted. This application therefore does not revisit the principle of development on the site but only considers the appropriateness of the conditions attached to the previous consent. In assessing this it remains that there is, however, a requirement to consider certain aspects of the development. In this case, the applicant seeks not to comply with the terms of condition 1 of planning permission DC07/233/FUL which requires landfill operations to cease by 31st December 2022 and restoration operations to be completed by 2024. 7.11 The submitted application seeks a 15 year extension to both the operation and site restoration previously approved and the appropriateness of both an extension to the operation and the suggested timescale require assessment. Following a full and detailed assessment as set out below, it is concluded that a short term extension would balance the requirement to comprehensively update the position relating to ecology and habitat management together with allowing the review and Page 25
Page 26
update of the restoration proposals to be brought forward as part of a further full application which would include the extension to the time for the operation of the site for a longer period. It is concluded that an additional period of 18 months from 1st January 2023 is appropriate in this respect. Landscape and Visual Impact 7.12 Landscape character is the distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs in a landscape leading to the way that it is perceived. Landscape sensitivity is concerned with the inherent character of the landscape and the likelihood that this character would be changed by the introduction of development. Landscape capacity refers to the degree to which a particular landscape type or area is able to accommodate change without significant effects on its character, or overall change of landscape character type. A detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been undertaken and is considered as part of the submitted EIA. The receptors of visual effects include the public at large, comprising residents, workers, visitors and those travelling through the landscape. This may include users of public footpaths and core paths. Representative viewpoints form the basis for the site-based assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development on views and visual amenity. These viewpoints were agreed with the Council at the EIA Scoping stage 7.13 The effect of the proposal on the landscape of the area was fully considered during the assessment of the previous planning application. It was accepted that progressive landfill and restoration means that there will always be a cell which is visible and will not blend in to the green backdrop of the landscape and adjacent restored areas. The cumulative impacts on character were acknowledged to be slightly adverse for the operation phase (i.e. during landfill operations), but would become neutral following restoration. 7.14 The LVIA submitted as part of the EIA for the current proposal for the extension of time for the previously approved operation and restoration concludes that the proposed time extension will not result in a change to the landscape character of the locality beyond that which has already occurred as a result of the ongoing landfilling and restoration operations. It is highlighted that as most of the restoration to the western area is complete visibility of the ongoing operations, it will be reduced as they will be screened from key vantage points by the restored landform. It is further concluded that there would be no additional impacts on the Kilpatrick Hills beyond the landfill operation previously consented for the site with the area well contained visually. It is acknowledged that the existing landfill operation has created a new skyline feature but with the ongoing progressive restoration, the site blends with the surroundings. Overall it is concluded that the proposed extension of time to the existing operations would not give rise to any additional significant impacts on landscape character or visual amenity. 7.15 The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Planning Authority raised no concerns regarding landscape and visual impact from the Park area. Overall, it is considered the continued operation of the site presents no conflict with Policy E9 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy ENV2 of proposed Local Development Plan 2. Page 26
Page 27
Ecology and Biodiversity 7.16 Ecological issues are considered by the applicant as part of the submitted EIA and are informed by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Like matters relating to landscape and visual impact, matters pertaining to ecology and biodiversity were also fully considered in the assessment of the previous application. To mitigate impact, a Habitat Management Plan which outlines the mitigation measures and how they will be implemented by the applicant was agreed. It is a flexible document controlled through planning conditions and as part of the legal agreement which relates to the site. A variety of mitigation measures were agreed and are implemented via this plan. The EIA considers that the proposal relates to the continuation of existing landfill operations, the majority of ecological receptors are likely to be absent from the site and will not be adversely impacted. Nesting birds may be impacted but mitigation is proposed to ensure damage or disturbance to active nests is avoided. Overall, it is concluded that there are no significant adverse impacts to ecological receptors resulting from the continuation of landfill operations as proposed by the time extension. 7.17 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has highlighted that the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal is considered to be out of date given the time that has elapsed since it was prepared. The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken in September 2018 for example. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer advises that there are a number of protected habitats and designations in and around the site that the ecologist has stated are adversely impacted upon, in particular in relation to the watercourses. Notably, it is recommended that a Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan is created. The Biodiversity Officer further advises that the previous Habitat Management Plan dates from 2008 and ideally, this should be updated to take account of the current circumstance and to capture the ongoing habitat loss and/or degradation and offer mitigation. This would be a means of consolidating all the mitigation into one document. In considering the time extension alone, the Biodiversity Officer is of the view that the current degradation of adjacent habitat will now continue for a much longer period than was expected. 7.18 Given the issues identified by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer in respect of the validity of the Ecological Appraisal which was carried out some four years ago now, the need for an updated Habitat Management Plan and full consideration of the current circumstances in relation to the site, concerns arise from a possible further 15 years of landfill operations on the site. Notably, the current Habitat Management Plan would be circa 30 years old at the conclusion of the extended period. Whilst a short term extension could be considered acceptable with reference to Policy E1 and E3A of the adopted Local Plan and Policy ENV1 of proposed Local Development Plan 2 to allow ongoing operations on the site, the 15 year time extension as proposed raises concerns. Such a short term time extension of 18 months to allow the continued operation of the site whilst giving the opportunity for the applicant to undertake a review of matters relating to ecology, biodiversity and habitat management proposals and bring forward a revised proposal for consideration via a further full planning application which considers a longer term time extension for the site is considered to offer an appropriate balance. Impact on Water Resources and Flood Risk 7.19 The submitted EIA provides an assessment of the potential impact on the water environment resulting from the time extension to the operations. In terms of the Page 27
Page 28
existing planning permission, to prevent groundwater pollution the site incorporates a lining system, surface water management and leachate management systems. An internal network of surface water drains and pumps collected surface water runoff within the operational area and convey it to settlement lagoons and leachate treatment facilities including reedbeds. The EIA identified that the increased time to undertake landfilling activities will result in landfill cells being open for an increased time and accordingly the period within which leachate is generated, treated and discharged will increase. Increased timescales will also result in increased volume of leachate. Additional contamination risks to watercourses may also result. It is noted that an Environmental Management Plan relating to leachate, surface water and groundwater for the current operations will be updated to include the time extension to the operational period. The EIA concludes that with appropriate mitigation in place to prevent such occurrences, effects would be minor with no significant impacts on the water environment. It is also concluded there will be no significant residual effects. 7.20 Surface water runoff within the operational landfill area is managed in accordance with a permit under the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 which is controlled by SEPA and offers no objections. There is no conflict with Policy ENV5 of proposed Local Development Plan 2. 7.21 Whilst scoped out of the EIA as a specific topic, the Council’s Scoping Response advised that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) be provided as an appendix to the EIA. The submitted FRA identifies that the site is located at a higher elevation than the closest watercourse and is at very low risk of fluvial flooding. The risk of surface water and ground water flooding is low and the risk of flooding from sewers and artificial sources is considered to be very low. The FRA acknowledges the existing drainage regime for the site remain and with this, the risk of flooding to surrounding areas will not increase. Therefore from a flooding and drainage perspective, no issues arise from the time extension to the existing operation. SEPA also offers no objection on flood risk grounds. There is thus no conflict with Policies F1 and F2 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy ENV6 of proposed Local Development Plan 2. Air Quality 7.22 The potential implications on air quality, dust and odour impacts resulting from the time extension for the operation of the landfill site have been assessed as part of the EIA. As set out in the EIA, the landfill site is located approximately 2km from the urban area and whilst there a number of rural properties found within the wider landscape, these are a minimum of 800 metres from the landfill site itself. One residential property is located adjacent to the site entrance, although it is around 1km from the landfill itself. 7.23 Considering dust, it is recognised that such operations produce dust and this was fully considered as part of the original planning application. Dusty activities are mitigated in accordance with a dust management plan which is enforced by the applicant at all times during day to day operations and this is controlled via the environmental permit. A review of SEPA inspection reports in relation to this permit has been undertaken and this indicates that there are some recorded instances of track out and dirt issues on access routes. This review has informed a proposed Page 28
Page 29
amendment to the existing dust management plan which when included will seek to ensure that the access route is kept clean during the extended period of operation. Overall, it is considered that opportunities for dust generated on site to impact on neighbouring sensitive receptors such as residential properties is low and with continued dust management the effects are not significant. As there will be no change in operations, there will thus be no change in fine particulate matter emissions from the operation and following assessment it is concluded there is no risk of air quality objectives being exceeded. 7.24 Turning to odour, the perception and intensity of odour varies from person to person. Landfill operations can give rise to odours through waste deposition and gas generation. The intensity of odours is dependent on the level of generation and rate of dispersion and odours can be most noticeable during periods of warm weather and light winds. The majority of odour sensitive locations are located away from the prevailing wind. Accordingly the risk of odour affecting nearby residential properties for prolonged periods is considered to be low. The issue of odour is, however, raised in the objections received. The EIA sets out that following review, SEPA inspection reports indicate that some odours have been present during inspections. However, these were only detected in locations nearest to the odorous sources and not beyond the landfill boundary. Odour emissions have therefore remained compliant with the permit. The applicant advises that a review of the existing odour management plan has been undertaken and the existing odour management plan is considered to continue to offer suitable mitigation. Overall, the impacts resulting from the time extension of operations is not considered to be significant. Litter 7.25 Litter control issues are currently managed via an existing planning condition and in accordance with a management plan which is incorporated as an enforceable condition in the permit under the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012issued by SEPA. The site is on a gently sloping hillside which would be exposed to winds from the south and south-west. It is concluded that with the continued mitigation as set out in the Management Plan and will ensure that there are no significant impacts associated with litter. Noise 7.26 Noise was scoped out of the EIA. Any noise implications were considered in full during the assessment of the previous planning application inclusive of surveys carried out as part of the EIA submitted at the time to determine the levels of operational noise with respect to residential properties. No concerns arose and it was concluded that regular noise monitoring was not required due to the distance of the proposed development from the nearest residential properties. Environmental Health raise no concerns regarding the ongoing operation of the site. Whilst the concerns raised in the objections are noted, given the application does not seek to change the approved operation, this position is considered to remain valid and no concerns regarding noise to unacceptably disturb neighbouring property arises. Page 29
Page 30
External Lighting 7.27 Concerns are raised in the objections received regarding the impact from external lighting at the site including excessive illumination, the hours of illumination, the illumination being intrusive within the rural area and the projection of the lighting units. External lighting was considered as part of the previous planning application with condition 10 requiring full details of the external lighting regime to be submitted. This was provided by the applicant and the terms of the condition discharged. It is accepted that the nature of the site will result in the provision of lighting that does not replicate the sporadic lighting from rural properties within the wider landscape and that for operational and security reasons lighting is required on site. Notwithstanding the previous discharged of the condition relating to external lighting, given the time that has elapsed since this, it is considered appropriate to attach a condition to any new planning permission to extend the time for the operation of the site to ensure that the impact of external lighting within the rural landscape is minimised. Climate change 7.28 The likely significant effects of the time extension for the operation of the site in terms of climate change together with risk mitigation in the context of the site, surrounding area and wider environment is considered in the EIA, recognising that climate change is a global issue. Whilst the EIA concludes that the operation of the landfill site does produce CO2 emissions, the impact of the proposal remains the same as the current landfill operation and there overall effect of the time extension to the operation of the existing site is neutral. Traffic, transport and access 7.29 Whilst scoped out of the EIA, it remains that traffic, transport and access requires to be considered and the applicant has submitted a Transport Statement in support of the proposal. The access to the site via Auchencarroch Road is long established. Auchencarroch road is single carriageway and from the access to the landfill westwards for around 1350 metres it is around 4 metres wide with passing places. Auchencarroch Road accesses to the A813. Auchencarroch Road also forms part of the Core Path Network and National Cycle Network. In granting the extension to the landfill site in 2008, it was envisaged that there would be a maximum of 232 HGV movements per day (i.e. 116 arrivals and 116 departures), and this was a condition of the planning permission. Increased rates of recycling has reduced the level of waste going to landfill and this has reduced vehicle movements to a maximum of circa 95 HGV movements per day. With 16 staff employed on site, there is the potential for a further daily 32 staff vehicle movements. It is expected that the number of vehicle movements to and from the landfill during the additional years of operation is no higher than current, hence users of the transport network would not experience any difference from the current operation. 7.30 Concerns are raised in the objections regarding traffic levels on Auchencarroch Road together with vehicle speeds. The assessment of the application is informed by a consultation response from the Council’s Roads Service whilst noted that the site has operated satisfactorily from a roads perspective and accordingly there is no objection to the continued operation. It is accepted that the extended operation of the site will, however, to impact on local road users including walkers and cyclists for a longer period of time. Whilst there would be a concern if the number Page 30
Page 31
of vehicle movement were to increase, this is not proposed here. It is therefore accepted that notwithstanding a longer period of operation, there will be no unacceptable impact on local road users beyond the established position. Matters relating to speed limits and speed control measures on Auchencarroch Road are not ones to be addressed via the planning process. Recreation 7.31 The operation of the site does not impact on any areas specifically set out for recreational purposes. Although there are a number of footpaths and a cycle route within the wider area there are no such paths located adjacent to the landfill. The proposal to extend the operational period will not have any adverse impact on existing access and recreational use of the local area. Built and Cultural Heritage 7.32 Built and cultural heritage was scoped out of the EIA. There are no designated heritage assets located either within or adjacent to the site. Turning to archaeology, two features of archaeological interest where identified within the site on the site and are recorded as being dams associated with the textile/printing industry in the Leven Valley. At the time West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) recommended a condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological works to ensure their recording and recovery. WOSAS were also consulted in respect of the current application and they advise the time extension itself would not raise any particular archaeological issue although the requirement of the existing planning permission for a programme of archaeological works was highlighted. It is noted that archaeological investigations were submitted following the granting of the previous planning permission. Overall no additional built or cultural heritage issues arise from the time extension proposal and there are no conflicts with Policy BE5 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy BE1 of proposed Local Development Plan 2. Restoration 7.33 A restoration scheme was agreed as part of the existing planning permission. This is based on an approach of progressive capping of the completed landfill cells. The final restoration includes planting of woodland and linear strips of hedgerow, typical heathland grass species will be seeded, peat will be stripped and translocated to the restored profiles forming an acid heathland habitat. The reedbeds and surface water lagoons will be managed to form wetland areas with diverse planting of species and a small area will become agricultural grassland forming a permanent pasture for sheep grazing. 7.34 It is noted in the EIA that a review of the previously approved restoration plan has been undertaken with just one minor update relating to a number of small waterbodies across the site as a means of enhancing habitat creation / biodiversity. Notwithstanding the applicant’s position within the application submission, extending the operation and restoration of the site for a further 15 years raises the concern that by the time the final restoration is being completed, this will be based on a restoration scheme first considered 30 years previously. It is considered that any time extension to the operation and restoration of the site for a further 15 years be accompanied by a comprehensive review of both the continued appropriateness of the current restoration proposals together with the potential deliverability given the likely implications for the operation of the business with the Page 31
Page 32
reduction of waste going to landfill resulting from continued increases in recycling together with restrictions on the use of landfill being introduced from 2025. The applicant have themselves advised that in further considering the operation of the site in the time since the submission of this application which is inclusive of a period where the application was on hold at the applicants request, the wider commercial context for landfill sites in Scotland has changed dramatically over the last few years. With the introduction of the forthcoming landfill ban the revenues of all landfill sites will fall significantly, in line with the reduction of waste being landfilled. At the time the current restoration plan was prepared the income of the site was significantly higher, and a review of the restoration scheme to ensure long term deliverability on site is now required in this context. 7.35 As set out above, this application has been submitted under Section 42 of the Act. In the context of the submitted application, all that can be considered is the appropriateness of a time extension relating to the landfilling operation and restoration as approved by planning permission DC07/233/FUL. It is beyond the scope of the assessment of this application to consider amendments to the approved landfilling operation or indeed the approved restoration. Whilst the applicant seeks a 15 year time extension for the site it is not, however, beyond the scope of this application to conclude that an alternative time extension period, either shorter or longer, will be appropriate. In this case, it is acknowledged that the current planning permission for the operation of the site expires at the end of this year and that the site not only provides employment but provides an important waste disposal operation. However, this must be balanced with all relevant considerations and giving the above matters relating to the appropriateness and deliverability of the restoration scheme a 15 year time extension for the approved operation and restoration is not considered appropriate. Notwithstanding this, a short term extension of 18 months to allow the continued operation of the site would give the opportunity for the applicant to undertake a review of the restoration proposals and bring forward a revised proposal for consideration via a further planning application. Following detailed discussions, the applicant has confirmed that they accept such an approach, and they would bring forward a further full application on this basis. Restoration Bond 7.36 A restoration bond is required to be set in place to ensure that there will be sufficient funds to cover the detailed level of restoration required. The Council holds a bond of a value of £120,000 during active landfilling operations with reduced amounts held for a 30 year period following the cessation of the landfilling operations and this was secured at the time of previously granting planning permission. However it is acknowledged that this bond requires to be increased. The applicant is agreeable to providing an increased bond to a value of circa £1 million and this can be secured by way of an updated legal agreement prior to the issue of any planning permission. Such an approach follows the aims of Policy MIN2 of proposed Local Development Plan 2. The Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 7.37 Regulation 5 of the Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 requires that the Planning Authority consider certain matters when deciding on the suitability of a landfill site. These include matters such as the distances from the boundary of the site to residential and recreational areas, the waterways, water bodies and other Page 32
Page 33
agricultural or urban sites and the protection of the natural or cultural heritage in the area. It is considered that all the requirements under these regulations have already been met both through the assessment of the original planning application and through the submission of the EIA in support of this planning application. The proposal is not considered to raise any adverse issues. EIA Conclusions 7.38 The EIA considers various iterations taking into account new landfill rates and the upcoming restrictions of landfill waste. A proposed 15 year extension to time is considered in the EIA as the preferred option although this does not preclude the planning application assessment concluding an alternative time period for the extension is appropriate. Given the proposal relates to an existing site, it is concluded that alternative sites for landfill do not require to be considered. 7.39 The EIA concludes that any impacts from the time extension of the landfill operation will continue to be offset by way of the comprehensive mitigation measures on the site as identified in specific sections of the EIA, supporting documentation and by the approach of progressive restoration and revegetation. Management plans are, and will continue to be in place including as a requirement of the PPC permit. The EIA has concluded that with the continued mitigation the proposal to extend the operation of the site will not lead to any unacceptable impact. Public Engagement 7.40 As the planning application was submitted under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), there are no public engagement requirements that the applicant must follow prior to the submission of the planning application. Notwithstanding this, the applicant advises that prior to the submission of the application an information leaflet was distributed to neighbouring properties and this included details relating to the operations at Auchencarroch and the forthcoming application. This included the contact details of the applicant and their agent should there be any questions. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 This proposal involves an extension to the time for the operation of an existing landfill site which is facilitated by the lower than expected landfill rates due to increased recycling and a reduction in waste being sent to landfill. This application considers only the extension to the time for the operation of the site with no changes proposed to the operations themselves or the restoration scheme. It remains that the landfill operations are progressive and as each cell is filled restoration works begin. The completed site would result in a low hill with heathland habitat and some sporadic woodland, reflecting the landforms adjacent but at a lesser height than Auchencarroch Hill and Pappert Hill. The finished levels would continue those of the existing restored cells. No additional land will be developed by the proposal beyond the currently consented position. 8.2 The site comprises an important existing waste management facility which is fundamental to the city regions ongoing waste management requirements and the continued operation of the existing site to utilise consented capacity over a longer period of time and does not conflict with the vision of Clydeplan. Both the adopted Page 33
Page 34
West Dunbartonshire Local Plan and proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 identify the site as a waste management facility with Policy PS1 of the adopted Local Plan identifying the site as an established public utility which the policy seeks to protect. Policy ZW1 identifying the site as suitable for the management of waste. The site currently has existing infrastructure in place that is suitable for its continued use, is sited in an appropriate location and will continue to provide a waste disposal facility and it is not considered there is any conflict with the aims of National Policy. 8.3 In assessing the submitted EIA, all supporting documentation and taking account of all material planning considerations, it is concluded that an extension of the time for the operation of the landfill site is considered acceptable with reference to landscape and visual impact, water resources and flood risk, air quality, litter, climate change, traffic, transport and access, and recreation. Concerns arise, however, in respect of matters relating to ecology and the restoration proposals 8.4 The Ecological Appraisal was carried out some four years ago and it is noted that there was also a period where the submitted application was on hold at the request of the applicant. The need for an updated Habitat Management Plan and full consideration of the current circumstances in relation to the site are accepted and require to be addressed. Concerns therefore arise from a possible further 15 years of landfill operations on the site and the current habitat management plan would be circa 30 years old at the conclusion of the extended period. A short term extension would balance the requirement to comprehensively update the position relating to ecology and habitat management whilst balancing the continued operation of the facilities the site provides. The continued appropriateness and deliverability of the restoration scheme also raised concerns and it is not considered a 15 year time extension is appropriate. Notwithstanding this, a short term extension to allow the continued operation of the site would allow the continuation of operations on site in the short term whilst allowing the opportunity for the review and update of the restoration proposals to be brought forward as part of a further full application which would include the extension to the time for the operation of the site for a longer period. It is concluded that an additional period of 18 months from 1st January 2023 is appropriate in this respect. 8.5 It remains that the environmental impacts will continue to be safeguarded via the terms of the existing legal agreement with a review inclusive of an increased restoration bond value being concluded prior to the issuing of planning permission. 8.6 Finally, the Council has a contractual arrangement with the applicant for the disposal of waste. However as the development is not contrary to the development plan, it does not require to be notified to the Scottish Ministers under the Town & Country Planning (Notification of Applications) Direction 2009. 9. CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall ensure for the benefit of the applicant only with the approved landfill operations to be completed by 30th June 2024 and the final restoration of the site by 30th June 2026 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Page 34
Page 35
2. At all times during the lifetime of this permission, the landfill operations on site, the operational conduct of the site and the restoration of the site shall be undertaken as indicated in the Environmental Impact Assessment dated November 2020 together with all supporting documentation, plans and details that forms part of this application. For the avoidance of doubt, the landfill operations shall be undertaken and completed progressively as approved. 3. Except in the case of emergency the hours of working of the site shall be restricted to between the hours of 7.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Saturday only and not on a Sunday or on a recognised Public Holiday in West Dunbartonshire without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority with the exception of essential site maintenance and the maintenance of plant and machinery. Access to and exit from the site shall be by way of Auchencarroch Road. 4. The number of deliveries of landfill material to the site shall not exceed 116 in any one working day. 5. The site operator shall be responsible for the maintenance of a vehicle register log book of all deliveries to the site which shall be available for inspection by the Planning Authority upon request at any time. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for the collection and disposal of any windblown material emanating from the area of infill or deposited from vehicles on or around Auchencarroch Hill and Auchencarroch Road. 7. No burning of materials in connection with the infilling operations shall take place on or adjoining the site. 8. That within 8 weeks of the date of this permission, the applicant shall undertake a review of external lighting of the site and shall submit full details setting out how the impact of external lighting on the site shall be minimised in the landscape. For the avoidance of doubt this shall include full details of all existing and lighting at the site, details of the hours of illumination, location, height, angles, power rating, projection and any hoods or baffles to direct light. Any amendments of recommendations in relation to external lighting shall be fully implemented within 8 weeks of the date the details are agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. 9. The annual monitoring on the progress of the mitigation areas shall be carried out as required by the Habitat Management Plan and by the applicant or by any person engaged by them. An annual report will be made available to the Technical Working Group at least 3 weeks prior to the formal review meeting of that Group and the annual monitoring report shall be approved by the Planning Authority. 10. The approved Habitat Management Plan dated July 2008 shall continue to be fully implemented in connection with the operation of the site. 11. All advance works, including habitat translocation to receptor areas for landfill restoration shall take place outside the bird nesting season (March to July inclusive) unless a checking survey confirms the absence of nests. The checking survey shall be carried out at a time and approved in advance by the Planning Authority. Page 35
Page 36
12. All diversions of watercourses shall follow the details approved in respect of condition 18 of planning permission DC07/233/FUL. 13. The access track which runs partly through the active landfill and links up with the track leading to Paper Muir and the western edge of the commercial forestry plantation shall not be used for the export of timber without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. 14. On completion of the landfill operations, except in so far as may be required for leachate and gas monitoring, the site shall be cleared of all buildings, plant and machinery with details of the phasing of this to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority prior to the cessation of landfill operations on site. 15. Appropriate measures to prevent mud, dirt, dust, slurry or stones being carried onto the highway shall be taken and such steps shall include the provision and the use of hard standing areas and a wheel wash facility for the cleaning of all lorries, dump trucks, other heavy vehicles and plant leaving the site. 16. The access road and public road adjacent to the site shall be kept clear of mud or other deposited materials at all times by means of mechanical brushing. 17. All road vehicle transporting waste to site shall be suitably covered/happed to ensure there is no escape of materials. Where appropriate, vehicles leaving the site shall also be happed to minimise traffic noise associated with empty vehicles. 18. Soils to be imported to the site shall share similar profile characteristics as the soil structure currently on site. Topsoil and sub-soil shall only be stripped when the soils are sufficiently dry so that when moved, no damage will be done to the structure of the soils. Apart from the works required to enclose the site, no operations shall be carried out until the topsoil is fully stripped and stored in the designated areas within the site. 19. Topsoil shall be stripped to full available depth from all areas within the site except those areas designated in the approved plans as topsoil dumps. Following topsoil stripping operations from any areas of land, sub-soil shall be stripped as a separate operation to a depth, where possible, to achieve topsoil and sub-soil not less than 0.9 metre at restoration. 20. Topsoil and sub-soil shall be carefully stored in separate dumps and prevented from mixing. Topsoil dumps shall not exceed 5 metres in height. Topsoil dumps and sub soil dumps shall be evenly graded and tops shaped to prevent water ponding. Sub-soil dumps shall not exceed 8 metres in height. 21. In the first available seeding season following their formation, all mounds of topsoil, sub-soil and soil making materials shall be seeded in grass and shall be so maintained until the soils are required for use in the restoration of the site except as may be otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. Page 36
Page 37
22. All water treatment areas and settlement lagoons shall be enclosed by a one metre high stock-proof fence and shall be implemented prior to any significant soil stripping. 23. Appropriate precautions shall be taken to prevent the discharge of oil from fuelling, oil storage, plant maintenance and vehicle wash areas within the site. 24. Dust monitoring shall be routinely carried out by the applicant and undertaken using appropriate equipment and recording devices. The results and records shall be made available to the Planning Authority on a monthly basis during the operational life of the site. 25. Noise monitoring programme shall be undertaken during the operational life of the site using appropriate equipment and recording devices, the results of which shall be made available to the Planning Authority on a monthly basis. 26. The total waste landfilled on site shall not exceed 225,000 tonnes (net) per year. Pamela Clifford Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 16th November 2022 ______________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: Pamela Clifford, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Email: Pamela.Clifford@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application documents and plans 2. Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 3. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 4. West Dunbartonshire LDP - Proposed Plan 2 5. National Planning Framework 3 6. Scottish Planning Policy 2014 7. Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan 2010 8. The Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 9. Consultation responses 10. Representations 11. Planning permission DC07/233/FUL Page 37
Page 38
¯ 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 km Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (C) Crown copyright and database right 01/11/2022. All rights reserved. West Dunbartonshire OS Licence Number 100020790. Scale: 1:12,500@A4 01/11/2022 DC20/253West Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street Dumbarton G82 1QL Page 38 I T E M 6 - A P P E N D I X 1
Page 39
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 16 November 2022 _____________________________________________________________ Subject: Local Development Plan 2 - Supplementary Guidance 1. Purpose 1.1 To advise the Committee of the outcome of consultation on draft Supplementary Guidance and seek approval of finalised version of the Guidance. 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee approve the finalised versions of Supplementary Guidance as set out in the Appendices: • Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site (Appendix 1) • Creating Places (Appendix 3) • Green Network and Green Infrastructure (Appendix 5) 3. Background 3.1 The purpose of Supplementary Guidance is to add more detail to the content and policies of the Local Development Plan. Under the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006, guidance referred to in the Local Development Plan could be prepared as statutory Supplementary Guidance, and if so, would form part of the Development Plan once adopted. Whilst this will no longer be the case under the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 (i.e. guidance can still be prepared but will not form part of the statutory development plan), transitionary arrangements allow for guidance associated with Local Development Plans prepared under the 2006 Act (e.g. LDP2) to be prepared as statutory Supplementary Guidance and form part of the development plan. 4. Main Issues 4.1 The draft Supplementary Guidance on Green Network and Green Infrastructure and Creating Places was approved at Planning Committee on 16 February 2022 and published for consultation on 12 May 2022. The Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site was approved at Planning Committee on 8 June 2022 and published for ITEM 7 Page 39
Page 40
consultation on 29 June 2022. The consultation period for all three documents ended on 12 August 2022. The consultation was promoted through direct contact with the Council’s Local Development Plan participants, promotion through Council social media, and notices in local press. The documents were made available online, in the Council’s Church Street offices and in Council libraries. Details of the responses received and the changes made to each document are set out below. Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site Supplementary Guidance 4.2 The Antonine Wall guidance firstly sets out the policy background and requirements for development within the World Heritage Site or the buffer zone. It then provides detailed guidance and advice for developers with proposals within the protected areas in terms of how to assess any potential impacts of development on the World Heritage Site and buffer area; for instance relating to the landscape setting and any physical impacts on archaeological remains above and below ground. The document then sets out the necessary actions and steps to be taken in the pre-application stage, and what information is required to be provided to the planning authority. It also provides design advice for developers on how to avoid or mitigate any impacts on the World Heritage Site and buffer area, as well as setting out enforcement steps for any breaches of planning control. 4.3 Three responses were received during the consultation period. Details of responses received and the Council’s proposed response to these is set out in Appendix 2. The main response was from Historic Environment Scotland, which sought changes to wording of the guidance, both for clarification purposes and to strengthen protection of the Antonine Wall and its buffer zone. 4.4 Only the Historic Environment Scotland comments necessitated changes to the draft Supplementary Guidance, and as the document had already been consulted on by other Antonine Wall authorities, many of the changes being sought by the response had already been incorporated into the document. The additional changes requested by Historic Environment Scotland were minor in nature and are shown as tracked changes in the version attached for approval at Appendix 1. Creating Places Supplementary Guidance 4.5 The Creating Places guidance supports the Creating Places policies of LDP2. It details the process for successful placemaking including the support that the Council will provide through its Pre-Application Service and Place & Design Panel. The guidance uses examples to highlight how a well-considered design led approach can contribute to successful and Page 40
Page 41
sustainable places. Using examples, many of which are from developments in West Dunbartonshire, the guidance supports innovative and creative design without being prescriptive about architectural styles and details. 4.6 Ten responses were received during the consultation period. Details of the responses received and the Council’s proposed response to these is set out in Appendix 4. Many responses sought wording changes to clarify and strengthen the document. A response from the housebuilding industry queried procedural issues around the status of the guidance. A strengthening of reference to habitats and horse-riding was sought in different responses. 4.7 The changes made to the draft document are shown as tracked changes in the version attached for approval at Appendix 3. These changes include: • Clarification of the status of the document • Removal of references to the emerging National Planning Framework 4, as these are premature • Information relating to the use of SuDS in areas with a mining legacy • Strengthening of Habitat Enhancement section • Reference to ‘all users’ including horse riding in Access networks section • Clarification of the need for neighbourhood uses for mixed use on larger development sites Green Network and Green Infrastructure 4.8 The Green Network/Green Infrastructure Guidance sets out the policy principles and requirements for green infrastructure to be delivered within or associated with new development, and how this will link into West Dunbartonshire’s green network. The guidance sets out how green infrastructure should be embedded in new development and what types of green infrastructure should be provided within different development types. It then focuses on residential development, setting standards for the provision of open space in relation to accessibility, quality and quantity. It also sets out the circumstances under which developer contributions will be sought and how these will be calculated. 4.9 Ten responses were received during the consultation period. Details of the responses received and the Council’s proposed response to these is set out in Appendix 6. Many of the responses sought wording changes to clarify and strengthen the guidance. Responses from the housebuilding industry queried procedural issues around the status of the guidance and the approach to seeking developer contributions. A number of responses queried the availability of open space audit information. The relationship between the accessibility, quality and quantity standards set out in the guidance was queried, particularly with regard to how these related to the Page 41
Page 42
worked examples included in an appendix to the guidance. A response from a local resident was received seeking stronger reference to horse- riding and equestrian facilities in the document. 4.10 The changes made to the draft document are shown as tracked changes in the version attached for approval at Appendix 3. These changes include: • Clarification of the status of the document • Changes to the definition of greenspace and green infrastructure • Requiring an overall net gain in quantitative or qualitative provision of green infrastructure/open space, if any is lost through development • Strengthen references to multi-user and multi-function green infrastructure • Strengthen requirement for habitat provision/enhancement • Clarifying relationship between the quantity standard and the accessibility and quality standard • Clarifying that a ‘hybrid’ approach of on-site provision and financial contribution to off-site provision is acceptable. • Including information on the open space audit Next steps 4.11 On approval, the finalised versions of these documents will become material considerations in planning decisions and will supersede the following existing guidance documents: • Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site (2011) • Residential Development: Principles for Good Design (2014) • Our Green Network (2015) 4.12 If the Council adopts the associated Local Development Plan (LDP2) at a future date, the Council will then seek to adopt the supplementary guidance documents as part of the development plan. This will involve notifying the Scottish Ministers of our intention to adopt the documents. At that stage, Scottish Ministers scrutiny is likely to focus on ensuring that the principles of good public involvement and a proper connection with the development plan have been achieved, rather than on detailed policy content, which the Scottish Government has already commented on at the consultation draft stage. 5. People Implications 5.1 There are no people implications associated with this report. 6. Financial and Procurement Implications 6.1 There are no financial or procurement issues associated with this report. Page 42
Page 43
7. Risk Analysis 7.1 There are no risks associated with this report. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) 8.1 The draft Supplementary Guidance documents were subject to equality impact assessments. These found that the documents had a wide range of positive impacts with no groups with protected characteristics disadvantaged and no negative impacts identified. The proposed changes to the documents are not considered to amend these conclusions. 9. Environmental Sustainability 9.1 The documents have been the subject of Strategic Environmental Assessment screening concluding that they will not have significant environmental impacts. 10. Consultation 10.1 Consultation has been undertaken on the draft Supplementary Guidance documents as set out in paragraph 4.1. 11. Strategic Assessment 11.1 The supplementary guidance is considered to align with the Council’s Strategic Priorities, particularly: Our Communities – Resilient and Thriving Our Environment – A Greener Future Pamela Clifford Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 16 November 2022 _________________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: Pamela Clifford, Planning & Building Standards Manager pamela.clifford@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Alan Williamson, Development Planning & Place Team Leader alan.williamson@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Page 43
Page 44
Appendices: 1. Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site – finalised version 2. Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site – comments received on draft version and Council’s proposed response 3. Creating Places – finalised version 4. Creating Places – comments received on draft version and Council’s proposed response 5. Green Network and Green Infrastructure – finalised version – comments received on draft version and Council’s proposed response 6. Green Network and Green Infrastructure – comments received on draft version and Council’s proposed response Background Papers: ‘Development Planning Update’ report to Planning Committee, 16 February, 2022 ‘Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site Supplementary Guidance’ report to Planning Committee, 8 June 2022. Wards Affected: All Page 44
Page 45
ITEM 7 - Appendix 1 Local Development Plan 2 Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site Supplementary Guidance November 2022 Page 45
Page 46
This document incorporates amendments following consultation on the draft Supplementary Guidance in 2022. If/when the associated Local Development Plan (LDP2) is adopted, this document will be submitted to the Scottish Government for approval to adopt. Until that time it will be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.This document is also available in other languages, large print and audio format on request. Please contact Corporate Communications at: Address: West Dunbartonshire Council, Council Offices, 16 Church Street Dumbarton, G82 1QL Phone: 01389 737527 Email: Communications@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Arabic Hindi Punjabi Urdu Chinese (Cantonese) Polish British Sign Language BSL users can contact us via contactSCOTLAND-BSL, the on-line British Sign Language interpreting service. Find out more on the contactSCOTLAND website Page 46
Page 47
Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site Supplementary Guidance Contents: 1. Introduction 1.1 Section 1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose of Supplementary Guidance 1.3 The Antonine Wall 1.4 The Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site 1.5 Buffer Zone 1.6 Protecting the Wall 2. Application Process 2.1 Section 2 Introduction 2.2 Site Audit 2.3 Pre-Application Discussions 2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment 2.5 Scheduled Monument Consent 2.6 Permitted Development and Other Consents 3. Assessing the Impact of Development 3.1 Section 3 Introduction 3.2 Physical Impacts 3.3 Impacts on Setting 3.4 Cumulative Impacts 3.5 Adding Value 3.6 Other Planning Policies and Assessments 4. Design and Mitigating Impacts 4.1 Section 4 Introduction 4.2 Design Criteria 4.3 Mitigation 4.4 Enforcement Appendix 1 - Statement of Outstanding Universal Value Appendix 2 - Summary of Key Points Appendix 3 - Glossary Appendix 4 - General Information and Contacts Appendix 5 - Map of Antonine Wall and Council Areas Appendix 6 - The Antonine Wall Then and Now Page 47
Page 48
1. Introduction 1.1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1.1 This Supplementary Guidance provides advice for developers, decision makers and the public on managing the impact of development on the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site (FRE(AW)WHS) and its setting. The guidance supports the implementation of the development plan policies agreed by the five Councils along the Antonine Wall: Falkirk, North Lanarkshire, East Dunbartonshire, Glasgow City and West Dunbartonshire. 1.1.2 The Guidance will be a material consideration in the assessment and determination of planning applications affecting the Antonine Wall and its setting. It will then be progressively adopted as statutory Supplementary Guidance alongside the emerging Local Development Plans being prepared by the five local authorities. 1.2 PURPOSE 1.2.1 The purpose of the SG is to: ▪ explain the significance of the Antonine Wall and its status as a World Heritage Site; ▪ encourage early and effective consultation with Councils and Historic Environment Scotland; ▪ outline the approach and procedure for assessing development affecting the World Heritage Site; ▪ set out the criteria which will be applied in determining planning applications for development along the line of, and within the setting and vicinity of the World Heritage Site; ▪ guide decisions on planning appeals and enforcement. 1.3 THE ANTONINE WALL 1.3.1 The Antonine Wall is the most substantial and important Roman monument in Scotland. Built on the orders of the Emperor Antoninus Pius in the years following 140 AD, it extends for some 60 kilometres across central Scotland from Bo’ness on the River Forth to Old Kilpatrick on the River Clyde and marked the north western frontier of the Roman Empire. 1.3.2 The Wall functioned both as a frontier control and military defence. It comprised of a substantial turf rampart built on a solid stone base fronted to the north by a broad, deep ditch and outer mound. To the south of the rampart was a road, the Military Way, which permitted the movement of troops, goods and materials and connected the series of permanent stone built forts which occur at roughly two mile intervals along its length. Between some of the forts there are smaller forts, or Page 48
Page 49
fortlets. Camps used by the troops building the Wall also occur at regular distances along the frontier. 1.3.3 The Antonine Wall is of great significance for a number of reasons. It represents one of many sections of a massive military system which stretched over 5000 km from northern Britain, through Europe to the Black Sea, and from there to the Red Sea and across North Africa to the Atlantic coast. This frontier helped to protect – and define – the Roman Empire, one of the greatest states ever to have existed. The Antonine Wall was the most northerly frontier of the Empire, the last of a series of planned frontiers built in the 2nd Century AD and, at the time, the most complex ever constructed by the Romans. 1.3.4 Today around one third of the Antonine Wall is visible above ground, at places such as Bearsden, Bar Hill and Rough Castle. Around one third lies in urban areas while the remainder lies in open countryside or open spaces within urban areas and, though not visible above ground, survives below ground. Only 2 km of the original 60 kilometres of the Antonine Wall have been completely lost through quarrying and the construction of roads, railways and the Forth and Clyde Canal. The Wall continues to be subject to considerable development pressures and given its significance it is imperative that the remaining sections – whether visible on the ground or not – are safeguarded from inappropriate development. 1.4 THE FRONTIERS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (ANTONINE WALL) WORLD HERITAGE SITE – FRE(AW)WHS 1.4.1 In July 2008 the international cultural and archaeological importance of the Antonine Wall was recognised when the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO inscribed the site as Scotland’s fifth World Heritage Site (WHS). The Antonine Wall became an extension of the trans-national Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site which includes Hadrian’s Wall in England and the Upper Raetian German Limes. The intention is that the WHS will eventually include all surviving sections of the frontiers of the Romans in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. 1.4.2 With World Heritage Site status comes a commitment to protect the exceptional cultural significance of the Antonine Wall and Outstanding Universal Values (OUV) for which the site was inscribed. The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, provided at Appendix 1, not only identifies the reasons for the Wall’s inscription as a World Heritage Site but provides the basis for its effective protection and management. 1.4.3 It is imperative that development does not compromise the values for which the Antonine Wall was inscribed as a World Heritage Site, its authenticity and integrity. Page 49
Page 50
1.5 BUFFER ZONE 1.5.1 To protect the important landscape setting of the Antonine Wall a Buffer Zone has been designated to the north and south of the monument. The Buffer Zone does not act as an absolute barrier to development but defines a zone where added protection to the immediate setting of the World Heritage Site is given. Development proposals within the buffer zone will be given careful consideration to determine whether it is likely to significantly detract from the Outstanding Universal Value authenticity or integrity of the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site. 1.5.2 Section 3 Assessing the Impact of Development provides further guidance on Buffer Zone and the setting of the Antonine Wall. The boundaries of the World Heritage Site and the Buffer Zone are shown in Figure 1, below, as well as on the Proposals Maps of the relevant local plans/local development plans listed in Appendix 4. Figure 1: The Antonine Wall, World Heritage Site and Buffer Zones Page 50
Page 51
1.6 PROTECTING THE WALL 1.6.1 World Heritage Site designation does not result in additional direct legal protection. Nevertheless, the Antonine Wall is protected through the planning system and in some areas through designation as a scheduled monument. Scottish Planning Policy 1.6.2 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) provides a statement of the Scottish Government’s policy on nationally important land use matters. The Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) sets out the Scottish Governments policies for the historic environment and provides policy direction. Paragraph 147 of SPP refers to World Heritage Sites and states that “Where a development proposal has the potential to affect a World Heritage Site, or its setting, the planning authority must protect and preserve its Outstanding Universal Value.” The glossary of SPP clearly defines the term ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ and emphasises that the Statement of OUV is the key reference for the future effective protection and management of the WHS. The glossary also clearly defines setting. SPP emphasises that setting is more than simply the immediate surroundings of a site. It can also relate to how the site was intended to fit into the landscape, the views from it and how the site is seen from the surrounding area. Planning Advice Note (PAN) 2/2011: Planning and Archaeology and the Managing Change in the Scottish Environment Guidance Notes complete a suite of documents that together set out the Scottish Ministers’ policies for planning and the historic environment. Links to all the documents mentioned are listed in Appendix 4. Development Plan Policy 1.6.3 Decisions on planning applications require to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The local development plans of each Council include policies to protect and enhance the historic environment and archaeology. National planning policy on the historic environment is also a material consideration for applications 1.6.4 Each of the five Councils along the Antonine Wall has also agreed to include the following specific planning policies on the Antonine Wall and its buffer zone in their development plans as they are revised and updated. This document provides additional guidance and information on the implementation of these policies in the development management process. Page 51
Page 52
Antonine Wall Policy 1 There will be a presumption against development which would have an adverse impact on the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site as defined on the Proposals Map. Antonine Wall Policy 2 There will be a presumption against development within the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site buffer zones which would have an adverse impact on the Site and its setting, unless: ▪ mitigating action to the satisfaction of the Council in consultation with Historic Environment Scotland can be taken to redress the adverse impact; and ▪ there is no conflict with other Local Development Plan policies. 1.6.5 In addition to protection under planning legalisation, about two-thirds of the Wall which has remained unaffected by modern development, is scheduled as a monument of national importance under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Most works carried out within the boundaries of the monument require Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC): the prior written consent of Historic Environment Scotland. SMC is separate from planning consent and one can be given without prejudice to the other. Section 2.5 provides more information. KEY POINTS ▪ This document provides advice for decision makers, developers and members of the public on managing the impact of development on the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site and its setting; ▪ The Supplementary Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment and determination of planning applications affecting the Antonine Wall and its settings and will be adopted as statutory Supplementary Guidance, which forms part of the Local Development Plan; ▪ The Antonine Wall is of international significance. As a World Heritage Site its outstanding universal value, authenticity and integrity must be protected. ▪ There is a presumption against development which would have an adverse impact on the Antonine Wall and its setting. Page 52
Page 53
2. Application Process 2.1 SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1.1 This section provides guidance on key stages in the process of applying for planning permission where a proposed development may have an impact on the FRE(AW)WHS or its setting. It also identifies where other permissions or assessments may be required, for example scheduled monument consent from Historic Environment Scotland. 2.2 SITE AUDIT 2.2.1 Developers considering proposals within the WHS and Buffer Zone should look carefully at their site to determine whether the development proposed is likely to have an impact on the fabric or setting of the Antonine Wall. Table 1 below outlines some of the key information that will influence whether proposals have an adverse impact, and should be discussed with the Council at the pre-application stage. Adverse impacts are examined further in Chapter 3. Table 1 – Site Audit; Key Questions Factor Key Questions Location Is the site in: • World Heritage Site • Buffer Zone • Other designated area • Scheduled Monument Site characteristics and setting Is the site: • Greenfield • Previously developed What are the key landscape characteristics: • Topography • Tree cover • Enclosed or open What is the landscape character of the site and its setting? What is the cultural significance and historic importance of the existing site characteristics and setting? How will the proposal impact on views to/from the Antonine Wall? Will the proposal affect existing public access to the World Heritage Site? Page 53
Page 54
Will the proposal have a direct impact on the remains of the Antonine Wall and associated archaeological features? Development Characteristics • Size/footprint • Proposed Use • Building design and materials/scale/height/form/massing • Landscaping proposals including boundary treatment Development Plan Policies What other planning policies and designations apply to the site? 2.2.2 It is emphasised that the general principle of new development at any specific location may be deemed unacceptable because of other policies in the development plan. For example green belt, open space and countryside protection policies may rule out the principle of particular types of development or land use. 2.3 PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS 2.3.1 Developers will be expected, as early as possible, to engage with the Council in pre-application discussions. Contact details for each local authority are provided in Appendix 4. 2.3.2 Early, positive and meaningful engagement will allow unacceptable proposals to be identified before significant costs are incurred and allow other projects to move forward more efficiently. Using Table 1 above as a basis, along with any available plans, drawings, photographs or photomontages and documentation, developers should aim to provide the Council with as much information as possible relating to the proposed development and the site. 2.3.3 With suitable information the Council will be able to make a preliminary assessment of the proposal, considering relevant development plan policies and the potential for adverse impacts on the WHS and its setting. Discussions may also cover: ▪ any additional information required, for example detailed archaeological investigations, landscape assessments etc.; ▪ where a proposal might be amended to allow more favourable consideration (see Section 4); ▪ the Council’s procedure for processing applications, including key contacts and application fees (including any advertisement charges); ▪ where wider consultation is required with specialist archaeological services, statutory organisations and other Page 54
Page 55
interest groups. This may also involve statutory Pre-Application Consultation. ▪ advice on other relevant statutory processes, e.g. Listed Building/ Conservation Area Consents, Scheduled Monument Consent. 2.3.4 In many circumstances, only full applications for Planning Permission will be acceptable for sites within the WHS and Buffer Zone. Applications for Planning Permission in Principle often cannot provide sufficient information to enable detailed assessment of impacts on the WHS or its setting. Where Planning Permission in Principle is sought, the reasons for this should be discussed with the Council at this pre- application stage. 2.3.5 All discussions and pre-application advice is given without prejudice to the final decision of the Council on any application that may be submitted. 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2.4.1 Certain types of developments may require Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under the the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. Schedule 1 and 2 of the Regulations set out the types of development to which this applies. This can be discussed during pre-application discussions and further information is provided at Section 3.7 2.5 SCHEDULED MONUMENT CONSENT 2.5.1 Any works directly affecting a designated Scheduled Monument requires Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) which is obtained from Historic Environment Scotland. SMC is required for any works or operations that would ‘ demolish, destroy, remove, repair, alter or add to’ those parts of the FRE(AW)WHS designated a scheduled monument. This includes invasive archaeological investigations. Applications for SMC are made directly to Historic Environment Scotland. 2.5.2 Advice on the SMC process and requirements should be sought at an early stage from the Heritage Directorate, Historic Environment Scotland. As in the case of planning applications, early pre-application contact, this time with Historic Environment Scotland, is strongly advised. To streamline the process advice on applications for planning permission and SMC should be sought at the same time. Where both planning permission and SMC are required, development cannot proceed without both consents in place. The annex to PAN 2/1011 provides a flowchart outlining the consideration of archaeology in planning decisions and will be applicable to applications affecting the Antonine Wall regardless of the need for SMC. Page 55
Page 56
2.5.3 The presumption of scheduling is that any future works will be the minimum necessary consistent with the preservation of the monument. The Historic Environment Scotland website and the HEPS includes further information on scheduling and SMC and can be used to identify the location of scheduled monuments: see Appendix 4. 2.6 PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT & OTHER CONSENTS 2.6.1 Development that does not require planning permission, for example householder development within urban areas – where the Wall is known to have survived under the modern-day ground surface – has the potential to have adverse impacts without any assessment or appropriate mitigation. Developers and property owners are strongly urged to seek advice from the Council before undertaking any works within the WHS or Buffer Zone to determine whether their proposal is covered by permitted development rights and to discuss potential impacts. 2.6.2 SMC will still be required for permitted development that does fall within the boundaries of the scheduled monument. 2.6.3 It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure all necessary consents, including Building Warrants, Conservation Area Consent and Listed Building Consent, are obtained. KEY POINTS ▪ Understand your development site: what are the potential impacts of the proposal on the WHS and its setting? ▪ Developers are expected to engage with the Council as early as possible; ▪ Unconnected to the need for planning permission, Scheduled Monument Consent is required for works to any part of the FRE(AW)WHS designated a scheduled monument. Page 56
Page 57
3. Assessing the Impact of Development 3.1 SECTION 3 INTRODUCTION 3.1.1 This section of the SG provides information on the Council’s approach to assessing the potential impacts of development on the Antonine Wall WHS and its setting, including the criteria that will be used. 3.1.2 Development must not compromise the Outstanding Universal Value for which the Antonine Wall was inscribed as a WHS. The key consideration in assessing the impact of development – as outlined in the development plan – is the presumption against development which would have an adverse impact on the Antonine Wall and its setting; that is any impact that would damage the integrity, authenticity, significance or understanding of the WHS. Examples of what could be considered adverse include development that: ▪ destroys or would lead to the damage of archaeological remains; ▪ interrupts key views to, from, or within the WHS; ▪ changes the character of the landscape in and around the WHS; ▪ reduces people’s appreciation or understanding of the WHS in its landscape setting; ▪ could negatively affect any of the qualities or significance for which the WHS was inscribed. 3.1.3 Impacts may be physical: upon the fabric of the monument; on the setting of the wall: development that harms the character of the landscape around the WHS; or cumulative: development that has the potential to add to the existing negative effects of past or current developments thereby creating further and possibly greater adverse effects. This section considers each category of impact in turn and other factors that will be considered in assessing the impact of development. 3.2 PHYSICAL IMPACTS 3.2.1 Within the FRE(AW)WHS new development of any scale is likely to have a physical effect on the fabric of the monument and could result in loss of or damage to significant archaeological remains. Such impacts intrinsically affect the integrity of the site – one of the reasons for which it was inscribed as a WHS. Therefore any physical impact on the surviving fabric of the WHS – whether upstanding or below ground, – will be considered to be adverse. 3.2.2 Where sections of the WHS have previously been developed the fabric of the Antonine Wall may have already been compromised. In these areas the key consideration in determining if a proposal would have an adverse physical impact will be whether the new development will result in additional loss or damage to archaeological remains. As an Page 57
Page 58
initial guide, the current depth of development on a site sets a sub- ground limit – known as the Vertical Buffer Zone – below which no excavation should take place (see Figure 2). The vertical buffer zone may include complex archaeological deposits, with features relating to other periods of history, and site investigations to determine the vertical buffer zone may themselves have adverse impacts. Carefully located and designed proposals on previously developed sites that do not extend below the vertical buffer zone may, therefore, be acceptable in certain circumstances, provided they do not conflict with other planning policies Pre-application advice should be sought to scope out potential archaeological impacts of any proposal, particularly those impacts which may extend beyond the WHS and its associated features. FIGURE 2: VERTICAL BUFFER ZONE 3.2.3 Development should avoid areas of surviving archaeological remains. Avoiding the World Heritage Site and, in particular, areas which are scheduled, will be the best approach. Even in areas which have already been developed, the presence, location, depth and sensitivity of deposits cannot always be predicted. In many instances it may be appropriate to carry out an archaeological evaluation to help determine where Roman deposits lie ahead of making a planning application. This may help to design proposals which avoid areas of archaeological deposits. For smaller developments where surviving Roman deposits are assessed as being improbable, an archaeological watching brief and mitigation strategy may be more appropriate – this should be discussed with the local authority and Historic Environment Scotland at an early stage. Moving development outwith the WHS will not automatically avoid physical impact. Although not covered by the WHS, impacts upon archaeological deposits from other periods will not always be acceptable and should also be considered as part of the development planning process. 3.2.4 Proposals should also consider potential long term impacts arising from development, for example through compression and hydrological impacts. Page 58
Page 59
3.2.5 To properly inform the design and assessment process (including pre application discussions) it is essential that any new development site overlying the boundaries of the WHS is, at the outset and at the developer’s expense, the subject of a detailed archaeological investigation undertaken by a suitably qualified professional. The Chartered Institute for Archaeologist’ list of Registered Organisations a good starting point for selecting a consultant. Physical Impact within the Buffer Zone 3.2.6 There may be sub-surface archaeological deposits within or outwith the defined buffer zone, outwith the line of the World Heritage Site, or Scheduled areas. This is because the exact line of the Wall is not clear, and new elements may be discovered during site works. Where known archaeological remains are present, investigation will be required in conjunction with new development. Where previously unknown archaeological deposits are identified during site works the Council should be informed immediately and further archaeological investigations may be required. KEY POINTS ▪ Any physical impact on the surviving fabric of the WHS - whether upstanding or below ground -known or previously unrecognised - will not be permitted. This refers to both Scheduled Monument and unscheduled sections of the WHS. ▪ Proposals on previously developed sites that do not extend below the vertical buffer zone may be acceptable in certain circumstances. ▪ Detailed archaeological investigations will be required to accompany any proposals for development within the boundaries of the WHS. ▪ Where the extent or presence of archaeological remains is unclear, pre-determination evaluation will be required. 3.3 IMPACTS ON SETTING 3.3.1 The Antonine Wall was not constructed in isolation. It was deliberately positioned with reference to the surrounding topography, resources and landscape of central Scotland, notably the southern edge of the valley formed by the Rivers Kelvin and Carron – a position that offered the Wall wide-ranging views over the Kilsyth Hills, the Campsie Fells, and Kilpatrick Hills and meant that it too was widely visible in the landscape. The setting of the FRE(AW)WHS is predominately well preserved and readily perceptible and it is this relationship with the landscape that is a fundamental part of what makes the WHS so significant and contributes to how it is experienced, understood and appreciated: its outstanding universal value which must be protected. Page 59
Page 60
3.3.2 The Buffer Zone has been defined to ensure that all proposals for development within it are considered carefully as they may have the potential to affect the WHS; the adjacent environment that it is part of, and which contributes to the character, significance and understanding of the Wall. The capacity for new development in the Buffer Zone varies significantly along the length of the WHS and while the Council does not seek to prevent all change to the landscape within the Buffer Zone, it is considered essential that new development is effectively accommodated within the landscape and is designed and located to conserve and enhance the setting of the WHS. This also applies to developments out with the Buffer Zone that may have an impact by virtue of their scale or visual relationship with the Antonine Wall. Development in the Buffer Zone 3.3.3 Antonine Wall Policy 2 presumes against development within the buffer zone which would have an adverse impact on the WHS and its setting, unless mitigating action to the satisfaction of the Council in consultation with Historic Environment Scotland can be taken to redress the adverse impact. Section 4 covers potential mitigation action, however, it should be noted that in many instances it will not be possible to mitigate the adverse impact of a proposed development upon the AW(FRE)WHS. Adverse impacts will be defined as those which could affect the following criteria: ▪ a) The authenticity and integrity of the setting, e.g.: - Changes to the prominence/dominance of the WHS in the landscape; - Obstruction of views to and from the WHS; - Changes in the overall preservation of the landscape setting. ▪ b) The significance of the setting, e.g.: - How the function and meaning of the WHS relates to the landscape; - How the WHS is understood and can be appreciated in the landscape; - Relationships between components of the WHS and related sites. ▪ c) The character of the landscape in which the WHS sits, including the contribution the WHS makes to wider landscape character. ▪ d) The quality of the wider landscape. 3.3.4 Additional information on the Buffer Zone; how it was defined and its key characteristics can be found in the Nomination Document and the Page 60
Page 61
report ‘Definitions of Buffer Zones to the World Heritage Site’. Historic Environment Scotland has also produced advice on Managing Change in the Historic Environment (see Appendix 4). These documents will be a material consideration in the determination of proposals and their possible impacts. Development affecting the wider landscape setting of the World Heritage Site 3.3.5 In addition to the defined Buffer Zone it may be necessary to consider potential impacts of new development outside the Buffer Zone on longer distance views to and from significant landscape features – notably the upland edge of the Campsie Fells and Kilpatrick Hills – which play an important part in the appreciation and significance of the WHS. Most development beyond the Buffer Zone will not have an adverse effect on the setting of the WHS or its setting, however, major development in particular has the potential to detract from or damage longer distance views to and from the Site. The criteria for judging whether impacts on wider setting can be considered ‘adverse’ are broadly the same as those outlined above. 3.3.6 Within built up areas, parts of the WHS, particularly the scheduled monument, may also have a setting which will require to be determined on a site by site basis. KEY POINTS ▪ There will be a presumption against development within the Buffer Zone which would have an adverse impact on the WHS and its setting. ▪ The Criteria set out in paragraph 3.5.3 will be applied in the assessment of what is an adverse impact on the setting of the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site. 3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 3.4.1 New development will be assessed on its own merits. However, there are potential instances where development impacts, acceptable in isolation, combine to create adverse cumulative impacts on the WHS. These may be physical – where a series of developments have resulted in significant losses of archaeological material, or affect the setting of the WHS – where a sequence of new developments erodes visual connections with the landscape. Councils will therefore consider the potential for new development to create, add to or set a precedent for adverse cumulative impacts. Such consideration will include:- Page 61
Page 62
▪ What developments or types of development, in the vicinity of the proposed site have adversely affected the integrity of the WHS in the past? ▪ What ongoing activities, developments or natural processes are affecting its physical condition and survival, and the integrity of its setting? ▪ What other developments are proposed in the short- to medium- term that are likely to contribute to adverse effects on the WHS? ▪ Whether the impact of the proposed development is likely to contribute to cumulative effects generated by the above? KEY POINT ▪ The Council may advise developers to demonstrate they have given due consideration to the cumulative impact of their development on the Antonine Wall and its setting. 3.5 ADDING VALUE 3.5.1 Where development would not have an adverse impact on the Antonine Wall and its setting, proposals should seek to make a positive contribution to the conservation, management and understanding of the WHS and its setting. Sympathetic, high-quality design of development can have the potential to add value by enhancing the character of the WHS and its setting; promoting improved access, (including by public transport), to, and interpretation of the site; and contributing to a wider appreciation and understanding of the WHS in its landscape context. Opportunities should be identified early in the planning process. Pre-application discussions with the Council and the archaeology service will assist in drawing out suitable ideas which can be implemented through the development process. 3.6 OTHER PLANNING POLICIES & ASSESSMENTS 3.6.1 In addition to the impact of proposed development upon the WHS and its setting, applications for planning permission will also be considered against relevant policies in the Council’s development plan, other supplementary guidance and the national policy framework. Details can be viewed online or can be seen, and discussed, at the appropriate Council offices. 3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3.7.1 Schedules 1 and 2 of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 set out the types of development likely to have significant impacts on the environment and which are required to undergo Environmental Impact Assessment. Both scheduled monuments and World Heritage Sites are defined as ‘sensitive areas’ under the Regulations. Where any proposed Page 62
Page 63
Schedule 2 development falls within a scheduled monuments or WHS and is likely to have ‘significant environmental effects,’ an Environmental Impact Assessment is required (Schedule 1 development always requires EIA). This includes any type of development that would ordinarily have permitted development rights, but is located within the sensitive area/is above the thresholds set out in the Regulations. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2017/102/contents/made 3.7.2 EIA development that falls within the Scheduled Area will also require Scheduled Monument Consent. Planning Circular 1/2017 provides further information on the EIA Regulations. http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/05/6292 Page 63
Page 64
4. Design and Mitigating Impacts 4.1 SECTION 4 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to outline the general design principles for new development within the WHS and Buffer Zone. 4.1.1 A core principle of the modernised planning system is the focus on the quality of outcomes, taking account of the sustainable use of land, good design and the protection and enhancement of the built and natural environment. The international significance of the Antonine Wall means good quality design will be vital for any development on or near the WHS, including within the Buffer Zone and fundamental to the avoidance of any adverse impact. 4.2 DESIGN CRITERIA 4.2.1 In the first instance, there is a presumption against development which would have an adverse impact on the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site and its setting. Key to the avoidance and minimisation of adverse impacts on the WHS will be good design which takes account of the following principles: ▪ Careful site selection: ▪ Site selection should avoid the WHS, in particular those areas which are scheduled; ▪ Site selection within the Buffer Zone should avoid the most sensitive areas and avoid obstructing views to/from, and limiting existing access to the WHS; ▪ Prioritise previously developed sites, taking account of the ‘vertical buffer zone’ and allowing, where possible, development to fit within existing settlement patterns. ▪ Well considered development layout: ▪ Proposed development should seek to maximise the benefit of existing site features, especially topography and vegetation, to eliminate adverse visual impacts. ▪ Appropriate building design: ▪ The characteristics of the site, landscape and local building styles should inform the form, massing, height and materials of new buildings, generating coherent, high quality solutions. ▪ High quality landscape design: ▪ Landscaping – both hard and soft – should be as much part of the development process as the architecture. Well planned and executed design may enable development to be accommodated by the site and wider landscape and Page 64
Page 65
has the potential to reinforce existing landscape features and character. Additional landscaping can also impact on intervisibility between different parts of the WHS and its setting. It is therefore important that the location and specification of new landscaping is considered in relation to impact on the WHS and its setting. 4.3 MITIGATION 4.3.1 Antonine Wall Policy 2 states there will be a presumption against development within the Buffer Zone which would have an adverse impact on the Site and its setting unless mitigating action to the satisfaction of the Council, in consultation with Historic Environment Scotland, can be taken to redress the adverse impact. Mitigation measures potentially reduce any identified impacts to an acceptable level. It is emphasised though that not all adverse impacts can be successfully mitigated. Impacts on the WHS and its setting should primarily be avoided through positive siting and design decisions in preference to the use of other mitigation measures. 4.3.2 Examples of mitigation may include landscaping proposals which are designed to reflect and strengthen local landscape character and the visual setting of the Antonine Wall. Mitigation measures however should not in themselves potentially generate adverse impacts. 4.3.3 Design matters and the potential for mitigation measures should be discussed at the pre-application stage, and appropriate reports submitted in support of any application demonstrating that discussions have been effectively incorporated in the finalised proposals. In the event that permission is granted suitable conditions and, if necessary, planning agreements will ensure the proper implementation of agreed mitigation measures. 4.3.4 Conditions will be used to ensure that development does not proceed before a programme for appropriate mitigation has been identified, or where archaeological recording has taken place. Conditions will ensure that safeguards are in place to protect important features. When imposing conditions, planning officers will consult with Historic Environment Scotland and/or Council’s Archaeologists to ensure that the proposed measures are proportionate, enforceable and effective in conserving OUV. Examples of suitable conditions might include landscaping and/or protective buffer zones around key in-situ sections of the wall KEY POINTS All development within the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site and Buffer Zone will be expected to be of good design, demonstrating: careful site selection; well considered Page 65
Page 66
development layout; appropriate building design and materials; high quality landscape design. ▪ Mitigating action which redresses the adverse impact of development within the Buffer Zone may be acceptable but must be discussed in consultation with – and be to the satisfaction of - the Council and Historic Environment Scotland. ▪ Mitigation of adverse impacts will not be possible in all instances. 4.4 ENFORCEMENT 4.4.1 The unique trans-national nature of the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site means that damage to the Antonine Wall could affect the integrity and significance of the WHS as a whole – with international implications for Scotland. 4.4.2 The recognition of the WHS’s Outstanding Universal Value, means the Antonine Wall requires the highest level of statutory protection. Loss or damage to upstanding archaeological remains and those buried beneath the ground will be treated as a particularly serious breach of regulatory controls. Other impacts of unauthorised development will be judged against the same guidance for new developments with respect to the effect on the character, integrity or significance of the World Heritage Site. Non-compliance with planning conditions or agreements may also result in significant adverse impacts. 4.4.3 Breaches of planning control will be investigated and, if appropriate, enforced by the Council, or in consultation with Historic Environment Scotland. In all cases it will be required that ongoing work cease with immediate effect, to allow a proper assessment of the impacts and prevent damage or loss once it is established that there is or has been a breach. In particular it may be considered appropriate to issue a temporary stop notice requiring an immediate halt to activity and allowing time for further enforcement action to be put in place to protect the site or archaeological remains. Full details of the enforcement powers available to planning authorities are set out in Planning Circular 10/2009: Planning Enforcement. Remedying the breach will take account of particular circumstances, but can include full site reinstatement. Non-compliance with enforcement or stop notices can also be prosecuted at the Sherriff Court. 4.4.4 Any person carrying out unauthorised works or allowing unauthorised works to be carried out on a Scheduled Monument without consent are guilty of an offence. Works are defined as: anything resulting in the demolition or destruction of a scheduled monument; any works for the purpose of removing or repairing a scheduled monument; or any flooding or tipping operations. The Historic Environment (Amendment)(Scotland) act 2014 introduced new powers to enable Scottish Ministers to serve scheduled monument enforcement notices, Page 66
Page 67
complemented by temporary stop notices where unauthorised works are taking place on a scheduled monument. Further information on this is available on Historic Environment Scotland's website https://www.historicenvironment.scot/advice-and-support/applying-for- consents/scheduled-monument-consent/compliance/ KEY POINTS ▪ The Council will seek to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site through a robust approach to unauthorised development. The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value is located here: http://www.antoninewall.org/world-heritage/nomination-and- inscription/souv ▪ ICOMOS have prepared guidance on the process of commissioning HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (HIAs) for World Heritage (WH) properties in order to evaluate effectively the impact of potential development on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of properties. This is located here : http://www.icomos-uk.org/world-heritage/ Page 67
Page 68
APPENDIX 1: STATEMENT OF OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUES The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site as contained in the decision notice of the World Heritage Committee outlines the exceptional cultural significance of the Antonine Wall: “The Antonine Wall fully illustrates the effort of building the Limes on the frontiers of the Roman Empire, at the time of its apogee and greatest extension in the British Isles and worldwide (middle of the 2nd century AD). It embodies a high degree of expertise in the technical mastery of earthen defensive constructions, in the construction of a strategic system of forts and camps, and in the general military organisation of the Limes. The Antonine Wall also demonstrates the diffusion of the military and civil engineering of the Roman civilisation to the whole of Europe and the Mediterranean world.” The Antonine Wall meets three of the selection criteria for inscription as a World Heritage Site, (ii), (iii) and (iv): (ii) The Antonine Wall is one of the significant elements of the Roman Limes present in Europe, The Middle East and North Africa. It exhibits important interchanges of human and cultural values at the time of the apogee of the Roman Empire; (iii) The Antonine Wall bears testimony to the maximum extension of the Roman Empire, by the consolidation of its frontiers in the north of the British Isles, in the middle of the 2nd Century AD. The property illustrates the Roman Empire’s ambition to dominate the world in order to establish its law and way of life there in a long-term perspective; (iv) The Antonine Wall is an outstanding example of the technological development of Roman military architecture and frontier defence Page 68
Page 69
APPENDIX 2: KEY POINTS • The Antonine Wall is of international significance. As a World Heritage Site (WHS) its outstanding universal value, authenticity and integrity must be protected. • There is a presumption against development which would have an adverse impact on the Antonine Wall and its setting. • Developers are expected to engage with the Council as early as possible. • Any physical impact on the surviving fabric of the WHS – whether upstanding or below ground, known or previously unrecognised – will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances ; • All development within the WHS and Buffer Zone will be expected to be of good design, demonstrating: careful site selection; well considered development layout; sympathetic, high-quality building and landscape design and materials. • Mitigating action which redresses the adverse impact of development within the Buffer Zone may be acceptable but must be discussed in consultation with – and be to the satisfaction of – the Council and Historic Environment Scotland. • The Council and Historic Environment Scotland will seek to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS through a robust approach to unauthorised development. Page 69
Page 70
APPENDIX 3: GLOSSARY Antonine Wall The Roman Empire frontier system running across central Scotland from the Firth of Forth to the Clyde Estuary, constructed c AD 142 on the orders of the Emperor Antoninus Pius. Inscribed as part of the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site in July 2008. Authenticity Depending on the type of cultural heritage, and its cultural context, properties may be understood to meet the conditions of authenticity if their cultural values (as recognised in the nomination criteria proposed) are truthfully and credibly expressed through a variety of attributes including: form and design; materials and substance; use and function; traditions, techniques and management systems; location and setting; language, and other forms of intangible heritage; spirit and feeling; and other internal and external factors. Buffer Zone For the purposes of effective protection of the nominated property, a buffer zone is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection. The area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through appropriate mechanisms. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the process of assessing the likely environmental impacts of a proposal and identifying options to minimise environmental damage. Frontiers of the Roman Empire: World Heritage Site composed of three walls in different parts of Europe- Antonine Wall, Hadrian’s Wall, German Limes forming part of the frontiers of the Roman Empire. The Historic Environment Policy for Scotland: sets out how Historic Environment Scotland fulfils its regulatory and advisory roles and how it expects others to interpret and implement Scottish Planning Policy. It is a material consideration in the Scottish planning system. Integrity Integrity is a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its attributes. Examining the conditions of integrity, therefore requires assessing the extent to which the property: includes all elements necessary to express its Outstanding Universal Value; is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance; suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect. Page 70
Page 71
Scheduled Monument: A nationally significant monument, building or site included in the Schedule of Monuments maintained by Historic Environment Scotland. Setting: the way the surroundings of a historic asset or place contribute to how it is understood, appreciated and experienced. World Heritage Site: World Heritage Sites are cultural and/or natural sites considered to be of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’, which have been inscribed on the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee. Outstanding Universal Value: Outstanding Universal Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole. At the time of inscription of a property on the World Heritage List, the World Heritage Committee adopts a Statement of Outstanding Universal Value which will be the key reference for the future effective protection and management of the property. Page 71
Page 72
APPENDIX 4: GENERAL INFORMATION AND CONTACTS Antonine Wall World Heritage Site website: http://www.antoninewall.org/ Antonine Wall Management Plan: https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and- research/publications/publication/?publicationId=f477ec1e-8366-4295-ac10- a5c900aab488 Antonine Wall nomination document http://www.antoninewall.org/sites/default/files/Antonine%20Wall%20Nominatio n%20doc.pdf Historic Environment Scotland: www.historicenvironment.scot Data Services: https://portal.historicenvironment.scot/spatialdownloads Scheduled monuments: https://www.historicenvironment.scot/advice-and-support/listing-scheduling- and-designations/scheduled-monuments/ Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA): http://www.archaeologists.net/ Historic Environment Scotland) Act 2014 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2011/3/pdfs/asp_20110003_en.pdf Planning Advice Note (PAN) 2/2011: Planning and Archaeology http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2011/08/04132003/0 Definitions of Buffer Zones to the World Heritage Site (Land Use Consultants report for Historic Environment Scotland, July 2006) – available on request Managing Change in the Historic Environment (Historic Environment Scotland) World Heritage Sites: https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and- research/publications/publication/?publicationid=89d391d9-9be2-4267-919f- a678009ab9df Managing Change in the Historic Environment (Historic Environment Scotland) Setting: https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and- research/publications/publication/?publicationId=80b7c0a0-584b-4625-b1fd- a60b009c2549 Scheduled Monument Consent: https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and- Page 72
Page 73
research/publications/publication/?publicationId=515c06f2-d8b0-40f9-919f- a88000d44a5b LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS Falkirk Local Development Plan 2: https://www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/planning-building/planning-policy/ North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-council/council-strategies-and- plans/local-development-plan East Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2: https://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/residents/planning-and-building- standards/planning-policy Glasgow City Development Plan https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=16184 West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan: https://www.west-dunbarton.gov.uk/council/strategies-plans-and- policies/local-development-planning/ CONTACTS East Dunbartonshire Council Development Applications Team, Southbank House, 1 Strathkelvin Place Kirkintilloch, G66 1XQ Tel: 0300 123 4510 Email: planning@eastdunbarton.gov.uk Falkirk Council Planning & Environment, Development Services, Abbotsford House, David’s Loan, Falkirk, FK2 7YZ Tel: 01324 504950 Email: planenv@falkirk.gov.uk Glasgow City Council Development and Regeneration Services, 229 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1QU Tel: 0141 287 8555 Email: developmentplan@glasgow.gov.uk North Lanarkshire Council Development Management, Planning and Development, Fleming House, 2 Tryst Road, Cumbernauld, G67 1JW Tel: 01236 632500 Email: ESEnquiries@northlan.gov.uk West Dunbartonshire Council Development Management Section, 16 Church Street, Clydebank, G81 1TG Page 73
Page 74
Tel: 01389 738575 Email: buildingandplanning@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Historic Environment Scotland - Planning, Consents & Advice Service, Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1SH. Tel: 0131 668 8716 Email: HMconsultations@hes.scot Page 74
Page 75
APPENDIX 5: MAP OF ANTONINE WALL AND COUNCIL AREAS Page 75
Page 76
APPENDIX 6: THE ANTONINE WALL THEN AND NOW Page 76
Page 77
ITEM 7 Appendix 2 Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site – comments received on draft version and Council’s proposed response Respondent Comment WDC response Historic Environment Scotland The comments submitted by HES reflect comments already submitted when the Antonine Wall Supplementary Guidance was consulted on by other partner authorities. As the document had been reformatted for publication by West Dunbartonshire Council, the section references in the HES response do not reflect the paragraph numbers in the WDC version. Most of the changes requested had already been made in the version published by WDC The comments in the attached annex reflect comments that we have already given in response to consultation on the draft Supplementary Guidance from other partner authorities (e.g. East Dunbartonshire). We have also included some notes where the wording of the document should be altered to use appropriate and up to date terminology. Annex Section 1.6 The wording could be improved in this paragraph. It suggests initially that the Wall only survives where it is visible above ground. Potential alternative wording: ‘Today, around one third of the Antonine Wall is visible above ground, at places such as... open spaces within urban areas and, though not visible above ground, survives below ground’ Section 1.8 The last sentence needs amended from should read ‘not only identifies the reasons for the Wall’s inscription as a World Heritage Site, but provides the basis for its effective protection and management. The HES comments mostly relate to an earlier version of the SG, published by other partner authorities, and have largely already been incorporated into the version of the document published by the Council. As a result, the section references used by HES do not always match up with the current version. Any outstanding changes are considered below. Accepted, change made at section 1.3.4. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 1.4.2. Page 77
Page 78
Section 1.9 The end of this sentence should read ‘authenticity and integrity’. Section 1.10 The revised wording here no longer specifically refers to the protection of the World Heritage Site. This revised wording may imply a weakening of the protections for the WHS. If the original wording has not caused problems it would be better to revert to the original wording here. Section 1.11 A page number for boundaries of the WHS and Buffer Zone (singular) will need to be inserted here. Furthermore, the list of relevant local plans/local development plans is listed in Appendix 4 not 3. Section 1.12 This section incorrectly refers to Historic Environment Scotland Policy (HESP). This should be amended to the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS). As we noted in the earlier, SPP will be replaced by the policies within the Fourth National Planning Framework (NPF4) in the relatively near future it may be worth considering how this change can be accommodated both for this note and for the others. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 1.4.3. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 1.5.1. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 1.5.2. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 1.6.2. The document needs to reflect the policy documents in place at the time of preparation so reference to the draft Fourth National Planning Framework is not appropriate. Page 78
Page 79
Section 1.14 The first sentence of this section refers the ‘the following specific planning policies’ whereas the policies are presented on the page before this. Key Points (Page 5) As a point of detail, the second bullet point has a typographic error (hich instead of which). Site Audit (Page 6) The list of key questions for Site Characteristics and Setting should include 'will the proposal have a direct impact on the remains of the Antonine Wall and associated archaeological features?' Section 2.9 The last sentence of this section states that ‘further information is provided at Section 3.8.2’. As there is no Section 3.8.2 it may be that the appropriate reference is Section 3.19 and 3.20. Section 2.12 As with Section 1.12 the correct reference here is HEPS not HESP. Section 3.2 The last line of the first paragraph of this section should read ‘Examples of what could be considered adverse include development that:’ The second of the following bullet points should read ‘interrupts views to, from, or within’. Accepted, minor revision made at paragraph 1.6.4. Changes already incorporated in Key Points below paragraph 1.6.5. Changes already incorporated in Table 1. Noted – section reference has been corrected in paragraph 2.4.1 Changes already incorporated at paragraph 2.5.3. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 3.1.2. Page 79
Page 80
Section 3.5 The fourth sentence of this section should read ‘The vertical buffer zone may include complex archaeological deposits, with features...' Section 3.6 The below text would be more appropriate terminology to use in this section. 'should avoid areas of surviving archaeological remains.' 'Avoiding the World Heritage Site and, in particular areas which are scheduled will be the best approach' '... the presence, location, depth and sensitivity of deposits cannot...' 'This may help to design proposals that avoid...' '...impacts upon archaeological deposits from other periods...' Section 3.8 The first sentence of this section should read ‘any new development site overlying the boundaries of the WHS’. Section 3.9 This section is not clear on what happens if new/unknown elements are discovered during site works. We would therefore offer the following revisions to address this ambiguity. • Revise first sentence to read: 'There may be sub-surface archaeological deposits...' Changes already incorporated at paragraph 3.2.2. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 3.2.3. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 3.2.5. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 3.2.6. Page 80
Page 81
• • Potential Alternative wording - '...Where known archaeological remains are present, investigation will be required in conjunction with new development. Where previously unknown archaeological deposits are identified during site works the Council should be informed immediately and further archaeological investigations may be required' Section 3.10 The quote marks around setting should be removed as they are unnecessary, potentially confusing for readers and have been used elsewhere in the guidance. Section 3.11 The second sentence of this section should read ‘does not seek to prevent all change’. Key Points (Page 10) The first bullet point does not make it clear whether this is referring to scheduled sections of the WHS or unscheduled ones although the text is similar to the scheduled monument policy in SPP. The current wording would allow for impacts in exceptional circumstances which doesn't reflect policy wording for the WHS in the Proposed LDP or SPP which presumes against development with an adverse impact. Also suggests a potential weakening of protections. It is recommended that this is changed back to previous wording or otherwise clarified. Furthermore, it would be Changes already incorporated Accepted- wording will be revised at paragraph 3.3.2. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 3.2.6. Page 81
Page 82
useful to include a further key point that where the extent or presence of archaeological remains is unclear, pre-determination evaluation will be required Section 3.12 The last two bullet points in this section are not examples of significance of setting but separate points. This may be a result of reformatting of the original guidance which separated these out. It is recommended that the formatting is adjusted to make this clear. Section 3.16 As a point of detail, the second bullet point of this section should read ‘and the integrity of its setting’. Section 3.19 The link provided here for the EIA regulations is still to the 2011 regulations rather than the 2017 regulations and should be updated. The updated link would be The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (legislation.gov.uk). Section 4.3 Bullet point 1 of this section should read 'Site selection should avoid the WHS...'. Similarly, bullet point 2 should read ‘Site selection with the Buffer Zone should avoid the most sensitive areas and avoid obstructing views. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 3.3.3. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 3.4.1. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 3.7.2 Changes already incorporated at paragraph 4.2.1 Page 82
Page 83
Section 4.3 (High Quality Landscape Design) The last sentence of this section should read ‘It is therefore important that the location and specification of new landscaping is considered in relation to impact on the WHS and its setting’. Section 4.4 The reference to the Buffer Zone in the first sentence of this section should be singular. Section 4.7 The final sentence of this section should read ‘Examples of suitable conditions might include landscaping and/or protective buffer zones around key in-situ sections of the wall. Section 4.9 The second sentence of this section should read ‘Loss or damage to upstanding archaeological remains and…’ Section 4.10 As a point of detail these is a space missing in the first sentence between or and in. The second sentence should read ‘In all cases it will be required that ongoing…’. Section 4.8 (This follows 4.10 and should be amended to 4.11) Changes mostly already incorporated at paragraph 4.2.1; minor correction to wording made. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 4.3.1 Changes already incorporated at paragraph 4.3.4. Changes already incorporated at paragrpah 4.4.2. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 4.4.3. Changes already incorporated at paragraph 4.4.4. Page 83
Page 84
If useful a link to HES web pages on enforcement could be added here: https://www.historicenvironment.scot/advice-and- support/applying-for-consents/scheduled- monument-consent/compliance/ Appendix 4: General Information, Development Plans and Useful Contacts It is welcomed the contact information here for Historic Environment Scotland. However, Heritage Management has now been changed to the Planning, Consents and Advice Service. It would be beneficial to update this contact information. Noted; minor revision to wording made. NatureScot Broadly support the content of this Guidance which consider provides clear, useful information for those involved in development proposals affecting the wall and its setting. It is noted that landscape effects are one of the criteria for the acceptability of development in the context of the Antonine Wall. While consideration of these effects is focused on the World Heritage Site and the protection and setting of the site, we note that the design criteria of reinforcing existing landscape features and character is likely to lead to outcomes that are generally positive. Comments are noted. No changes to the document are considered necessary. The Coal Authority Our records indicate that within the West Dunbartonshire area there are recorded coal mining features present at surface and shallow depth including; mine entries, shallow coal workings and reported surface hazards. These Comments are noted. No changes to the document are considered necessary. Page 84
Page 85
features may pose a potential risk to surface stability and public safety. The Coal Authority’s records indicate that surface coal resource is present in the area, although this should not be taken to imply that mineral extraction would be economically viable, technically feasible or environmentally acceptable. As you will be aware those authorities with responsibility for minerals planning and safeguarding will have identified where they consider minerals of national importance are present in your area and related policy considerations. As part of the planning process consideration should be given to such advice in respect of the indicated surface coal resource. It is noted however that this current consultation relates to Supplementary Guidance on the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site. The Planning team at the Coal Authority have no specific comments to make on this guidance document. Page 85
Page 86
ITEM 7 - Appendix 3 Local Development Plan 2 Creating Places Supplementary Guidance November 2022 Page 86
Page 87
Status of this document This document has been prepared as Supplementary Guidance to the Local Development Plan (LDP2). It is a material consideration in planning decisions, and will be adopted as part of the development plan following the adoption of LDP2.This document is also available in other languages, large print and audio format on request. Please contact Corporate Communications at: Address: West Dunbartonshire Council, Council Offices, 16 Church Street Dumbarton, G82 1QL Phone: 01389 737527 Email: Communications@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Arabic Hindi Punjabi Urdu Chinese (Cantonese) Polish British Sign Language BSL users can contact us via ContactScotland-BSL, the on- line British Sign Language interpreting service. Find out more on the ContactScotland website . Page 87
Page 88
Contents Introduction ...................................... 2 Vision ............................................. 2 A Proud Past................................ 2 A Promising Future ...................... 3 Status of this guidance ................ 4 Using this Guidance ..................... 4 Policy Context ............................... 5 National Policy ............................. 5 National Guidance ....................... 5 Development Plan ....................... 5 Successful Placemaking Process... 6 Design Team ............................... 6 Collaboration................................ 6 Planning Applications .................. 8 Policy CP3 Masterplanning and Development Briefs ..................... 9 Policy CP4 Place and Design Panel ......................................... 10 Design Considerations .................. 11 Character and Identity ................ 11 Setting ....................................... 11 Character ................................... 13 Connections ............................... 14 Street Design ............................... 15 Pedestrians ................................ 15 Cyclists....................................... 16 Vehicles ..................................... 16 Parking ....................................... 17 Materials .................................... 18 Green Infrastructure.................... 19 Water Management ................... 19 Habitat Enhancement ................ 21 Access Networks ....................... 22 Open Space ............................... 23 Layout and Form ......................... 24 Urban Structure .......................... 24 Streets, Blocks & Plots ............... 25 Density & Mix ............................. 26 Height & Massing ....................... 27 Buildings and Materials .............. 28 Buildings .................................... 28 Materials .................................... 29 Sustainable Design ..................... 30 Sustainable Construction ........... 30 Low Carbon Technology ............ 31 Accessibility ............................... 32 Appendices .................................. 33 Glossary ..................................... 33 Useful Contacts .......................... 38 Contact Us ................................. 38 Page 88
Page 89
2 Introduction “Creating places is about giving our communities an identity and making West Dunbartonshire a place where people want to visit and live. It is about integrating and thinking about how houses, communities, open spaces, schools, other community facilities, town centres, industrial areas and the countryside come together to create places that people are proud to call their home.” West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 Vision A Proud Past The Clyde and the Leven have shaped the landscape of West Dunbartonshire and have been the setting for the area’s earliest settlement and industrial growth. West Dunbartonshire is characterised by towns and villages nestled between these rivers and the Kilpatrick Hills, or the Muirs, to the west of the Leven Valley. While each of the area’s towns and villages has its own unique character and history, this shared geography and landscape ties them together. The waterfront outlook; great access to recreation in the rugged moorland Kilpatrick Hills; and location, between Glasgow and the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park provide unique assets to be enjoyed by residents of West Dunbartonshire. This riverside setting has contributed to some of the key historical developments in West Dunbartonshire, of which evidence can still be seen in the landscape. Old Kilpatrick, was once a staging point on the Antonine Wall, a Frontier of the Roman Empire. Part of the wall can still be seen at Goldenhill Park, Clydebank where the outline of a Roman Fort is visible. The strategic location of Dumbarton Castle, allowed it to be the seat of the Kingdom of Strathclyde, as part of 1500 years of history of fortification at Dumbarton Rock. While the Castle continues to be a heritage asset and visitor attraction, the Rock itself continues to attract each generation’s best rock climbers to its challenging walls. The Forth and Clyde Canal, which starts at Bowling Basin, tracked a parallel course to the Antonine Wall, linking the River Clyde inland to Clydebank, Glasgow, Edinburgh and the Forth. This former working waterway has taken on a new lease of life since it was revived as a millennium project, and now serves as a leisure boating resource, alongside a key active travel route and part of the National Cycle Network. These monuments and archaeological legacies are part of the rich tapestry of development in West Dunbartonshire which is of national and even international interest and marked it as a place of significance, even before the Page 89
Page 90
manufacture of prestige liners and battleships put Clydebank’s shipbuilding on the global stage. Singer Sewing Machines, John Brown’s, Denny and Turkey Red Dye are a few of the industries which helped to drive the growth of Dumbarton, Clydebank and the towns in the Vale of Leven. These towns all now benefit from a mixture of housing, from historical conservation areas to contemporary developments coming together in strong communities. The lasting legacy of this industry can also be seen in the range of opportunities which exist for new industrial, business and housing development. These opportunities include key waterfront sites: Queens Quay, Clydebank; the former Oil Refinery at Carless, Old Kilpatrick; and Esso, Bowling. Although the area has experienced changing fortunes since the economy has shifted its focus away from the heavy industries which grew up along the Clyde, the North Clyde Riverside is still a key investment location for international businesses such as Chivas and Agrekko, as well as, a wealth of enterprises of all scales. A Promising Future This guide seeks to ensure that new development recognises and responds to West Dunbartonshire’s unique location, making the most of the waterfront and connecting into the outstanding green network opportunities provided by its setting. Our ambition is to build on West Dunbartonshire’s unique history and heritage, providing high quality development and thriving places for the people of West Dunbartonshire. Development of Dumbarton Harbour, Exxon and Carless sites and the Queens Quay site in Clydebank, are critical for bringing formerly vacant sites back into use. These and other sites provide opportunities to bring the rivers back into the hearts of the communities, through high quality development which provides health, wellbeing and environmental benefits which stretch beyond the site boundary into the wider community. Page 90
Page 91
Status of this guidance The Council recognises that the creation of high quality places is strategically important to bring people into the area and make it an attractive place to live, invest and visit. This is a key ambition of the West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) and supports the delivery of the Council’s Local Outcome Improvement Plan; the Plan for Place 2017-2027, and the priorities set out in the Council’s Strategic Plan 2017- 2022. It is intended that this guidance will be adopted as statutory supplementary guidance, forming part of Local Development Plan 2. It provides further detail about how to meet the requirements of the Creating Places policies of Local Development Plan 2. Using this Guidance This guidance does not set out prescriptive standards for design but uses examples to highlight how a well- considered design led approach can contribute to successful and sustainable places. The guidance supports innovative and creative design, by not being prescriptive about architectural styles and details. However a design led approach based on a thorough appraisal of the site and an analysis of its context is a prerequisite for a high quality development and is expected for all development proposals. The examples, many of which are from developments in West Dunbartonshire, show where a design approach has worked well for a particular site, rather than illustrating a feature which should be repeated. Following this introductory section, the document is split into the following sections: Successful Placemaking Process This section details the process for successful placemaking including the support that the Council will provide through its pre-application service as well as providing guidance on Local Development Plan 2 Policy CP3: Masterplanning and Development Briefs and Policy CP4: Place & Design Panel Design Considerations This sets out and illustrates successful approaches to key considerations for each heading of the Local Development Plan 2 Policy CP1: Creating Place and Policy CP2: Green Infrastructure. This section also provides design guidance in relation to other policies and sections of LDP2 showing how the criteria under Policies CP1 and CP2 relate specific types of development, such as waterfront or town centre development. . Page 91
Page 92
Policy Context National Policy The Scottish Government places a strong emphasis on placemaking and a design-led approach within the planning system. This approach is set out within the Place Principle,1 embedded within Scottish Planning Policy, as well as other key Scottish Government policy documents Designing Streets and Creating Places. This guidance sets out how development in West Dunbartonshire can meet the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy in order to create successful and sustainable places. 1 https://www.gov.scot/publications/place- principle-introduction/ National Guidance This document provides local guidance in relation to the National Roads Development Guide and Cycling by Design. A well designed movement network which puts the needs of pedestrians at the top of the street design hierarchy is a key aspect of Designing Streets supported by these documents and this guidance. Development Plan West Dunbartonshire’s development plan consists of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan and the Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) in addition to supplementary guidance, although this will change with the implementation of the provisions of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. This guidance supports the Creating Places policies of LDP2: • Policy CP1: Creating Places • Policy CP2: Green Infrastructure • Policy CP3: Masterplanning and Development Briefs • Policy CP4: Place and Design Panel Policy CP2: Green Infrastructure is also supported by the Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance, which is closely linked to this document. These two guides should be read in conjunction with each other for all development. Page 92
Page 93
Successful Placemaking Process Placemaking is a creative, and iterative process which uses a design led approach and collaborative refinement of proposals to create successful and sustainable places. “Research shows that the way places function, look and feel can influence our health and wellbeing…..Improving the quality of places and the opportunities we have access to can help to tackle inequalities.”2 In West Dunbartonshire we encourage a design led and green infrastructure first approach to placemaking which builds on our existing assets to achieve outstanding development which can be enjoyed by our communities. 2 https://placestandard.scot/place-standard.pdf Design Team In order to achieve high quality design outcome, we encourage the use of an architect and landscape architect on all but the smallest applications. Smaller scale developments should have an architect as a minimum, while larger proposals may involve a range of different specialisms to bring expertise in landscape, urban and/or street design. Specific site constraints may require specialists such as ecologists to be involved. Proposals for listed buildings and conservation areas should be brought forward with the help of suitably qualified professionals with an expertise in the Historic Environment. The Council cannot recommend particular practices or companies, but in order to assist you in in identifying suitably qualified professionals links are provided at the rear of this document to relevant chartered institutes, which have registers of those which meet their standard of qualification. Collaboration Meaningful engagement is essential for ensuring that a proposal contributes to the creation of successful and sustainable places. This includes early engagement with the Council, who will provide advice and guidance to inform the design development, including through the Place and Design Panel if appropriate. Through its pre- application advice service the Council can provide guidance on known site opportunities and constraints, as well as advice on who the key stakeholders will be for the proposal and how to approach engagement. Meaningful engagement with the community, including children and young people, is also a key part of getting the best possible outcome. The community will have local knowledge which goes beyond what can be seen on site. A Local Place Plan or other spatial guidance may capture some of this; if local spatial guidance is not available, community views should be sought as part of the appraisal Page 93
Page 94
process. The Place Standard is a useful tool for capturing community’s views of their place and aspirations for its future. Consultation should also be used to test options for a development proposal with the community. This should include widespread public and stakeholder engagement, as appropriate and advised through the Pre-Application process. For medium and larger scale developments there will be an expectation that 3D visuals will be produced. It would be beneficial for them to be produced at an early stage to support engagement activity. Images showing the topography and adjacent buildings or the surrounding context may be required for some developments. This will enable a better understanding of how the proposals might look in real life. The Council produced a 3D Flythrough of the development proposals for the housing site at Aitkenbar, this helped officers and the public to visualise the design of the proposals. Page 94
Page 95
Planning Applications Early engagement with the Council’s Pre-Application Service is strongly encouraged. For Major Applications it is expected that this will be before the submission of a Proposal of Application Notice. For all developments it is advised to engage with the Pre-Application Service to discuss early concepts for the site including potentially a range of different options, before key design decisions are taken. The Pre-Application Service will set out the level of information that is likely to be required in order to support the planning application. This could include specific studies or consultation requirements which it will be beneficial to be aware of in terms of project planning. This will be in proportion to the scale of the development and type of application. Failure to undertake necessary studies at an early stage can result in costly redesigns later. The use of processing agreements is encouraged for major or complex local applications. The requirement for this as well as timing of attendance at the Place and Design Panel will be clarified as part of the Pre-Application Service. Development Management has a pre- application form which applicants are asked to complete so as to ensure that officers are provided sufficient information to be determine the level of pre-application service which will be required for the development. An initial site appraisal should also be provided to aid in identifying the requirements. All enquiries relating to new development proposals should be directed to Development Management in the first instance. Where required, the case officer will consult other Council services, such as Roads or Environmental Health. Where a proposal is likely to require Roads Construction Consent, the Pre- Application Service will include facilitating the early involvement of the Roads Service so that the teams can work closely together to ensure that that proposals meet the requirements of both services. The Pre-Application Service will advise of requirements for Listed Building Consent or Conservation Area Consent and where appropriate will seek input from Historic Environment Scotland. At the former Council Offices at Garshake Road, Dumbarton a design brief highlighted the local significance of the mature trees on site, the developer therefore was required to undertake a tree survey so that a solution could be prepared which made the best use of these existing assets. This resulted in a proposal which protects the local character. Page 95
Page 96
Policy CP3 Masterplanning and Development Briefs This policy sets out the requirement for the preparation of masterplans or development briefs for the sites within the Delivering Our Places section of the Local Development Plan 2 as well as other major or complex applications such as those within sensitive locations or which are likely to have significant environmental impact. The sites identified within Schedule 1 of Local Development Plan 2, for which there are existing or proposed masterplans or development frameworks, are supported by this policy. Where appropriate, this spatial guidance, or any subsequent revisions which emerge in the lifetime of the plan, will be taken forward as Supplementary Guidance. All other spatial guidance will be taken forward as non-statutory planning guidance. Development proposals within conservation areas should make reference to the relevant Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan where one is available. This will help gain an understanding of the special character of the place which proposals should respond to. Site specific guidance for sites within the Delivering Our Places section of the Local Development Plan 2 should accord with the associated development strategy; they will however be more detailed, visual and form based than the Development Strategy. Development proposals should accord with the principles set out in the approved site specific guidance. Proposals which are brought forward prior to the adoption of the required site specific guidance will only be supported where the required guidance is prepared as part of the planning application and accords with the principles set out in Local Development Plan 2. Any such guidance should be for the entire Delivering Our Place site as identified within the Local Development Plan 2 so as to avoid piecemeal development of these key regeneration sites. Applicants will be directed to the most up to date spatial guidance through the Pre-Application Advice Service. Page 96
Page 97
Policy CP4 Place and Design Panel The Place and Design Panel3 is a valuable resource available to applicants for major and locally significant developments. Through the Place and Design Panel, the Council will seek the expertise of relevant professionals to assist with reviewing proposals. This is intended to support applicants’ design team and should not be seen as a substitute for appointing suitably qualified professionals. Policy CP4 embeds the work of the panel within the statutory planning process so as to ensure that new development contributes to outstanding places and design in West Dunbartonshire. Proposals which have been to the panel should show how recommendations of the design panel have been considered within Design Statements. This should include providing justification for recommendations within the panel 3 Place and Design Panel Terms of Reference can be found here report which have not been taken forward. The advice provided by panellists may not always reflect Local Development Plan 2 policies or other Council guidance and strategies. The Development Management Team will endeavour to clarify this context prior to panel sessions; and panel reports will note where panel recommendations do not fit with other polices. Page 97
Page 98
Design Considerations Character and Identity West Dunbartonshire, its towns and villages have distinctive identities, which new development should contribute positively towards. In order to do so, design proposals must be based on an understanding of the physical and environmental characteristics of the site, as well as, its surrounding area. A thorough appraisal of the site and its surroundings must be undertaken in order to build up this understanding. The appraisal should consider the established patterns of development, natural features, physical constraints and the historic environment. Evidence of the appraisal should be provided within Design and Access Statements. Consideration should be given to the setting of the site, its character and the connections that can be made to it and through it which link it to its surrounding area. Setting Existing landforms and natural features should be retained where they enhance the existing character and appearance of the area. Established patterns of development should be respected. This will provide continuity and diversity within the urban structure, allowing the development to fit in while having its own identity as a place. The size, scale, form and siting of buildings should respond appropriately to the topography of the site and area, as well as, the form of buildings which are nearby. Building lines, set-backs and boundary treatments all contribute to an area’s character; where there is a strong established development form proposals should respond to this appropriately. The Clyde, Leven and Forth and Clyde Canal have a special place in the history and culture of West Dunbartonshire. Development near to and adjacent to these assets should acknowledge this and address the water. This means retaining, connecting to, or constructing, paths along the waterfront as well as orientating buildings so that they overlook and present active frontages to the waterfront and its adjoining paths. The view of the development from the water, and any waterfront pathways should also be carefully considered. Gable arrangements and frontages will provide variety and visual interest. Sites at the edge of the urban area can have challenges of topography or drainage. A landscape led, green infrastructure first, approach to these challenges can make the most of existing environmental assets. Sites which were formerly in the greenbelt will be expected to create a strong and reinforced greenbelt edge as part of the landscape scheme. The key challenge for these sites is giving the development a unique character which fits within the surrounding context. Production of a landscape strategy at an early stage of the design development will be valuable where the site was previously undeveloped or had naturalised. Page 98
Page 99
Development of gap sites or redevelopment of buildings, especially need to respond sensitively to their surroundings while ensuring amenity for residents. Where there is strong continuity of character this will include respecting building lines; plot shapes and sizes; building and ridge heights; and providing continuity in boundary treatments. An increase in height, or coming forward of an established building line is only likely to be appropriate when the intention is to create a landmark feature, for example at a corner site. More variation may be appropriate if the area already has variation in the development pattern. The use of similar materials can help an infill development fit into its setting, as can responding to architectural features such as horizontal emphasis in window openings. The specific needs of industrial development uses will be a key driver for the design of proposals, consideration of the wider impacts of the proposal can lead to higher quality design. The Malin Group is in the process of developing a large fabrication workshop at Carless, Old Kilpatrick. The nature of the processes to take place mean that the unit is very large in scale and highly visible from surrounding area. For this reason an iconic design approach was taken to give the building a landmark quality when viewed from afar. Page 99
Page 100
Character Landmark buildings and structures, vistas and gateways, help to define areas which are distinctive. Creating, protecting, and enhancing these features will add to the character of the area. The colour, texture, pattern and appearance of materials, as well as, architectural styles and details can enhance the character and amenity of the area. Where appropriate materials and architectural styles should reflect the historic character of the site or create a distinctive sense of place. Historic buildings, structures and routes which positively contribute to the local identity should be integrated into development proposals or restored where feasible. Development of historic buildings or areas with a strong historic character must be approached with sensitivity. Historic elements, such as railings and walls as well as trees and hedges must be preserved where these contribute positively to the character of the area. This approach is also supported in historic areas which are not designated conservation areas. The Creveul Court social housing in Alexandria town centre, responds to this setting by recreating the original street pattern and reflecting the scale of surrounding buildings. This creates a continuity in the urban form which helps the new development to fit into its surroundings. Page 100
Page 101
Connections Where there are established streets, paths and desire lines; or connections between green spaces through the site development proposals should retain, connect to and reflect the character of these adjoining connections. Views into, out of, and across a site can help to visually connect the development into its surroundings. Consideration should be given to how views can be protected, enhanced or created. Lighting schemes, signage and public art can aid orientation, as well as, contributing to a place’s distinctive identity. The visual connection through the site, for example towards a waterfront, can be just as important as the physical connections through the development. Particularly at waterfront sites, some sightlines of the water should be preserved. The Council offices at 16 Church Street, Dumbarton restored and retained the historic college building’s facade, preserving an important landmark for the town. The use of sensitive materials such rustic blonde, multi brick and hosepipe pointed mortar complement the Kenmure sandstone and lime mortar of the retained façade enabling the modern energy efficient extension to enhance the historic character of the town centre. Maintaining this landmark building which is highly visible around the town helps to ensure that visual connections to the wider area are preserved. Page 101
Page 102
Street Design Successful places have streets which are designed to meet the needs of all users and consider their function as part of the public realm; rather than having roads which are only designed for the efficient and safe movement of vehicular traffic. This is a key requirement of Designing Streets which places the needs of pedestrians and cyclists at the top of the street design hierarchy to encourage these more sustainable modes of travel. Consideration of the role of streets as places for people will help to ensure that new streets in West Dunbartonshire are safe, comfortable and attractive for all users, as well as, creating an accessible, inclusive and walkable network of streets and paths in line with the requirements of Designing Streets. Pedestrians The structure of streets should enable safe, direct, inclusive and attractive pedestrian access to existing routes, places of work, amenities and public transport connections. A permeable network of streets and paths are preferred to cul-de-sac arrangements because they are more walkable. Footways should be wide enough to accommodate pedestrians of all abilities and street furniture, as well as, outdoor activity associated with adjacent uses such as outdoor displays or seating areas. Where street furniture is proposed, accessibility for people with wheelchairs or strollers should be considered and unnecessary clutter avoided. All pedestrian routes should be overlooked to increase passive surveillance. Accommodating pedestrians within the street instead of segregated routes further adds to the eyes on the street which provide a safety benefit for all users. Connections to public transport must be considered from the outset and walking and wheeling routes to public transport links should be direct, safe and attractive. By creating a pedestrian priority area which is overlooked by windows and entrances this development in Eaglesham, East Renfrewshire has created a space which is safe for play rather than being car dominated. The inclusion of porous paving and street trees highlights that this area is not just for cars. Page 102
Page 103
Cyclists Development should support the provision of cycling infrastructure for all levels of cycling ability, including both leisure and functional trips. Cycling routes should be safe, direct, continuous, comfortable and attractive. Developers are required to follow the guidance set out in Cycling by Design4. Connections into, and creation of, a cycling network should be considered for all sites; with those sites adjacent to existing cycle paths being required to provide direct connections to them. Where a street requires to be designed to have greater carriageway width for public transport; a higher design speed; or for heavy goods vehicles in industrial and business locations, then measures such as segregated footways and cycleways will be required. Secure cycle storage must be provided for all development. For flatted development, this should be on the 4 Cycling By Design, Transport Scotland, 2021 ground floor, sheltered and providing space for at least one bicycle per flat. This new cycle link at Centre 81, Clydebank improves access to the National Cycle Network along the Canal towpath. Improving connections to this key asset should be considered for all development proposals which are near to it. This new connection uses high quality materials and public art highlight the status of this key route. Vehicles Access for service vehicles should be considered early in the design process so that these needs can be accommodated without undermining the quality of the place. The character of a streets should reflect their importance and intended use; forming a hierarchy of streets. The design speed of new residential streets should not be more than 20mph. Streets should be designed to naturally limit speed without the need for speed bumps or other traffic calming measures which adversely impact on the quality of the place. Narrowed carriageways, limiting forward visibility; constrained corner radii and material texture or colour are preferred methods for reducing the design speed of streets. Pedestrian priority streets may be acceptable in areas where there will be low traffic speed and volumes. Pedestrians of all abilities must be Page 103
Page 104
considered and consulted when designing pedestrian priority streets. Pedestrians who are visually impaired can be disadvantaged by poorly designed pedestrian priority areas. Design features such as retaining some kerb definition or segregating cycle routes at below footway level can help visually impaired users navigate pedestrian priority areas. Where a path is likely to be used by a lot of cyclists, demarcation of the route with different materials and a change of level can help to limit conflict and make the area more navigable for the visually impaired. This development in Coswig, Germany has a wide shared path for pedestrians and cyclists at its heart. Access and parking for vehicles is pushed to the perimeter of the development to help create a comfortable pedestrian environment. Pedestrians and cyclists can share this route due to it being sufficiently wide. Parking A variety of parking arrangements should be included as part of a design led approach to emphasise the hierarchy of streets and add to legibility of the place. This should include disabled spaces in the most accessible locations; electric vehicle charging and cycle parking facilities. Parking requirements should mainly be met within a well-designed streetscape or between gables. Front garden parking will not generally be supported and will only be accepted as a small element of a variety of different parking arrangements. The need for parking should be considered as part of a wider travel plan for the development as well as within a Transport Assessment as appropriate. A reduction of the Council’s parking standard will be encouraged for sites which are in accessible or town centre locations and close to public transport hubs. Page 104
Page 105
Materials A range of materials and treatments for streets and pedestrian routes should be used to highlight user priority, calm traffic and manage surface water run- off. All materials should be of a quality that is resilient to maintain their appearance and reduce long-term maintenance costs over time. Special consideration should be given to ensuring that materials are sufficiently robust in areas which will be highly trafficked or regularly accessed by heavier vehicles. Street design should incorporate elements to facilitate sustainable surface water drainage, such as green infrastructure, permeable paving and innovative swales. Services should be accommodated within the design of the street without having undue influence on other aspects of the design, such as the location of greenspaces, width of pavements, or location of street trees. Ducting of utilities and maintaining services together will be encouraged particularly where high-quality materials are proposed. Great Kneighton, Cambridge, by Proctor & Matthews, uses a mixture of parking courts, undercroft and on street parking to ensure parking needs are met while creating a safe and pleasant environment for pedestrians. Changes in materials are used to highlight pedestrian, shared and trafficked areas of the streetscape creating variety and interest. Page 105
Page 106
Green Infrastructure The green network is a highly valued asset in West Dunbartonshire. New development is expected to contribute positively to this, by taking a green infrastructure first approach to development, preferring green infrastructure solutions for the delivery of on-site water management; biodiversity; access networks and open space. Each of these functions is required to be protected and enhanced by Policies CP1 and CP2 of LDP2, as well as, the Green Network and Green Infrastructure Guidance. This guidance shows how an Integrating Green Infrastructure approach can deliver a “fit for purpose” green network and highlights how layering these functions together can contribute to a high quality multifunctional green network, with multiple benefits for health, wellbeing, wildlife, as well as, climate change mitigation and adaptation. Water Management The Integrating Green Infrastructure first approach should start by considering the ‘water journey' through a development site. A surface water management plan should be based on naturalised SUDS features, which provide a framework for the layout of the development. Surface water run‐off must be routed through SUDS before it is drained into the water environment. Adequate space to accommodate SUDS must be included within site layouts, especially when considering applications for planning permission in principle. SUDS systems should be multi‐functional, creating a positive and distinctive landscape setting and maximise the site’s biodiversity value. The design of SUDS should respond sensitively to site topography and landscape character. SUDS ponds with an edge gradient of 1:6 or 1:8 will have greater accessibility and multi- functionality and are encouraged. Underground retention tanks should only be used where management of water at surface level, has been demonstrated to not be viable. Where SUDs are proposed, in areas where there is a mining legacy, consideration should be given to the implications of this in relation to potential stability and public safety risks. Developers should seek advice, from a technically competent person, to ensure that a proper assessment has been made of the potential interaction between hydrology, the proposed drainage system and ground stability, including the implications this may have for any mine workings which may be present beneath the site. The green infrastructure first approach should also be applied to industrial development. Drainage solutions which manage rain water at surface level are encouraged; especially green solutions, such as planting or green roofs. Page 106
Page 107
Examples of different SUDS solutions. Rain Gardens Shallow depressions planted with species able to tolerate short periods of inundation in free‐draining soil. Slows rainfall run‐off received from a downpipe or hard surface and offers some filtration. Filter strips Vegetated, usually grassy, areas of broad, flat and gently sloping land over 1m wide which intercept rainfall run‐off from a site as overland sheet flow. Can be planted with native plants to create useable open space including wildflower meadows Permeable (or porous) surfaces Including block pavers and some forms of concrete which allow water to drain through vertical holes or gaps between individual units. Allows run‐ off to percolate naturally into the ground or a collection chamber, reducing run‐off from hard surfaces. Bio‐retention areas Landscaped shallow depression specifically to capture and remediate polluted run‐of from roads and car parks. Reduces run‐off at localised flooding. Can be formally landscaped with shrubs and herbaceous plants. Swales Linear, shallow channels that specifically transport water, for example from one SUDS feature to another. Slows down run‐off and allows natural infiltration into the soil. Detention basins Vegetated basins which temporarily hold water allowing gradual infiltration into the soil and removal of pollutants. Potentially high ecological value. Ponds Permanent water bodies which can add significant value in terms of amenity and biodiversity. Over‐engineered and fenced‐ off ponds should be avoided to ensure SUDS ponds are integrated into the landscape. Further detail on SUDS is provided in best practice guidelines issued by SEPA and CIRIA. Page 107
Page 108
Habitat Enhancement Landscape design should be consistent with the wider landscape character, for example, continuation of a nearby woodland or formation of semi‐natural grassland on rural fringes. Existing site conditions, for example, type of soil, topography and drainage, will help determine what works best for a site. Naturalised SUDS are encouraged and should be designed to create opportunities to enhance and expand wetland and create other habitats for biodiversity. Existing habitats should be retained and enhanced by providing links to wider greenspaces or riparian corridors to address habitat fragmentation. Inclusion of biodiversity features, such as resting and roosting boxes, bee bricks and green roofs, within buildings will be supported. Specimen tree planting is encouraged in key locations such as entry points, along major paths or in public spaces. Planting should mostly be appropriate native species and seek to create a varied structure of wildlife friendly trees, shrubs and flower rich meadows providing food, shelter and breeding places for wildlife. Planting design should consider how to maintain seasonal interest and be linked with SUDS features. There should be a balance between habitat protection and access. Some sites may need low impact design solutions, e.g. boardwalks in wetlands or wildlife-friendly lighting. Interpretation boards can be used to promote responsible access and provide on-site education opportunities. Some routes may need to be designed to avoid disturbance to sensitive areas. The emerging Developing with Nature guidance from NatureScot describes a number of measures which can be incorporated into development to enhance nature. This development in Jordanhill, Glasgow retains and enhances woodland setting of the former college campus to create a unique environment for new build housing. This interpretation board highlights the importance of retaining biodiversity by identifying this sycamore as the oldest tree on the campus having survived more than 150 years. In the background the play area features wooden equipment to better suit the area’s woodland character. Page 108
Page 109
Access Networks Paths should try to reflect desire lines and minimise road crossings where possible. Development proposals may require to enhance existing path connections or form new connections to improve accessibility to the wider green network. Path connections should be to destination points such as schools, shops and transport hubs with cycle parking at these location or for access to leisure or woodland; The banks and margins of watercourses and canals often provide effective and attractive access routes for walkers, cyclists and horse-riding. Naturalised SUDS provide a similar feature and a potential location for active travel routes separate from the road network; Paths should be compliant with Equalities Act 2010 and of a construction standard and width appropriate to the level of use. They should be designed to withstand water run‐off or incorporate SUDS to improve drainage. Main routes should be to an adoptable standard, however, self‐ binding materials may be appropriate for minor or secondary routes. Consideration should be given to the needs of all users when designing paths for multiple-use. This should include walking, wheeling, cycling and horse-riding as appropriate. Paths should generally have wide verges with no fast growing plants which could reduce sight lines or create hiding places. Entrances should be wide and avoid use of steps or steep gradients. Unnecessary barriers on paths are discouraged as they can limit accessibility for all users. Typically on the edge of settlements these suburban housing should make the most of strong green network connections, trees on site and opportunities to connect to the wider countryside. The recently completed Council housing development at the former Haldane School focussed on ensuring good access to the neighbouring park via a woodland walkway. The Athletes Village in Glasgow included a strong green infrastructure framework from the outset. Swales are integrated into the streetscape to manage rainfall at surface. These green elements are designed to be safe and accessible meaning they did not require to be fenced off. Page 109
Page 110
Open Space Open space requirements within developments should be coalesced into larger multifunctional spaces unless the specifics of the site dictate otherwise. Distinctive landscape features or local habitats should be retained and enhanced to help form locally distinctive spaces. Allotments and growing grounds can provide a recreational benefit for a wide range of age groups if included within the open space provision. Open spaces should have clearly defined public/private boundaries and features to prevent unauthorised vehicle access. Amenity open space around buildings should be appropriate to the scale of the building. This should avoid creating large areas of unusable open space, whilst still providing the necessary defensible space to ground floor uses. A sense of ownership can be created through design, use of quality materials and community involvement at an early stage. Open spaces should have good natural surveillance with properties overlooking. The arrangement of corners, fencing or landscaping should be considered so to not create blind spots. Open spaces should be well‐lit, e.g. using downlighters, at key areas such as entrances. Children’s play areas and kick‐about spaces should be in a central or accessible location and not positioned to the rear of dwellings. Children’s play areas and/or multi-use games areas must comply with the British and European Standard for playground equipment and surfacing, namely BS EN 1176. Children’s play areas should include a number of pieces of equipment appropriate to their scale and the area which they serve. Major applications and/or developments in an area where there are no play areas within 400m, will require to have at least 6 pieces of equipment. Page 110
Page 111
All play areas must include appropriate accessible play equipment, so that they can be enjoyed by users of all abilities. Consideration should be given to ensuring that there is equipment for all age groups including children aged 11 and older. Play areas should incorporate a variety of innovative play equipment. Innovative approaches such as play along the way, where equipment is spread across the site or natural play equipment, will be supported where it is incorporated into the multifunctional green network and provides accessible equipment. Detailing, such as fencing, surfacing, seating, bins and signage should reflect characteristics and materials of the local area; Multi-use games areas (MUGAs) should be separated from footpaths to limit impacts on passers-by; planting and trees can create a visual and noise buffer between these uses. Facilities and fittings should be suitable for their intended use; be robust and consider their future maintenance. Layout and Form The relationship between buildings, streets and spaces has a significant impact on whether a place will feel welcoming and comfortable for all users. The layout and form of these should protect and enhance the amenity of existing communities, future occupiers and neighbouring development sites. Urban Structure Development should form part of the wider network of streets and spaces, reflecting the character of the place in which it will be built and responding to this character to create its own identity. Buildings should positively define and enclose streets and open spaces by fronting onto them with windows and entrances/doors facing towards them; this will provide active frontages and passive surveillance. Building lines and setbacks should emphasise the spaces that the buildings address and reflect the character of their location. Strong existing building lines and setbacks should be reflected and reinforced. Designing buildings so that they are forward of the building line may be appropriate at junctions where it can add to the legibility of the place. Page 111
Page 112
Kippen Dairy, Alexandria follows the existing building line, but then steps back to denote a large area of open space adjacent to Main Street and the Smollett Fountain. Streets, Blocks & Plots The size and shape of development plots should not limit opportunities for future changes in use, development form and extensions over time. Where larger plots are required for commercial, industrial and civic buildings, rear elevations and servicing should not be orientated towards the street and pedestrian connections through the site should be maintained. The proportion of the plot that is developed should ensure the all residences have access to usable private or shared amenity space for leisure or drying. This should be in addition to space which is given over to parking, cycle storage, bin stores or other servicing requirements. Where communal gardens are limited or cannot be provided for a flatted development, for example within town centres, balconies and/or a roof garden may provide useable outdoor space for residents to dry laundry or grow potted plants. The relationship between public frontage and private space to the rear should be consistent and will generally result in a perimeter block. Private spaces should be clearly delineated and defensible with appropriate boundary treatments. Page 112
Page 113
Density & Mix Mixed use development is encouraged where it will enhance the vibrancy and walkability of the community. This means the inclusion of small ancillary and compatible uses such as shops, nurseries or leisure facilities within residential, industrial or business led developments will be supported where it can be demonstrated that they meet the terms of Policy SC5 Ancillary Retail Uses. Larger developments should consider including land or units for the future provision of neighbourhood services, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, where these are not already available within a 10 minute or 800m walking distance. The density of a development should ensure the efficient use of space while reflecting and responding its location and context. Higher density forms will be accepted in locations which are most accessible and which contribute to the legibility of the place, such as corners and main streets. Large-scale development should have a range of densities, scale and massing across the site to add vitality and character to the place. For residential development, a range of dwelling types and sizes should be included within the development to add visual interest and meet the needs for a range of different household groups; mixed tenure developments are also encouraged. Higher density and urban development forms are required for all town centre and edge of centre sites. Proposals should consider the tenement form for main streets within town centres. Typically 3 to 4 storey tenements are characteristic, although consideration of the setting of the site will give an indication of what height is suitable. 3 storey townhouses may be appropriate for quieter streets and edge of centre locations. Mixed use approach is particularly encouraged within town centres. Non- residential units should be delivered at the ground floor of developments, particularly on main streets or corners. Where other non-residential uses are proposed at ground floor, consideration should be given to how these uses relate to the street, particularly orientating internal areas with high levels of activity towards the street. Locating outdoor seating and interesting window displays towards this open space adds vibrancy and visual interest to this public space in Meissen, Germany. Page 113
Page 114
Height & Massing The massing, spacing and orientation of buildings must respond to issues such as solar orientation and prevailing wind, in order to ensure resource efficiency and provide opportunities for renewable energy generation. Overlooking, privacy and the ability for sunlight and daylight to reach habitable rooms and garden ground will be key considerations for both development height and building-to-building distances. 18m separation between directly facing windows of habitable rooms is a guideline for ensuring privacy for residences. This distance may require to be wider for taller buildings; allowing sunlight to reach amenity spaces between blocks. Where windows are not directly facing, some reduction of this may be appropriate. Where an innovative design or site constraints require less space between buildings, internal space arrangements or window profiles should be considered to ensure privacy. North facing gardens; gardens which are at a lower level than neighbouring properties; or gardens with significant areas given to retaining walls, may require to be longer to provide useable space and sunlight, the 18m guideline may not provide sufficient space in such circumstances. The space between gables has a strong influence on the character and amenity of a street. As a minimum this should allow homeowners to walk between the gable and boundary fence and in some instances may be greater depending on house size and character of the area. A more generous space of at least 3m from gable to fence would allow future extension of the property or a driveway to be formed on one side. Driveways to the side are preferred for detached, semi-detached and end-terrace properties. Front garden parking is discouraged. Higher buildings within a development can also be used to signify key locations within the site such as open space or connections to local access networks. The gable at this corner building at Irvine Harbour, North Ayrshire creates a sense of height which signifies the edge of the development. It has a high level of visual interest, and fronts onto an area of public realm with public art to signify that this is a key location within the layout. Page 114
Page 115
Buildings and Materials The form of individual buildings and materials used can have a significant impact on how people use a place as well as its long term economic and environmental sustainability. The orientation of buildings and consideration of the activities that take place within them and around them help places to be attractive and welcoming. Energy efficiency, robustness, climate, historical character and aesthetic considerations will all contribute to the decision about which materials are appropriate for a site. A design led approach to the materials will ensure that the development proposals fits into its setting and will continue to have a lasting positive impact for the community. Buildings Main entrances should be identifiable and address the public realm. Where a building is located at a corner, the main entrance should reinforce the hierarchy of streets and provide emphasis at the corner. Buildings at corners should be carefully designed to help people find their way around or to indicate that they may be entering a new place. Consideration should be given to how corner buildings relate to existing built forms; responding to the established building lines or heights. Buildings which have community uses or amenities serving the surrounding area should be easily identifiable and recognisable as a focal point. The relationship between the building and the street should reflect their respective functions; such as a café opening out onto a seating area or a house having a front garden. The internal layout of a building should consider which rooms require more privacy or could be orientated towards the public realm to create visual interest or passive surveillance. All residences should be dual aspect. Although single aspects cannot be avoided in some cases, this will not be acceptable for residences with 3 bedrooms or more, or when the residence is north facing. Where possible, buildings should be capable of being adapted in the future and be able to accommodate inclusive access and internal circulation. Where mixed tenure housing is proposed it should not be possible to differentiate tenure due to architectural form or quality Page 115
Page 116
Materials Materials and detailing should reflect the design approach of the building, as well as, creating exteriors and elevations which are visually interesting when viewed from a range of distances and assist in creating a sense of place. High quality materials should be integral to the design of the building to create an outstanding building and place. Ensure materials are of a high quality, durable and sustainable. Materials selected should be robust in nature as well as appropriate to the location and microclimate. Building detailing should design out maintenance issues and enable future replacement or repair. The use of locally traditional materials such as sandstone and slate is encouraged; the recovery and reuse of these materials during demolitions is also supported particularly within historic settings. Materials and detailing will be a particular consideration for waterfront development. More robust materials and simple details will be required, so as to be resilient to the elements. The coordination of materials, colours; architectural details and proportions can give a development a unique identity or assist with reflecting the surrounding character. Applicants are encouraged to submit a palette of materials at the application stage. Pre-Application advice or local guidance may recommend the use of particular materials and finishes, such as brick finish, metal in certain locations. Pre-application advice will also advise when early clarification of materials is necessary for certain sites. Development of demolished historic buildings, whether listed or otherwise, should reuse the traditional materials such as stone, brick and slate where possible. Alterations to listed buildings must use materials which are in keeping with the listed building and not damage the historic structures. The Queens Quay Design Codes illustrate a range of materials which are suitable for use throughout the development. A palette of materials have been chosen which making reference to the historic use of the site and will be stand up to the elements at this waterfront location. Page 116
Page 117
Sustainable Design It is recognised that all development in West Dunbartonshire will have to contribute to carbon reduction as part of the response to climate change. The design of new developments and the buildings within them can significantly reduce carbon emissions. A fabric first approach which seeks to reduce the need for heating is encouraged. The Council is supportive of proposals which exceed the minimum building standards requirements and achieve Silver or Gold aspect of the building regulations. The use of carbon reducing technology such as microgeneration or connection to local district heating system, such as the Queens Quay Energy Centre is also encouraged. Sustainable Construction Consider the sustainability of the development in the overall building design including the reuse of materials through the building process. The reuse of building materials or use of locally available materials will significantly reduce the carbon footprint associated with the development process. The design of the building should aim to enhance energy efficiency through solar orientation; passive heating, cooling and ventilation; as well as, choice of materials and other such strategies to improve energy efficiency. Following the Accredited Construction Details (Scotland) 2010, will assist with limiting thermal bridging and air infiltration as part of the fabric first approach. Approaches to achieving net zero carbon buildings, such as Passivhaus or those which aim to be carbon neutral through clean energy generation are encouraged. Consideration should be given to the inclusion of green infrastructure as a method of reducing carbon emissions, such as green roofs, green walls or accessible green decks within the built form. The form of development has significant impacts on the energy efficiency of individual residences. Residences with shared walls, ie flats and terraces, are more efficient, and lose less heat directly, than detached houses. More sustainable forms of development are encouraged where these complement the character of the surrounding area. Non-standard house types and innovative approaches to increasing the sustainability of housing developments is encouraged. The microclimate can be an important consideration for sites which front onto waterfronts, particularly the Clyde. Page 117
Page 118
Goldsmith Street, Norwich is a development of ultra-low-energy homes which are estimated to reduce annual energy costs for residents by 70%. Low Carbon Technology Opportunities for small scale renewable energy to be incorporated within the building as part of the development or in the future should be considered. Designs which preclude the future addition of solar panels will not be acceptable. It is anticipated that local heat networks will become an increasing part of the energy mix within West Dunbartonshire. Where one is already in place, which has capacity to support a development, properties should be connected to this utility. In areas where a heat network is planned, development should be heat network ready. Further guidance on what types of renewable energy development are supported and criteria used in assessment of such applications will be detailed in the emerging Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance. The Queens Quay Energy Centre. Clydebank supports an energy network for the whole Queens Quay site with network connections available for sites to the north of Glasgow Road. The iconic design of the building makes it landmark at the waterfront to complement the Titan Crane. Page 118
Page 119
Accessibility The Council is seeking to promote measures which ensure greater levels of accessibility across all tenures of housing in West Dunbartonshire. It is therefore suggested that a proportion of housing units across a development must be fully accessible or able to be converted to be fully accessible. A minimum of 10% of properties is recommended. At least one level access should be provided to all houses; in general this should be the principal entrance. Through the Council’s Affordable Housing Design Guidance, all grant funded residential development in West Dunbartonshire is required to provide 10% of units as fully accessible. The Crevuel Court development, in Alexandria achieves this by being designed to ‘barrier free’ in line with Housing for Varying Needs Guidance; this allows greater accessibility and flexibility for future adaptation. The development also includes photovoltaic solar panels to improve the sustainability of the development and support fuel poverty reduction in West Dunbartonshire. Page 119
Page 120
Appendices Glossary Accessibility – The ease with which a building, place or facility can be reached by people, goods and services This includes elderly and disabled people, those with young children and those encumbered with luggage or shopping. Active Travel – travel that involves physical activity such as walking or cycling. Active Frontage – The frontage or edge of a building or space that has windows and doors as opposed to blank walls, fences and garages. Adopt – With regard to roads, to add to the Local Roads Authority’s list of public roads. Allocated Parking Spaces – Parking spaces or driveways which are for the exclusive use of the residents of the individual dwelling and their visitors. Architect – Architect is a protected term and only those meeting the RIBA part 3 qualifications and registered with the Architects Registration Board (ARB) are legally entitled to call themselves architects. A link to the ARB is provided below. Biodiversity – The variability in living organisms and the ecological complexes of which they are part. Block – The area bounded by a set of streets and undivided by any other significant streets. Built form – Buildings and structures. Climate Change – the long term shift in weather patterns such as precipitation and temperature. Carriageway – That part of a road intended for use by vehicular traffic. Auxiliary traffic lanes, passing places lay-bys and bus bays are included. Conservation Area – an area of specific architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Conservation Area Appraisal – A published document defining the special architectural or historic interest that warranted the Conservation Area being designated. Cycle Lane/Cycleway – Part of the carriageway intended for use by cyclists only. Part of the road, but separate from the carriageway. Pedestrians and cyclists may share a cycleway or they may be segregated from each other. Daylight – The volume of natural light that enters a building to provide satisfactory illumination of internal accommodation between dawn and dusk. Delivering Our Places – the areas of West Dunbartonshire, including key regeneration areas, which the Council wants or expects to change over the next 5-10 years. Design Statement – accompanies a planning application to explain the design principles and concept of a proposed development. Desire lines – The shortest, most direct route between facilities or places. Even when obstacles are in the Page 120
Page 121
way, people will still try to follow the desire line. Development Brief – sets out guidelines and requirements for the development of a site. Edge of Centre – a location which is adjacent to or within easy walking distance of a Town Centre. Eyes on the street – People whose presence in adjacent buildings or on the street make it feel safer. Footway – A surface reserved for pedestrians; can include cyclists if a core path. Greenbelt – a policy designation to direct development to the most appropriate locations and support regeneration, protect and enhance the character, landscape setting and identity of settlements and protect and provide access to open space. Green Infrastructure – functional elements of a development such as open space, active travel routes, SuDS and habitat networks that contribute to the green network. Green Network – connected areas of natural, semi natural and created greenspace, active travel and recreational routes, watercourses, woodland and other habitats that together form an integrated and multi- functional network. Habitat Network – a set of separate areas of habitat that connect together in some way to allow a particular species to be able to move between each individual patch of habitat. Housing/Tenure mix – The range of housing in an area or development in terms of such factors as its type, size, affordability, accessibility or tenure. In-curtilage parking – Parking within a building’s site boundary, rather than on a public street or space. Integrating Green Infrastructure – an approach to ensure that multifunctional green infrastructure is included at the outset of designing successful place. Landform – The shape of the land. Landform can be described in terms such as elevation or shape. Landscape character – The distinct nature of an area of land in terms of such elements as its shape, geology, soils, vegetation, land uses and settlement patterns. Legibility – The quality of a place as being welcoming, understood easily by its users and easy for visitors to orientate themselves in. Listed Building – building or structure of special architectural or historic interest that has statutory protection due to its character or appearance. Local Development Plan (LDP) – provides the spatial planning strategy for an area and the framework for development management decision- making. Locality Place Plans – developed by Community Planning, these plans will develop a vision for a ‘place’, which will inform how development, infrastructure, service delivery and funding should be targeted in a local community, and will reflect the input and aspirations of the local community. This will change and be replaced by Page 121
Page 122
Local Place Plans with the implementation of the provisions of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. Massing – The combined effect of the arrangement, volume and shape of a building or group of buildings. Masterplan/Masterplanning – describes and illustrates how a proposal for the comprehensive development of a specific site will meet the vision for the site and how it will work on the ground. Material Consideration – A consideration that must be taken into account, where relevant, in a decision on a planning application. Mixed use – A mix of uses within a building, on a site or within a particular area. ‘Horizontal’ mixed uses are side by side, usually in different buildings. ‘Vertical’ mixed uses are on different floor of the same building. Places which have a mix of uses are likely to be lively at different times for different reasons. Open Space – includes all green spaces and civic spaces which contribute to the amenity of an area. Passive Solar gain – The effect of the sun’s heat on the temperature of a building’s fabric and ambient indoor temperatures, thus minimising heating requirements in winter. Passive Surveillance – The discouragement to wrong-doing by the presence of passers-by or the ability of people to be seen out of surrounding windows. Also known as Natural surveillance (or supervision). Passivhaus Standard – A commercial accreditation for construction of “a building, for which thermal comfort can be achieved solely by post-heating or post-cooling of the fresh air mass, which is required to achieve sufficient indoor air quality conditions – without the need for additional recirculation of air.” Alternative approaches to achieving the environmental benefits of this standard are available. Path/Footpath – A highway on which the public has a right of way on foot only. Pavement – 1 (UK) The raised surface for pedestrians beside a street or road. 2 (US) The structure of a road, including its surface and underlying structure. 3 A paved surface. Permeability – The degree to which an area has a choice of routes through it. Place and Design Panel – works collaboratively with developers, architects, landowners and key agencies to provide advice and assistance in pre-application proposals to help ensure projects contribute to a culture of design excellence. Place Standard Tool - provides a simple framework to structure conversations about place allowing you to consider all the elements of a place in a methodical way. Placemaking – Creating somewhere with a distinct identity. Page 122
Page 123
Pre-Application Service – Advice from the Development Management team on development proposals prior to submission of a planning application. Primary route – A street upon which more movement, variety and activity takes place than on smaller surrounding ones. Private space – The parts of a village, town or city to which public access is restricted. Processing Agreement - an agreed framework for project management of a planning application or related group of applications. Public space/realm – The parts of a village, town or city (whether publicly or privately owned) that are available, without charge, for everyone to use or see, including streets, squares and parks. Road – Any way (other than a waterway) over which there is a public right of passage (by whatever means) and including the verge and any bridge (whether permanent or temporary) over which or any tunnel through which, the way passes; includes carriageway, cycleway and footway. Roads Construction Consent – The authority to construct a new road or an extension of an existing road irrespective of whether or not such roads are to be submitted for adoption as public granted by the Local Roads Authority under Section 21 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Semi-private space – Space that may be privately owned or managed but into which the members of the public may enter if they have a legitimate reason, such as a front garden. Service Strip – Reservation for Statutory Undertaker services (gas, water, etc) normally located within confines of footway or verge. Settlement pattern – The distinctive way in which the roads, fields, paths and buildings are laid out in a particular place. Shared Surface – Pedestrian priority area shared with cycles and motor vehicles. Streetscape – The appearance of a street; the street and all the elements associated with it. Streetscene – The roadways, pavements, street furniture signage and other elements that together comprise the street environment. Sunlight – Sunlight refers to direct sunshine and is much brighter than ambient daylight. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) – a sequence of water management practices and facilities designed to drain surface water more sustainably than the conventional practice of routing run-off through a pipe to a watercourse. Sustainable Development – development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Swale – A linear depression (often beside a road) that allows rainwater to soak away. Page 123
Page 124
Topography – 1 A description or representation of artificial or natural features on or of the ground. 2 Mapping the shape of the land surface. Town Centre – centre which provides a diverse and sustainable mix of activities and land uses which create an identity that signals their function and wider role. Travel Plan – A travel plan aims to promote sustainable travel choices (for example, cycling) as an alternative to single occupancy car journeys that may impact negatively on the environment, congestion and road safety. Travel plans can be required when granting planning permission for new developments. Tree Preservation Order (TPO) – used to protect individual and groups of trees and areas of woodland considered important for amenity or because of their cultural or historical significance. Unallocated/Visitor Parking Spaces – Parking spaces which do not relate directly to any particular dwellings and are considered to be for the use of either residents or visitors on a “first come first served” basis. Urban structure – The framework of routes and spaces that connect locally and more widely, and the way developments, routes and open spaces relate to one another. Verge – Soft landscaped area adjacent to the road. Walkability – The ease with which it is possible to walk around an area, from one point to another or from housing to facilities. Page 124
Page 125
Useful Contacts Architects Registration Board (ARB) https://arb.org.uk/ Architecture and Design Scotland www.ads.org.uk Historic Environment Scotland (HES) www.historicenvironment.scot Scottish Environment Protection Agency www.sepa.org.uk NatureScot www.nature.scot Scottish Water www.scottishwater.co.uk Transport Scotland www.transportscotland.gov.uk Scottish Canals https://www.scottishcanals.co.uk/ Royal Town Planning Institute www.rtpi.org.uk Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland www.rias.org.uk Landscape Institute www.landscapeinstitute.org Institute of Conservation (ICON) www.icon.org.uk Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) www.ihbc.org.uk Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) www.ice.org.uk Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) www.rics.org/uk Contact Us Forward Planning LDP@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Development Management DM@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Placemaking Coordinator Place&DesignPanel@west- dunbarton.gov.uk Page 125
Page 126
ITEM 7 - Appendix 4 Creating Places – comments received on draft version and Council’s proposed response Respondent Comment WDC response The Coal Authority It is noted….that this current consultation relates to a draft SPG on Creating Places and I can confirm that the Planning team at the Coal Authority have no specific comments to make on this document. It is noted that the Coal Authority has no specific comments on this document. It may however be worth noting that if SUDS are proposed as part of developments green infrastructure consideration will need to be given by the developer to the implications of this in relation to the stability and public safety risks posed by coal mining legacy. The developer should seek their own advice from a technically competent person to ensure that a proper assessment has been made of the potential interaction between hydrology, the proposed drainage system and ground stability, including the implications this may have for any mine workings which may be present beneath the site. This comment was received in relation to the Green Infrastructure and Green Network Supplementary Guidance, it is considered more relevant for inclusion within the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance. Changes have been made in this regard (page 20). Historic Environment Scotland It is considered the drafts for our historic environment interests have no comments on their content. It is noted that Historic Environment Scotland has no specific comments on this document. Homes for Scotland Introduction Homes for Scotland (HFS) welcomes the opportunity to comment on West Dunbartonshire’s Draft Supplementary Guidance (SG) in relation to Creating Places. Noted Page 126
Page 127
It is stated within this Guidance that it is intended that “this guidance will be adopted as statutory supplementary guidance, forming part of Local Development Plan 2”. Given Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) has not yet been adopted, and therefore its final form is not currently known, it is problematic to be publishing SG to support this. It is not even known whether LDP2 will in fact ever be adopted. LDP2 does not currently form part of the Development Plan, as it remains unadopted. Therefore, the lower tier of the Development Plan in West Dunbartonshire is the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan (WDLP), adopted in March 2010. The status of this Plan has been significantly eroded, as it is now over 7 years out of date. This draft SG refers to National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), the final version of which is due to be published in autumn 2022. The draft SG has also been released just ahead of the anticipated new Development Management Regulations. For all of these reasons it could be argued that the revision and delivery of new SG is premature. As noted above, it is stated that the Council intends to adopt the proposed new SG as part of the statutory Development Plan. However, this statutory status might only last for a limited period as all such guidance will at some point have to be non-statutory under the soon to be published new Regulations and NPF4. While it is acknowledged that Scottish The status of the Supplementary Guidance has been clarified within the document. The guidance is intended to be adopted as supplementary guidance to the Local Development Plan (LDP2) and provides further detailed guidance on the content thereof, it is therefore not premature in relation to the emerging National Planning Framework or Development Planning Regulations, as the LDP has been prepared and will be adopted based on the current Scottish Planning Policy, and the current Development Planning Regulations and in line with transitional arrangements. It is agreed that the content of the emerging National Planning Framework 4 cannot be assumed, and the references to this have been amended. (Page 5) The guidance on transitional arrangements indicates that Planning Authorities will require to decide if the content of Supplementary Guidance should move to planning guidance or be included within local development plan itself. However the guidance also indicates that new supplementary guidance can be prepared and adopted until section 22 of the 1997 Act is repealed and for a further 24 month period thereafter. Page 127
Page 128
Ministers have made provision for a 24 month ‘transitional period’ following publication of the new Regulations, the draft new SG could end up being part of the adopted development plan for a limited period after which the council will require to undertake a further revision to reflect the non-statutory status thereafter. As we don’t yet know what the new Regulations will look like and how the transitional period will be implemented, HFS is of the view that the Council should consider moving straight to publication of non- statutory SGs as other Local Authorities, including South Lanarkshire Council, have done. Regardless, the draft Guidance, in places, appears to go beyond merely supplementing policies within the LDP but rather looks to introduce new and more onerous requirements for developments to meet. This is not an appropriate use of SG as the principles of policy have not been properly scrutinised or tested as part of the LDP examination. Planning Circular 6/2013 (Development Planning) notes that Regulation 27 (2) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 requires SG to be limited to the provision of further information or detail in respect of policies or proposals set out in the SDP or LDP. There must be a sufficient “hook‟ in the SDP or LDP policies or proposals to hang the SG on, to give it statutory weight. The Council considers that LDP2 provides sufficient ‘hooks’ for the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance. The Supplementary Guidance is referenced 5 times in LDP2 in both policies and explanatory text. The Supplementary Guidance serves the purpose of providing further information or detail in respect of policies set out in LDP2. Page 128
Page 129
This matter was reinforced by a letter sent to All Heads of Planning on 15 January 2015 by The Chief Planner, which states: “For supplementary guidance to be issued in connection with a local development plan, this means that the guidance may only deal with the provision of further information or detail in respect of policies or proposals set out in the local development plan and then only provided those are matters which are expressly identified in a statement contained in the plan as matters which are to be dealt with in supplementary guidance.” Specific sections of the draft SG breach these requirements, as detailed below. Any mechanism which may seek to restrict the deliverability of new homes to meet the housing crisis which prevails in Scotland must be resisted. As we move towards the new system under NPF4, the threshold for what constitutes a “deliverable” site is greater than previously existed, and it is against this backdrop that all policies/strategies must now sit. Affecting the deliverability of sites through the introduction and requirement of a range of additional asks must be seriously considered. The Scottish Government have indicated in the draft NPF4 that the Climate and Nature Crises should be given the highest priority when considering planning issues. While it is acknowledged that the final NPF has yet to be published, the Planning Authority recognises that the Climate Crisis, Nature Crisis and Housing Crisis are all part of the range of issues which are considered when preparing policy and guidance and it sits with the Planning Authority to afford appropriate weight to these and all other relevant considerations. The Provision of Land or Buildings for Neighbourhood Services The Local Development Plan sets out the aspiration for the creation of walkable places and gives support for ancillary and compatible land uses within communities under Policy SC5 Ancillary Retail Uses. Page 129
Page 130
Page 25 of the draft SG refers to the provision of land or buildings for neighbourhood services where they are not within a 10-minute walk. This is extremely vague and open to interpretation. Further clarification is required here with regards to the definition of “neighbourhood services”. Furthermore, the scale of land/buildings that may be required to be set aside needs to be made clear. It is also vital that viability factors are considered when assessing whether these land/buildings are required, and any wording associated with this policy requires to be suitably flexible. In terms of neighbourhood facilities, this should not fall solely on the home building sector to deliver these. The Supplementary Guidance indicates a mechanism how this can be achieved within housing developments rather than introducing a new policy requirement. A change has been made to provide some flexibility, by indicating that this should be considered, rather than “expected”. Further clarification of 10 minute walking distance as 800m has been provided and that this relates to the small ancillary and compatible uses such as shops, nurseries or leisure facilities as indicated in the preceding paragraph (page 28). Sustainable Construction This section states: “The design of the building should aim to enhance energy efficiency through solar orientation; passive heating, cooling and ventilation; as well as, choice of materials and other such strategies to improve energy efficiency.” As a sector, home building is very well placed to respond to and address the climate challenge. Building regulations ensure that new homes are extremely efficient with the incorporation of The guidance provides a supportive framework for developer who wish to go beyond the minimum required by Building Standards. It therefore encourages development which achieves Silver or Gold aspect of the building standards, as well as a fabric first approach which reduces the need for energy generation before seeking to offset the energy requirements with renewable technology. Page 130
Page 131
improvements to the building fabric and low carbon technologies including PV panels and heat pumps. HFS supports the strategy of heat networks and there will be occasions when viability and timing could allow for their integration within new housing developments. However, it needs to be part of a flexible approach with an understanding of commercial, practical and viable constraints with regards to connection to heat networks. In addition, it is essential that this policy is entirely aligned with Building Standards Regulations. This policy needs to be clearer on what is intended to be achieved by its inclusion in a planning document when heat is already governed by Building Regulations. Heat networks can only be connected to where they already exist, or can only be created for larger developments, where scale and viability allows. The design code should not be prescriptive and the Council should not dictate housing mix at the expense of viability. If large, flagship brownfield sites are to come forward (which underpin the Council’s land supply) then the Council should be flexible with regards to mix and design codes. The guidance only requires connection to a heat network where one exists; clarification is provided that development should be made heat network ready where a network is planned for that area (page 33). The guidance does not dictate housing mix, but does indicate that typology can have an impact on energy efficiency, giving support for more sustainable forms. The Queens Quay Design Codes have been previously consulted on and adopted. The preparation of form-based guidance such as design codes, which may include denser development or information on building heights, is supported by Scottish Planning Policy point 57, Tools for Making Better Places, as a way to deliver the six qualities of successful places. No change is required. NatureScot NatureScotnote that ‘this guide seeks to ensure that new development recognises and responds to West Dunbartonshire’s unique location, making the most of the waterfront and connecting into the outstanding green network opportunities provided by its setting’. The comments and notes of support from NatureScot are welcomed. Page 131
Page 132
They broadly support and welcome the content of this Guidance and in particular, the emphasis given to a design led and green infrastructure first approach to placemaking. Also, and as part of that design led approach, the value attributed to the need for a thorough appraisal of development sites and analysis of their context to be undertaken as prerequisite to delivery of high quality development. It is acknowledged the focus given to the role of collaboration in ensuring that proposals contribute to the creation of successful and sustainable places, the encouragement given to developers to engage with the community and with the Council’s Pre-Application Service to help inform development proposals, including for example, the need for specific studies or requirements and the role of the Place and Design Panel, in ensuring that new development contributes to outstanding places and design in West Dunbartonshire. Green Infrastructure (pages 19 -24) Support the value given to the green network in placemaking and the expectation that new development will contribute positively to this through the ‘green infrastructure first approach’. Also, for green infrastructure solutions for the delivery of on- site water management; biodiversity; access networks and open space, with the layering of these functions contributing to a multifunctional green network, with Page 132
Page 133
multiple benefits for health, well-being, wildlife as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation. Habitat Enhancement (page 21) They welcome the measures to address habitat enhancement and that: ‘Existing habitats should be retained and enhanced by providing links to wider greenspaces or riparian corridors to address habitat fragmentation’. Similarly, welcome the utilisation of naturalised SUDS, designed to create opportunities to enhance and expand wetland habitats and create other habitats for biodiversity. Overall, they consider the document to be clearly presented providing useful, detailed information and clarity to assist those involved in the design and placemaking process. RSPB Scotland 1. Recommend that reference be made to the upcoming NatureScot guidance ‘Developing With Nature.’ Page 21 Habitat Enhancement 1. A reference to this emerging guidance has been included. (page 21) 2. The Guidance should mention opportunities to incorporate biodiversity features within the buildings themselves. These could include: - Nesting and Roosting boxes for building reliant birds (e.g. swift, swallow and house martin) and bats and birds associated with urban areas (e.g. house sparrow and starling); 2. Reference to biodiversity features within buildings has been included (page 23). Page 133
Page 134
- Green roofs 3. The Guidance should recommend the use of wildlife-friendly lighting. 3. Reference to wildlife-friendly lighting has been included (page 23). 4. Whilst specimen trees are important, it is more important for wildlife to have a varied structure of vegetation. It is recommended that the following wording be incorporated: Replace: “Planting should mostly be appropriate native species with any non‐native species selected to provide food and shelter for wildlife.” With ‘Planting should mostly be appropriate native species and seek to create a varied structure of wildlife friendly trees, shrubs and flower rich meadows providing food, shelter and breeding places for wildlife.’ 4. This change has been made (page 23). Scottish Government At page 21 – Habitat Enhancement: Second paragraph, delete “The site” at start of sentence. This change has been made (page 23). Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Support the commitment to a green infrastructure first approach to development. Also welcome the measures therein to safeguard, enhance and expand existing networks and the connections between them and support multi-functionality (e.g. by integrating water management measures such as SuDS). It is noted that Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has not specific comments on this document and the support for the green infrastructure first approach as well as the measures to safeguard, enhance and expand existing networks are welcomed. Page 134
Page 135
Strathclyde partnership for Transport No comments Noted Local resident Benefits of green networks and green infrastructure The following are listed as a benefit: • Off road active travel and recreation routes • Locations for sport and recreation It goes on to say they are made more valuable when they are multi functional and connected providing off road routes This should be expanded to include reference to horse related activities and access – not all sport and recreation is football, walking or cycling. Horse riding is much more inclusive than many sports as men and women compete on equal terms and together, age and ability is no barrier either. Horses can allow freedom of movement to those who cannot have this on their own and horse riding makes places more accessible than with wheelchairs. This comment was received in relation to the Green Infrastructure and Green Network Supplementary Guidance, it is considered more relevant for inclusion within the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance. A reference to horseriding has been added to the Access Networks section of the guidance (page 24), however it is considered unreasonable to have a general requirement for housing development to deliver bridleways. When paths are for multi users thought should be given to all potential users and suitable surfaces installed, designated bridleways could be installed - these could be side by side with a “horse lane” or suitable parking provided for horseboxes. Less use of steps to allow better access for horses This comment was received in relation to the Green Infrastructure and Green Network Supplementary Guidance, it is considered more relevant for inclusion within the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance. A reference to ensuring multi-use paths are suitable for all users is added to the Access Networks section of the guidance (page 24). Page 135
Page 136
On a wider note developers need to stop cutting down the mature trees on site and replacing them with tiny saplings, this doesn’t help with climate change in any way and happens all the time. In one example a block of flats opposite me over 300 trees were cut down and they have been replaced with small shrubs about 10 of them. These trees were all mature with many in excess of 50 yrs old. This must be stopped, developers can keep existing trees around boundaries which makes the whole site nicer for residents and better for wildlife but time and time again everything is cleared and a blank site is the starting point. The keeping of mature trees must be enforced even the ones which seemingly are not in best of health, even an unhealthy tree can live for hundreds of yrs. There are 2 ancient willows on my rented field and both grow almost horizontally, they are still alive, no danger of falling over and are a beautiful feature. Existing trees onsite must be kept and developers must adhere to this. Climate change is important so take actions to prevent it worsening. This comment was received in relation to the Green Infrastructure and Green Network Supplementary Guidance, it is considered more relevant to the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance. Policy ENV4 Forestry, Trees and Woodland gives significant protection to “long established woodland; woodlands of high conservation value (including categories 1b, 2b and 3 on SNH Ancient Woodlands Inventory and woodlands identified in Forestry Commission Native Woodland Survey of Scotland); and those area covered by a provisional or confirmed tree preservation order.” The Supplementary Guidance cannot extend this protection to individual trees, however it does seek to encourage preservation of trees where they contribute positively to the character of an area (page 14). No change required. Balconies are not an acceptable outdoor space, gardens should be compulsory on all developments even if it means less buildings on site (no bad thing). Who uses their balconies, I mean the ones on the main road in clydebank face on to a busy road, who is going to sit out there with all the fumes from the road. Gardens are a must not unusable balconies. Do remember that this council has covered in most of these balconies in recent years for safety reasons so In some locations, for example town centres, higher density proposals are supported and a more flexible approach to open space may be necessary. A balcony can provide an outdoor sitting space, a private space for drying or growing plants in addition to any shared, communal or public spaces associated with a development. Clarification about these uses, is provided within the guidance (Page 27). Page 136
Page 137
don’t start putting them in again instead of actual gardens. WDC Roads This document echoes much of what already exists in the National Roads Development Guide (NRDG) and Designing Streets. Clarification is required around parking provision though. On P17, it is stated that parking would be outwith the front garden. Roads Services’ preferred default is for parking to be located within the curtilage of any residential plot (at the side would possibly satisfy both concerns?). The guidance encourages a variety of different parking arrangements in line with National Policy, Designing Streets, while expressing a preference for parking between gables when on-plot parking is required rather than using front gardens. The guidance covers a range of different housing types, including flats and houses; so flexibility is given to allow parking arrangements to be designed in a way that is most suitable for the type of housing and character of the street to be formed. No change is required. Another concern is the level of parking provision: The document states that developers should be encouraged to reduce parking provision. Parking provision should be appropriate to the size, type and location of each development. Flexibility is already afforded by way of step-down for social and affordable housing, justification of reduction through Transportation Assessments and future allocation / developer contributions, where parking is initially provided at a lower rate than as per WDC Parking Standards. This topic is even more relevant, given the feedback and instructions from the Planning Committee following a submission with inadequate parking provision at Mill Road, Clydebank in 2021. The guidance indicates that “a reduction of the Council’s parking standard will be encouraged for sites which are in accessible or town centre locations and close to public transport hubs.” It is agreed that parking provision should be appropriate to the size type and location of the development, but the guidance seeks to be specific about the types of location for which a reduction will be supported. It is acknowledged that this should be evidenced within a Transport Assessment and the guidance has been amended to indicate this (page 18). Page 137
Page 138
Local Development Plan 2 Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance November 2022 ITEM 7 - APPENDIX 5 Page 138
Page 139
Status of this document This document has been prepared as Supplementary Guidance to the Local Development Plan (LDP2). It is a material consideration in planning decisions, and will be adopted as part of the development plan following the adoption of LDP2. This document is also available in other languages, large print and audio format on request. Please contact Corporate Communications at: Address: West Dunbartonshire Council, Council Offices, 16 Church Street Dumbarton, G82 1QL Phone: 01389 737527 Email: Communications@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Arabic Hindi Punjabi Urdu Chinese (Cantonese) Polish British Sign Language BSL users can contact us via contactSCOTLAND-BSL, the on-line British Sign Language interpreting service. Find out more on the contactSCOTLAND website . Page 139
Page 140
Contents Part 1 - West Dunbartonshire’s green network and green infrastructure .................... 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 What is open space ............................................................................................. 3 What is greenspace? ........................................................................................... 3 What is green infrastructure? ............................................................................... 4 What is a green network? .................................................................................... 4 What are the benefits of green networks and green infrastructure? .................... 4 Planning and the green network and green infrastructure ...................................... 5 Safeguarding the green network and green infrastructure ...................................... 6 Enhancing and expanding the green network ......................................................... 7 Part 2 – Green infrastructure delivery in new development ........................................ 8 Embedding the green network and green infrastructure ......................................... 8 Green infrastructure functions ................................................................................. 8 Green infrastructure function: water management ............................................... 9 Green infrastructure function: habitat enhancement ............................................ 9 Green infrastructure function: access networks ................................................... 9 Green infrastructure function: open space ........................................................... 9 The requirement for green infrastructure in different types of development .......... 10 Part 3 – Open space in new residential development .............................................. 12 Open space standards for residential development .............................................. 12 Accessibility standard ........................................................................................ 12 Quality standard ................................................................................................. 12 Quantity standard .............................................................................................. 13 How will these standards be used? ....................................................................... 14 On‐site provision for residential developments ..................................................... 15 Green infrastructure stewardship .......................................................................... 15 Part 4 – Developer contributions and green infrastructure projects .......................... 16 Legal and policy framework .................................................................................. 16 Developer contribution framework ........................................................................ 16 When will contributions be sought? ................................................................... 16 What will the contribution be? ............................................................................ 16 Page 140
Page 141
2 How is the contribution calculated? ................................................................... 17 When will developer contributions be required to be paid? ................................ 18 Financial mechanisms ....................................................................................... 18 What projects will developer contributions be spent on? ................................... 18 Are there any circumstances when developer contributions will be reduced? ... 18 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 19 Appendix 1: Developer’s flowchart ........................................................................... 20 Appendix 2: Green infrastructure checklist ............................................................... 21 Appendix 3: Developer contributions examples ....................................................... 22 Example 1 - using the quantity standard ............................................................... 22 Example 2 - using the quantity standard for small sites ........................................ 24 Example 3 - accessibility standard: on‐site provision or financial contribution ...... 26 Example 4 - using the quantity standard for large sites ........................................ 28 Example 5 - not all of the site is accessible........................................................... 31 Example 6 - looking at quality standards .............................................................. 33 Appendix 4: Information required to be provided in development appraisals ........... 35 Appendix 5: Open Space Audit information note ...................................................... 37 Page 141
Page 142
Part 1 - West Dunbartonshire’s green network and green infrastructure Introduction West Dunbartonshire has an outstanding natural environment, which has been shaped by the area’s history, and defines West Dunbartonshire as a place today. This environment is vital to future prosperity and the health and wellbeing of West Dunbartonshire. The area boasts a wide variety of parks and gardens; play spaces and sports areas; woodland; natural and semi‐natural green spaces; riverside and canalside spaces; as well as the designed landscape at Overtoun House and outstanding countryside such as the Kilpatrick Hills and the Muirs, which together form a valuable and important green network. The strategy of Local Development Plan 2 seeks to safeguard the existing green network, and to ensure new development enhances and expands it by improving existing green infrastructure assets, the connections between them and by creating new multifunctional green infrastructure. As a result, the Local Development Plan has been awarded the Building with Nature Award, which means that: 1. the policies within the Plan ensure that green infrastructure is considered from the outset of the development process, throughout its construction, and is sustainably managed after the development has been completed; and 2. it demonstrates a whole lifecycle approach to green infrastructure which will ensure development that comes forward delivers healthy, liveable and sustainable communities within West Dunbartonshire. The purpose of this Supplementary Guidance is to: 1. define the green network in West Dunbartonshire and identify its existing assets and opportunities (Part 1); 2. outline the principles for embedding green infrastructure at the heart of new development using a green infrastructure first approach (Part 2); 3. define the open space standards that will be required of new development and how these standards will be achieved (Part 3); and 4. describe how developer contributions for green infrastructure associated with new developments will be calculated (Part 4). What is open space Open space is space within and on the edge of settlements comprising green space and civic areas such as squares, market places and other paved or hard landscaped areas with a civic function. What is greenspace? Greenspace is space which provides a recreational function, an amenity function, or aesthetic value to the public such as areas of: grass, trees, other vegetation, water, but not including agricultural or horticultural land. Page 142
Page 143
What is green infrastructure? Green infrastructure is features or spaces within the natural and built environments that provide a range of ecosystem services. What is a green network? The green network is connected areas of green infrastructure and open space that together form an integrated and multi-functional network. GREEN NETWORKS are connected areas of green infrastructure that together form an integrated and multi- functional network. GREENSPACE is space which provides a recreational function, an amenity function, or aesthetic value to the public such as areas of: grass, trees, other vegetation, water, but not including agricultural or horticultural land. + CONNECTION + INTEGRATION + MULTI- FUNCTIONALITY GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Features or spaces within the natural and built environments that provide a range of ecosystem services. + DESIGN + MANAGEMENT + FUNCTIONALITY Figure 1 The relationship between greenspace, green infrastructure and the green network What are the benefits of green networks and green infrastructure? Green networks and green infrastructure can provide a range of beneficial outcomes, including economic; environmental; climatic; mental and physical health; and social improvements. Greenspace, green infrastructure and the green network have a number of benefits: GREENSPACE is any vegetated land or structure, water, path or geological feature within and on the edges of settlements. +DESIGN +MANAGEMENT +FUNCTIONALITY GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE is greenspace which is designed and/or managed to provide identified functions. +CONNECTION +INTEGRATION +MULTI- FUNCTIONALITY GREEN NETWORKS are connected areas of green infrastructure that together form an integrated and multi- functional network. Page 143
Page 144
• habitats for biodiversity; • off-road active travel and recreation routes; • locations for sport and recreation; • areas for the management of water; and • defining distinctive, healthy, sustainable and attractive places in which to live, work, visit and enjoy. The Scottish Government’s Green Infrastructure: Design and Placemaking (2011) provides more detail on the benefits that green networks and green infrastructure can have as well as how green infrastructure can deliver the six qualities of successful places; welcoming, distinctive, safe and pleasant, easy to move around, resource efficient and adaptable.1 These assets become more valuable when they are designed and managed to be: • multi‐‐‐‐functional, thereby delivering more than one benefit; • integrated into where people live and other urban infrastructure; and • connected to other areas of green infrastructure, thereby providing off-road routes for people and habitat corridors for wildlife to move around. Planning and the green network and green infrastructure The planning system is a key mechanism for delivering the green network, and the green network can help deliver the outcomes, particularly with regard to improving health and wellbeing, meeting climate change targets, placemaking and securing positive effects for biodiversity. Local Development Plan 2 establishes a strategy and policies for the protection, enhancement and expansion of the green network and green infrastructure. The strategy of the Plan seeks to safeguard and where possible ensure that development enhances and expands both of these important resources. Local Development Plan 2 identifies the Strategic Green Network as a Key Asset that the Council wants to see protected and enhanced. The key corridors and assets which make up the Strategic Green Network are highlighted in the Local Development Plan 2 Strategic Green Network Map. Strategic Green Network Projects that are considered necessary in order to strengthen West Dunbartonshire’s contribution to the Central Scotland Green Network are identified on the Strategic Green Network Projects map, Figure 2. This illustrates how West Dunbartonshire’s green network will: be integrated through the urban areas of the Vale of Leven corridor and the Clyde Waterfront; provide connections for people to the Kilpatrick and Carman Hills; span the Vale of Leven to provide wildlife corridors. 1 http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2011/11/04140525/5 Page 144
Page 145
Figure 2. A spatial strategy for West Dunbartonshire’s green network The Local Development Plan 2 strategy for the green network is to (1) safeguard the existing green network; and (2) ensure new development enhances and expands the green network by creating new multifunctional green and open spaces, and improving existing green network assets and the connections between them. Safeguarding the green network and green infrastructure Local Development Plan 2 seeks to safeguard the green network through a series of Policies, as detailed below: 1. Policy KH 1 seeks to protect and enhance the Kilpatrick Hills Local Landscape Area; 2. Policy GI1 seeks to ensure that safeguarded open space and outdoor sports facilities are protected; 3. Policy ENV 1 seeks to conserve, protect and where appropriate, enhance, European and National designated sites; 4. Policy ENV 2 seeks to protect the landscape character of West Dunbartonshire; 5. Policy ENV 3 protecting carbon rich soils through the area; 6. Policy ENV 4 protects Forestry, Trees and Woodlands; 7. Policy ENV 5 seeks to protect and, where appropriate, enhance the water environment; 8. Policy ENV 6 seeks to avoid development on floodplains and to ensure that flood risk is avoided elsewhere; and 9. Policy CON 3 protects Core Paths and Natural Routes. Page 145
Page 146
Enhancing and expanding the green network Local Development Plan 2 seeks to enhance and expand the green network through the following policies: 1. Policy CP1 seeks to ensure new development creates successful, sustainable places 2. Policy CP2 requires developments to deliver green infrastructure that contributes to the development and enhancement of a multi-functional green network 3. Policy GI2 which requires new developments to meet open space standards. 4. Policy GI3 which encourages the provision of allotments and community gardens 5. Policy GI4 which establishes a framework for the provision of developer contributions towards green infrastructure. Page 146
Page 147
Part 2 – Green infrastructure delivery in new development Embedding the green network and green infrastructure In order to safeguard, enhance and expand the green network and green infrastructure, development proposals are required to: 1. Protect the existing green network: Green infrastructure and open spaces which currently exist on a site should be protected unless there is adequate mitigation which enhances the quality of the network elsewhere providing an overall net gain in quantitative or qualitative provision. 2. Understand the wider green network: It is vital that development proposals look beyond the boundaries of individual sites, however large or small, to consider the broader spatial context and create a more coordinated and joined-up network. 3. Integrate green infrastructure into the design process for all development proposals: The greatest green network benefits can be achieved if green infrastructure is considered integral to the development design process and considered early, rather than an afterthought once other elements have become ‘fixed’. 4. Create new green infrastructure as part of the development: Where development increases the number of people who would use and derive benefit from the green network, proposals should seek to extend the network through the creation of new green and open spaces which have designed functions for a range of users. 5. Enhance the functionality and biodiversity value of existing assets: The site appraisal and design process should identify opportunities to enhance the value of existing assets. 6. Link to the existing network: Green infrastructure and path connections on new sites should link up with the existing green network where possible. 7. Contribute financially towards off‐ff‐ff‐ff‐site projects: In some instances the best way of achieving green network enhancement will be by making a financial contribution to projects beyond a site’s boundary, for example upgrading a local play park or path network. Part 4 outlines the circumstance and level of contribution that may be required. 8. Look long-term towards future management and maintenance. How green infrastructure and open spaces will be sustained should be considered from the outset. Without careful consideration being given to future management and maintenance of assets the range of benefits will reduce quickly over time. Green infrastructure functions Policy CP 2 of Local Development Plan 2 sets out how the different functions of green infrastructure should be integrated within developments. These functions are water management, habitat enhancement, access and open space. The integration of these functions within the design and layout of the development is necessary in order to ensure that the development ensures a whole life approach to green Page 147
Page 148
infrastructure provision and links into and contributes to the wider green network. Taking a green infrastructure first approach to integrating these functions within the development, will help to create a sustainable, well managed and healthy, biodiversity rich, green place, which helps to contribute to fit and active communities. Green infrastructure function: water management The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 requires all surface water from new development to be treated by a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) before it is discharged into the water environment, except for single houses or where the discharge will be into coastal water. SuDS help to protect water quality and reduce potential for flood risk by facilitating natural drainage of surface water run‐off (including roof water). They encourage infiltration and attenuation to prevent and reduce pollution from diffuse urban sources and release capacity in water management infrastructure. However, not all SuDS systems deliver a range of multiple benefits as envisaged by the Integrated Green Infrastructure (IGI) approach. SuDS should be designed and constructed to be multi‐functional green infrastructure elements, providing visual interest, recreational amenity and biodiversity value. Green infrastructure function: habitat enhancement Many sites will have opportunities to create/enhance habitats and habitat nature networks, create connections between those habitats and networks or enhance the biodiversity of the site through specific planting and design. Proposals for new development should must consider whether the site can protect or enhance habitats to safeguard existing networks or deliver new habitat to connect fragmented networks. This work should be informed by appropriate surveys and assessment. guided by tThe Green Network Blueprint developed by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership can provide strategic guidance on, which details existing habitats critical to the wider network and where connections should be made to improve habitat connectivity. Green infrastructure function: access networks A successful green network needs to have good multi-user connections between the different open spaces and facilities, such as shops and schools, which exist in and around our settlements. New development has a role to play in this by ensuring that sites connect to the existing green network. When appraising the access potential for a site, consideration should be given to what opportunities exist within the site, including how houses will link with open space and facilities using safe, off-road Green Active Travel routes, and what opportunities exist to provide multi-use connections with existing access networks outwith the site. Proposals for new development should consider whether the site can protect or enhance existing assets or deliver new Green Active Travel infrastructure to address identified gaps. Green infrastructure function: open space This is covered in greater detail in Part 3. Page 148
Page 149
The requirement for green infrastructure in different types of development Not all forms of development will have to contribute directly or indirectly to open space provision. The level of contribution expected will be proportionate to the scale and impact of that development on the green network. Developments with the greatest impact are those that increase user demands on the green network i.e. residential uses. Table 1 sets out these requirements and there is a flow chart in Appendix 1 which provides a quick guide to the expectations for provision of open space. Residential development (units) New commercial or industrial development TYPES OF PROVISION 1-9 10-49 50+ Layout to include landscaping and setting Green and Open Spaces incl. play spaces and equipped areas Access Networks e.g. walkable link to green network Water Management e.g. SUDS Habitat NetworksProvision/ Enhancement e.g. biodiversity Off-site contribution/delivery not required required where need/opportunity identified required Table 1 Matrix of types of development and indicative green infrastructure requirements New build commercial and industrial developments should comply with the principles of good design set out in Policies CP1 and CP 2 of Local Development Plan 2 and the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance, and look for opportunities to provide amenity space, access links, SUDS and enhance biodiversity through planting. Page 149
Page 150
All residential development is expected to enhance the green network and applicants should fully explore all opportunities for doing so at the outset of masterplanning and site design. The requirements for green infrastructure associated with residential development are based on an assessment of need and opportunity using the estimated population size of the development and the standards of accessibility, quality and quantity. The green network requirements for each individual site will be discussed and agreed at pre‐ application stage. Design guidance for integrating green infrastructure into new development is set out in the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance. Appendix 2 provides a checklist for ensuring the principles and functions set out above have been considered within development proposals. Page 150
Page 151
Part 3 – Open space in new residential development Open space standards for residential development In order to create a valued green network within West Dunbartonshire each component of the green network has to be “fit for purpose”, in other words, it is in a condition that can support its intended purpose and function. Three key standards are used to determine whether a component is “fit for purpose”. These are 1. Accessibility 2. Quality; and 3. Quantity These standards will be used to: 1. inform developers what the minimum requirements are for their sites; 2. prioritise works to provide/enhance facilities; 3. identify areas where open spaces are not fit for purpose; and 4. identify where there is a deficit in provision Accessibility standard This is the principle standard and sets a threshold for how close people should live to their nearest publicly usable open space. The Council is keen to ensure that the distance to open spaces takes into account the walking abilities of children and older people. It is assumed that a child would be able to walk 250m in approximately 5 minutes and this distance defines the standard. The priority is to ensure that people have easy access to multi‐purpose and good quality spaces that meet their needs. The accessibility standard is: When carrying out a site appraisal, developers should assess the distance of usable, good quality open space, including the type, relative to the site being considered, and this assessment should be provided in plan form. The distances should not be “as the crow flies” but based on a network analysis using streets, paths and access points to open spaces and highlighting barriers to those spaces. This assessment will inform what type of space, if any, is required within the development, and its preferred location, or if a financial contribution to an existing space is more appropriate. Small, single use spaces such as stand-alone play areas should not be considered as part of this assessment. Quality standard The quality of an open space is an assessment‐derived score based on work undertaken as part of the Open Space Audit carried out in 2016 and updated in 2018 Everyone will live within a 250m walk of a 0.2ha usable and good quality greenspace which meets the quality standard Page 151
Page 152
to reflect changes to some spaces (see Appendix 5). It measures the quality of spaces against a set of criteria relating to the site’s management, usability, biodiversity, accessibility and infrastructure. The quality measure has two main uses: 1. to identify where investment is needed in existing spaces 2. to ensure that new spaces meet/exceed the quality standard. The quality standard is: Where a space is identified as being below the Threshold Score, this indicates the quality of that space is below standard and requires investment, and cannot in its current condition count towards open space provision for the development site. All new provision should exceed the threshold scores in Table 2 and should have management and maintenance mechanisms and funding in place to ensure that the quality is maintained into the future. The quality assessment for existing spaces will be used to inform what enhancements are required if it falls below the threshold. Open space typology Quality standard threshold score Parks and gardens 69% Residential amenity greenspace 60% Natural/semi-natural greenspaces 55% Play space 50% Table 2 - Quality standards for greenspace types Quantity standard The quantity standard is the amount of open space required per person. For West Dunbartonshire the standard for new developments is as follows: Development sites should provide this quantity of open space as a minimum where the accessibility standard and quality standard identifies a need based on an analysis of open space provision for the wider area. The range and mix of open space within a development should reflect the findings of the site and wider context appraisal, but would normally include formal open space such as a park, multi- All publicly usable open spaces should meet or exceed the threshold score set out in Table 2 Following reference to the accessibility and quality standard, where provision is required,All new housing developments should provide access to 30m2 of publicly useable open space per person. Page 152
Page 153
functional amenity greenspace, formal and informal play space, natural/semi‐natural greenspace and green corridors. Incidental greenspace and landscaping will not count to towards the quantity standard. Developers should provide a site plan indicating which spaces comprise provision of open space. Play areas must include accessible play equipment so that they may be enjoyed by users of all abilities. The projected population of any development is calculated using the number of bedrooms. Developers should use Table 3 to work out the average occupancy for their site. Appendix 3 provides worked examples of how this is done. Dwelling Size Household size Quantity of Open Space 1 bed 1.3 39m2 (30 x 1.3) 2 bed 1.9 57m2 (30 x 1.9) 3 bed 2.5 75m2 (30 x 2.5) 4 bed 3.0 90m2 (30 x 3.0) 5 bed 3.3 99m2 (30 x 3.3) Table 3 Average household occupancy based on Scottish Household Survey (2013) The provision of public open space does not preclude or replace the need for private garden/amenity areas that are commensurate with the needs of the type and size of properties. How will these standards be used? Accessibility, quality and quantity standards will be used to inform provision of open space for new development in West Dunbartonshire. Developers will need to demonstrate that the open space they propose in relation to a development site is based on an assessment of these measures. Accessibility is a key objective for the Council so even if a development site is in an area which has a good general provision of open space, if these are not readily accessible from the site i.e. within 250m, then provision on-site will have to be made or works carried out to improve accessibility e.g. new footpath connection. Page 153
Page 154
On‐‐‐‐site provision for residential developments Green infrastructure should be designed into the proposal at an early stage in the process and the open space standards of accessibility, quality and quantity used to determine what level of on‐site provision there should be. Design Statements should record the appraisal carried out of the existing green network and set out justification for the level of provision. There is an expectation that major residential developments provide an equipped play area if there is not adequate provision within 250m. Equipped play areas, must include accessible play equipment so that they can be enjoyed by users of all abilities. For some residential sites it will not be appropriate to form play spaces or equipped play areas and instead a financial contribution is expected. Policy GI4 and Part 4 of this Guidance sets out the circumstances under which off- site provision or a financial contribution to enhance the green network may be appropriate. In these cases, where off-site provision is acceptable, a hybrid approach may be appropriate if part of the open space requirement can be met on-site with a contribution towards meeting the rest of the requirement off-site, may be appropriate. Green infrastructure stewardship Well‐designed green infrastructure should continue to deliver multiple benefits into the future. Consideration as to how the various features of the green network will be maintained will ensure that it remains ‘fit for purpose'. Just as ‘grey infrastructure’ elements, such as roads and drains, require ongoing maintenance, so does green infrastructure. Many of the problems associated with the quality of existing open spaces reflect the lack of initial consideration given to funding and management mechanisms for effective long term management of green infrastructure. Good stewardship ensuring the long-term quality of green infrastructure is vital to a well‐ functioning green network. Partnership working and agreements between public agencies and other organisations may be necessary to recognise the multi‐functional nature of the green infrastructure and ensure that resources that would otherwise be spent on ‘grey' infrastructure are allocated to the effective management of the green infrastructure. Applicants should demonstrate how their design proposals will be sustainably managed over the long‐ term including financial models for future funding of appropriate management and maintenance. Planning conditions and legal agreements may be used to ensure that new developments provide details of the ongoing maintenance of sites. There are different options for management and maintenance depending on the tenure and nature of the site. For private housing, the preferred method is a requirement for maintenance and management of all common areas through a factor to form part of the land title for all owners of a site. Registered Social Landlords will have to provide evidence of a regular maintenance contract. Page 154
Page 155
Part 4 – Developer contributions and green infrastructure projects This section provides further information and guidance on Policy GI4 of Local Development Plan 2 and the Council’s requirements for development contributions for green infrastructure. Legal and policy framework This Supplementary Guidance has been prepared within the context of the following: 1. Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended); 2. Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 3. Town and Country Planning (Development Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2008; 4. Circular 3/2012: Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements; and; 5. West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2. Developer contribution framework The requirement for a developer to make an appropriate development contribution, where the circumstances set out in Policy GI4 arise, is mandatory and will be treated as a material consideration in the assessment and determination of planning applications for residential development. As a result, the Council has established a framework of how developer contributions are collected and how they will be monitored annually, which is described in the monitoring section below. In addition to any contributions made under Policy GI4 and this Supplementary Guidance, developers will require to meet the costs of providing the service infrastructure necessary for their development. When will contributions be sought? Contributions will be sought in line with the circumstances set out in Policy GI4 of Local Development Plan 2. These are: 1. Smaller sites of less than 10 units where provision of on-site recreational green infrastructure is not possible. 2. Developments where meeting the green infrastructure standards for on-site provision is not appropriate, e.g. high density urban areas 3. Where a development site is accessible to open spaces but those spaces are of a poor quality; and 4. Where development sites are accessible to good quality open spaces but a contribution to the green network is required to enhance its provision to the Central Scotland Green Network. What will the contribution be? The West Dunbartonshire standard for the required quantity of greenspace is 30m2 per person. The contribution for financial year 2022/23 is £30 for every m² of open space required for the site. This figure is based on what it would cost to provide a facility Page 155
Page 156
2,000 m² (0.2ha) in size which includes a small play park, kick‐about area, biodiversity area and path connection. Excluding land costs, this would be in the region of £60,000. As the costs of developing and implementing green infrastructure projects will increase over time, it is considered prudent and necessary that project costs are kept in line with the rate of inflation. Therefore, this guidance stipulates that project costs are index linked and that costs are revised on 1st April each year using the General Building Cost Index (GBCI) to reflect the increased project costs as they arise. If the GBCI falls then developer contributions will remain at the same rate as in the previous year How is the contribution calculated? To calculate the contribution the first step is to work out how much open space would be required for the site using the quantity standard and estimated site population. The projected population of any development is calculated using the number of bedrooms, which is based on data from 2013 extrapolated from the 2010 Census. Developers should use Table 4 to work out the occupancy for their site. Appendix 3 provides worked examples of how this is done. Table 4 – Open space standards for residential development The contribution is calculated by totalling the amount of greenspace required across the site based on number and dwelling size of units. That is then multiplied by £30 per sq. metre (2022/23). For example, if there are 25 x 2 bed dwellings and 30 x 3 bed dwellings then the calculation would be: Total open space provision = 25 x 57m2 = 1,425 + 30 x 75m2 = 2,250 = 3,675 sq. metres Developer contribution calculation = 3,675 x £30 = £110,250 Dwelling size Household size Quantity of greenspace to be provided per house 1 bed 1.3 39 m² (30 x 1.3) 2 bed 1.9 57 m² (30 x 1.9) 3 bed 2.5 75 m² (30 x 2.5) 4 bed 3.0 90 m² (30 x 3.0) 5 bed 3.3 99 m² (30 x 3.3) Page 156
Page 157
When will developer contributions be required to be paid? The Council will require developers to make their developer contributions to the Council prior to planning consent being issued, unless the payment of the contributions is determined through a Section 75 or other agreement agreed between the Council and the developer, which specifies a different payment schedule or date for the contributions to be made. Financial mechanisms In most cases, developer contributions will be delivered through either a Section 75 or Section 69 agreement. In some cases it may be deemed that these mechanisms are not required or appropriate, and payment may be made up front, prior to planning consent being issued. Where it has been agreed that payment will not be made at the time of concluding the legal agreement, i.e. where phased payments have been agreed, the sums involved will be index linked to the General Building Cost Index (GBCI). However, if the GBCI falls then developer contributions will continue at the same rate as in the previous period. In certain instances, the party to the agreement may also be required to guarantee the availability of funds, for example through a bond with a bank or insurance company in order to prevent any default in payment through bankruptcy, liquidation or refusal to pay. Late payments may also incur interest charges, which will be calculated at 5% per annum above the base rate of the Bank of England. What projects will developer contributions be spent on? The Council will publish a schedule of general and specific projects that developer contributions will be used towards. This will be updated annually. Are there any circumstances when developer contributions will be reduced? Policy GI4 states that contributions sought under this policy will be waived or reduced only in exceptional circumstances – for example, where a developer demonstrates that their development would have exceptional development costs and/or overriding economic, social or other benefits. Where it can be demonstrated that paying the full contribution would make a development unviable, developers may be permitted to negotiate a reduced contribution. In such cases, developers will be required to submit a full development appraisal, including costs, on an open book basis, to the Council for consideration. For verification purposes, the Council may seek an assessment of the submitted appraisal from the District Valuer or other mutually agreed independent valuation surveyor at cost of the developer/applicant. Appendix 4 of this Supplementary Guidance provides further advice on the level of information that will be required in the development appraisal and how this will be assessed by the Council. In addition to developers being able to negotiate reduced contributions, the Council also provides flexible methods of developer contribution payments. Consequently, Page 157
Page 158
developers may be able to enter into an agreement with the Council in order to arrange for the payment of developer contributions at a later stage in the development process. This allows flexibility to meet changes in the wider economy. Monitoring The Council has an agreed system for collecting, distributing and monitoring developer contributions which was approved by Planning Committee on 6th September 2017. The Development Planning and Place Team, in conjunction with the Council’s Finance Service, monitor the Developer Contributions fund for auditing and project management purposes. A monitoring report will be presented to Planning Committee on an annual basis which updates the committee on: 1. the amount of developer contributions received; 2. which projects have been undertaken and the total cost for each project; 3. the remaining developer contributions held by the Council; and 4. the general and specific projects that the contributions will be used towards. The time period in which developer contributions must be spent within is 10 years from the grant of planning consent and/or when the development contribution has been paid to the Council, whichever is later. This length of time is considered appropriate because of the length of time some developments take to complete and because, in some instances, contributions will be towards larger green infrastructure projects which will be funded from a variety of sources. Should the contribution not be spent in this timeframe, unless there has been exceptional circumstances, the money will be returned to the applicant including the interest that has been accrued on the contribution. Page 158
Page 159
Appendix 1: Developer’s flowchart Major residential developments (50 units or more) will be required to provide on-site play equipment if there is not an equipped play area with 250m of the site. ** If a residential development site meets the quantity standard through on-site provision, no financial contribution to the green network is required. Page 159
Page 160
Appendix 2: Green infrastructure checklist Green Infrastructure Planning Policy Compliance Page 160
Page 161
Appendix 3: Developer contributions examples Example 1 - using the quantity standard A residential site proposes a mixed development of 80 units comprising flats, terraced, semi‐detached and detached properties. There are two blocks of 12 flats consisting of 6 1‐bed and 18 2‐bed flats. There are 56 houses comprising a mix of eight 2‐bed terraced houses, thirty 3‐bed semi‐detached houses and eighteen 4‐bed detached properties. What is the expected occupancy and what should the minimum open space provision be? STEP 1 – Work out the number of bedrooms Unit Type Number of Units 1 Bed 6 2 Bed 26 3 Bed 30 4 Bed 18 TOTAL 80 STEP 2 – Determine the open space provision per number of units as per Table 6 of Local Development Plan 2 Bedrooms Household Size Open Space Per Unit (household size x 30 sq.m) Units Open Space Total (sq.m) (Open space x units) 1 1.3 39 6 234 2 1.9 57 26 1482 3 2.5 75 30 2250 4 3 90 28 2520 Page 161
Page 162
Bedrooms Household Size Open Space Per Unit (household size x 30 sq.m) Units Open Space Total (sq.m) (Open space x units) 5 3.3 99 0 0 Total 80 6486 STEP 3 – Add the open space provisions together to get the total open space required which would be in this case 6,486 sq.m This is the amount of open space to be provided for a development proposal of this size. The form of this needs to be determined using the site appraisal method. For example, in a situation whereby the site is not within 250 metres walk of a 0.2ha usable greenspace, then 6,486 sq.m Developer flowchart analysis Is the proposal for 10 or more units? – Yes Is the site accessible to existing open spaces i.e. does it meet the accessibility standard? No On-site provision should be based on the quantity and quality standards for residential development. Financial contributions for all/part will be considered in some cases Page 162
Page 163
Example 2 - using the quantity standard for small sites A small housing opportunity site proposes a block of four one‐bed flats. What is the expected occupancy rate and the minimum open space provision? STEP 1 – Work out the number of bedrooms Unit Type Number of Units 1 Bed 4 2 Bed 0 3 Bed 0 4 Bed 0 TOTAL 4 STEP 2 - Determine the open space provision per number of units as per Table 6 of Local Development Plan 2 Bedrooms Household Size Open Space Per Unit (household size x 30 sq.m) Units Open Space Total (sq.m) (Open space x units) 1 1.3 39 4 156 Total 4 156 STEP 3 – 156 sq.m is the amount of open space to be provided. However, as per the Developer’s Flowchart (Appendix 1), as it is a small site of less than ten units and therefore requires a financial contribution to be provided instead of providing on‐site. STEP 4 – Multiply the open space provision by financial contribution rate of £30 per sq.m 156 sq.m x £30 = £4,680 Developer flowchart analysis Is the proposal for 10 or more units? – No Page 163
Page 164
A financial contribution, based on the quantity standard, for the wider Green network will be required. Page 164
Page 165
Example 3 - accessibility standard: on‐‐‐‐site provision or financial contribution The development site is a gap site within a built up area. It is 0.41ha in size and the proposal is to build a single block of flats. There is a mix of 15 one‐bed and 30 two‐bed flats. What would the developer be required to provide? STEP 1 – Using the flow chart in Appendix 1, the proposal is for more than ten units so the first step is to see if it meets the accessibility standard i.e. is it within 250m of a 0.2ha space? The site is in an urban area where a high density development is supported. The applicant has made a case for making a financial contribution to upgrade play equipment in a large park less than 250m walking distance from the development site. It is agreed that off‐site provision is more appropriate in this instance so the contribution needs to be calculated. STEP 2 - Determine the open space provision per number of units as per Table 6 of Local Development Plan 2 Bedrooms Household Size Open Space Per Unit (household size x 30 sq.m) Units Open Space Total (sq.m) (Open space x units) 1 1.3 39 15 585 2 1.9 57 30 1710 Total 45 2,295 STEP 3 – To get the total amount of open space required, add together the open space provision 585 +1710 = 2,295 sq.m. This is the amount of open space to be provided. The site is in an urban area where a high density development is supported. The applicant has made a case for making a financial contribution to upgrade play equipment in a large park less than 400m walking distance. It is agreed that off‐site provision is more appropriate in this instance so the contribution needs to be calculated. Page 165
Page 166
STEP 4 – Multiply the open space provision by financial contribution rate of £30 per sq.m, i.e. 2,295 sq.m x £30 = £68,850. Therefore for this site a financial contribution of £68,850 required to upgrade play equipment in the park. Developer flowchart analysis Is the proposal for 10 or more units? – Yes Is the site accessible to existing open spaces i.e. does it meet the accessibility standard? Yes Does the quality of those spaces meet the quality standard? No, the play equipment is sub-standard A financial contribution, based on quantity standard, to enhance off-site provision will be required. Page 166
Page 167
Example 4 - using the quantity standard for large sites A large housing development is proposed for a greenfield site (5.15ha). It is close to an existing woodland and a path network which leads into the wider countryside. There are 115 dwellings proposed for the site, a mixed of detached, semi‐detached and terraced properties. What would the developer be required to provide? House size Number of units 1-bed terraced 12 2-bed semi-detached 18 3-bed semi-detached 30 3-bed detached 25 4-bed detached 30 STEP 1 ‐ Using the flow chart in Appendix 1, the proposal is for more than ten units so the first step is to see if it meets the accessibility standard i.e. is the site within 250m of a 0.2ha amenity greenspace, play space or natural/ semi‐natural greenspace? The site is within 250m of a large natural/semi‐natural greenspace provided path links are made to connect into these areas from the site. In addition, there is an expectation that major residential developments provide an equipped play area if they are not within 250m of one. The site appraisal identifies that there are no equipped play areas nearby. To meet the standards the site could combine provision i.e. have on‐site provision and make an off‐site contribution to make the woodland accessible. STEP 2 – Determine the open space provision per number of units as per Table 6 of Local Development Plan 2 Bedrooms Household Size Open Space Per Unit (household size x 30 sq.m) Units Open Space Total (sq.m) (Open space x units) 1 1.3 39 12 468 2 1.9 57 18 1026 Page 167
Page 168
Bedrooms Household Size Open Space Per Unit (household size x 30 sq.m) Units Open Space Total (sq.m) (Open space x units) 3 2.5 75 55 4125 4 3 90 30 2700 Total 115 8319 STEP 3 – To get the total amount of open space required, add together the open space provision 468+1026+4125+2700 = 8319 sq.m. This is the amount of open space to be provided. This is the total amount of open space required based on the estimated population of the development. To provide on‐site and make an off‐site contribution this figure is split: a 0.2ha (2000sq.m) equipped play space will be provided within the site and the remainder will be a financial contribution to enhance access to and within the woodlands. STEP 4 – The off‐site financial contribution to enhance access to and within the woodlands will be less the area of the equipped play space i.e. 8,319 sq.m – 2,000sq.m = 6,319sq.m £30 x 6,319 sq.m = £189,570 The provision responds to the site context. Developer flowchart analysis Is the proposal for 10 or more units? – Yes Is the site accessible to existing open spaces i.e. does it meet the accessibility standard? Yes, but only if access improvements are implemented Page 168
Page 169
In this instance, the on-site provision of play equipment is required as it is a major development. This provision is subtracted from the overall quantity provision required, with the balance of provision met through a financial contribution to enhance access to and within the nearby woodlands. Page 169
Page 170
Example 5 - not all of the site is accessible A large housing development is proposed on a long, narrow site with the railway adjacent to the southern boundary. There are 104 dwellings proposed on the 2.8ha site: a mix of detached, semi‐detached, terraced and flatted properties. What would the developer be required to provide? STEP 1 ‐ The proposal is for more than ten units so the first step is to see if it meets the accessibility standard i.e. is it within 250m of a 0.2ha of a useable park, amenity greenspace, play space or natural/semi‐natural greenspace? The site is within 250m of a large park and recreation ground which is in need of an upgrade. However the railway separates the site from the park so that the walking distance is greater than 250m for most of the site except the flatted properties to the west. Improving connections by building a bridge is too expensive so some on‐site provision is required. There is an expectation that major residential developments provide an equipped play area. STEP 2 – Determine the open space provision per number of units as per Table 6 of Local Development Plan 2 Bedrooms Household Size Open Space Per Unit (household size x 30 sq.m) Units Open Space Total (sq.m) (Open space x units) 1 1.3 39 24 936 2 1.9 57 26 1482 3 2.5 75 38 2850 4 3 90 16 1440 Total 104 6708 STEP 3 – All the 1 bed flats (24) are within 250m of the play area so need to be excluded from the calculation of amount of on‐site provision required i.e. subtract 936 sq.m from the total: Page 170
Page 171
6708 – 936 = 5,772 sq.m meters STEP 4 – The site would therefore still have to provide 5,772 sq.m of open space (including an equipped play area) and make a financial contribution of 936 x £30 = £28,080. Developer’s flowchart analysis Is the proposal for 10 or more units? – Yes Is the site accessible to existing open spaces i.e. does it meet the accessibility standard? Some parts of the site are Does the quality of those spaces meet the quality standard? No A financial contribution, based on quantity standard, to enhance off-site provision will be required. However, as some of the site is further than 250m from the open space to be improved, on-site provision is required also, so a mix of on-site provision and financial contribution will be sought. Page 171
Page 172
Example 6 - looking at quality standards A residential development of 45 flats is proposed, a mix of 30 two‐bed and 15 one–bed flats. Applying the accessibility standard, it is located close to an existing park and the canal. What would the developer be required to provide? STEP 1 ‐ The proposal is for more than ten units so the first step is to see if it meets the accessibility standard i.e. is it within 250m of a 0.2ha amenity greenspace, play space or natural/semi‐natural greenspace? The site is within 250m of a park. The site has less than 50 units so an equipped play park is not necessarily required on the site. The quality of that park needs to be assessed using the quality standard. STEP 2 – the most recent Audit carried out for this site shows that there are a number of concerns about the play equipment, surfacing and path connections within the park. Using the scoring the play area is assessed as being below the 50% threshold and requires investment. This means that the play area offers a valid opportunity for developer contribution funding asscociated with the site. STEP 3 – Determine the open space provision per number of units as per Table 6 of Local Development Plan 2 Bedrooms Household Size Open Space Per Unit (household size x 30 sq.m) Units Open Space Total (sq.m) (Open space x units) 1 1.3 39 15 585 2 1.9 57 30 1710 Total 45 2295 STEP 4 – To get the total amount of open space required, add together the open space provision 585 + 1710 = 2295. This is the amount of open space to be provided. STEP 5– Multiply the open space provision by the financial contribution rate of £30 per sq.m i.e.2,295 sq.m x £30 = £68,850. Page 172
Page 173
For this site a financial contribution of £68,850 is required to help upgrade the play equipment within the park. Page 173
Page 174
Appendix 4: Information required to be provided in development appraisals This appendix expands on what applicants are required to include in their development appraisals when asking for consideration of a reduced or waived fee. The Development Appraisal The basic calculation to assess whether a contribution should be waived is as follows:- (X) Estimated Sale Value of Completed Development. (Y) Total costs of development including any land purchase. The required developer contribution is also a development cost and should be included here. (X) minus (Y) gives the expected profit level from the development. Developers will usually expect a profit between 10-20% of development costs (Y) before proceeding with a development. Therefore, if the submitted appraisal shows that profit levels fall to an unacceptable level when the developer contribution is included as a cost, the Council will give consideration to reducing the fee. A greater level of detail than the top line numbers set out in the above basic calculation is however required to be provided within the development appraisal. The estimated sale value of the development (X) should be broken down into house types to allow the figures to be easily verified. For example:- 12 no. 4 bed detached houses @ £200k = £2.4m 4 no. 2 bed semi-detached houses @ £120k each = £0.48m Total estimated value of completed development - £2.88million Total development costs (Y) should be broken down into the following general headings: (i) Land purchase costs; (ii) Professional Fees including legal, project management, architect and estate agents; (iii) Finance Costs i.e. Bank Interest charges; Page 174
Page 175
(iv) Build Costs including all site infrastructure costs; and (v) Developer Contribution Fee All of the above information should be provided by the developer on an “open book” basis, with no confidentiality restrictions, to allow the Council to verify the costs shown by developers if considered necessary. Wherever possible, costs should be confirmed and certified by consultants employed by the developer. Once all of the above information has been submitted, the Council may seek internal or external expertise to verify it and then a decision about whether the contribution should be reduced will be made. Page 175
Page 176
Appendix 5: Open Space Audit information note In 2016 officers from the Planning Service, supported by officers from Greenspace, undertook an audit of open spaces in the West Dunbartonshire Planning Authority area, with some sites revisited/reassessed in 2018. The audit involved visiting a range of sites across the area falling into the following categories: • Amenity greenspace • MUGAs (multi-use game areas) • Natural spaces • Parks • Play areas An assessment sheet for each category of open space was used to score each site (attached). The scoring sheet was created by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership. Sites were scored against the factors and criteria set out in the assessment sheet, based on the subjective judgement of the visiting officer. A percentage score for each site can be calculated by dividing the site’s actual score by the total possible score available and multiplying by 100. Given the subjective manner of initial scoring and the passage of time, it would be prudent for sites to be revisited and scoring updated as part of any practical use of the audit e.g. in relation to use of the Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance. An updated audit is likely to be undertaken in association with the preparation of the next Local Development Plan (LDP3). Mapping of the sites assessed and a summary of the information collected and associated information, including scoring is available at: https://westdunbarton.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fe102759 a63e4dfbb5251b21400f058a Page 176
Page 177
PAN 65 code 6.31 (residential) SLUs Date: Surveyor Site Name: Site No: Excellent - 5 Good - 4 Acceptable - 3 Poor - 2 Very poor - 1 Score 1 Site composition a Site topography, drainage and configuration. i.e. extent of site usuable. Most (80% or more) of the site is flat and dry, grassed or similar and usable for recreational activities About half of the site (35 - 75%) is flat and dry, grassed or similar and usable for recreational activities Little (20% or less) of the site is flat and dry, grassed or similar and usable for recreational activities b Visual diversity of site Site has a strong a mix of planting, colour, and visual interest. Site has some visual interest and diversity. Site has little interst and is largely mown grass. c Range of functions available to users 3 or more functions available e.g. formal play, MUGA, kickabout potential, wild areas, seating and relaxation areas 1 or 2 functions available to user Site is effectively mown grass with little functional value subtotal 2 Access appropriate to Amenity Open Space a Core route running through or adjacent to the site, linking destinations outwith the site DDA compliant and in excellent condition, path is well lit and has seats and bins and there are no physical barriers between the route and the site itself. DDA compliant, in acceptable condition and path is lit with some seats or bins. Barriers may exist but are negotiable. Not DDA compliant (too steep etc) and/or no lights, seats or bins. b Internal access - either in addition to a through route or only serving the site DDA compliant good condition with path access to significant areas of space, seats and bins DDA compliant, acceptable condition with path access to some areas of space Not DDA compliant (too steep etc) and in poor condition c No internal paths. Access is directly from pavement or road adjacent to site Can only score 1 subtotal 3 Visitor experience a Perception of safety No areas with poor sight lines, entrapment points, obvious signs of anti-social behaviour Some areas with poor sight lines etc but these can readily be addressed Lots of remote areas of poor visibility and remote entrapment points with no escape options b Open and welcoming/inviting Space has an obvious sense of place and is ledgible as a publically accessible and usable resource Space can and is used but some sections of the community by the overall feel could be improved encouraging more use Space feels unwelcoming and deters use c Usability highly usable moderately usable Effectively unuseable subtotal 4 Management and maintenance a Planned enhancement through council resources, community involvement, grant aid or planning gain (if already enhanced - n/a) Detailed plans/designs in place and resources allocated or actively being sought Some aspectes of the site being considered for enhancement but further work required No plans b Quality of Maintenance Evidence of regular and appropriate maintenance to a high standard in all areas Evidence of appropriate maintenance to a reasonable standard in key areas Evidence of minimal or poor quality maintenance in most areas c Control of vandalism, litter, dog fouling No or very limited vandalism/fouling/litter which doesn't affect the user experience with good provision of dog and litter bins Some limited evidence of vandalism/ fouling/ litter, but doesn't detract from the overall usage of the open space. Occasional bins. Lots of vandalsim/fouling/litter seriously deterring the usage of the site. No bins. subtotal 5 Biodiversity contribution to green network a Diversity of planting which supports wildlife by providing food and shelter A wide range of plants and trees of differing species, height and age structure. High proportion of native species. A moderate range of plant and tree diversity with moderate proportion of native species A poor range of plant and tree diversity b Range and quality of habitat types present A mosaic of different habitats types e.g. broadleaved woodland, species rich grassland, open water and wetland Some habitat diversity but limited Monoculture with very limited biodiversity value c Habitats present are linked or near a wider network Obviously within reach of other adjacent habitat patches allowing species movement Possibility of species movement via the routes above but not as well connected. Fragmented space sitting in isolation and is unlikely to be part of a habitat network subtotal Total score Notes: continue on back if required Scoring of 5 (c) should be verified by use of aerial photography or other sources e.g. habitat maps, if required Amenity Open Space Quality Assessment Criteria Note - Score 2a and 2b below if they are both present on site. If either are absent enter n/a in the appropriate box Based on your assessment of the site's performance in relation to all of the previous criteria in sections 1, 2 and 3 above, do you feel the site is: Page 177
Page 178
Multi Use Games Areas (MUGAs) tick for each 1 3 2 1 Score a Good Satisfactory Poor b Good Satisfactory Poor c Good Satisfactory Poor 2 3 2 1 a Good Satisfactory Poor b Good Satisfactory Poor 3 Good Satisfactory Poor a Good Satisfactory Poor b Good Satisfactory Poor c Total 6.4 Access and security Enclosed/fenced with gate/dog grill Overlooked by nearby housing Good all-ability footpath links to surrounding streets Within park? Within amenity greenspace? Stand-alone? Date: Surveyor: Site No: Site Name: Notes: Condition Fence - maintenance and vandalism Condition of supporting infrastructure Equipment - maintenance and vandalism Safety surface - maintenance and vandalism Supporting infrastructure Presence of seating, bins, lighting Page 178
Page 179
Woodland Open semi natural Date Surveyor Location Urban Peri urban Rural Excellent - 5 Good - 4 Acceptable - 2 Poor - 2 Very poor - 1 Score 1 Access a Access points obvious, in good repair and Disability Discrimination Act compliant Entrance points clearly defined, signed, inviting, clean, welcoming, well maintained and accessible to all. Apparent as an entrance and in average condition e.g. some signage, entrance features Entrance points not accessible to all, poorly maintained and/or inappropriately located b Paths which give access to the main features of the site in good repair and Disability Discrimination Act compliant Paths in excellent condition and are level with good bound surfaces, edges well defined, debris and weed free and well maintained Path generally in good condition and the right place, some maintenance/expansion required Paths generally in poor condition, maintenance needed, desire lines indicate route issues c Path network appropriate to the scale and layout of the site Extensive path network servicing all parts of the site Reasonable path network servicing some of the site No, or very limited path network sub total 2 Supporting infrastructure a Provision of orientation and directional signage and interpretation Signage and interpretation well designed and delivered, legible and well maintaned with no signs of vandalism Some signage provided, is in reasonable condition and maintained to an acceptable standard Lacking in signage or inadequate and poorly maintained b Provision of seats, bins, lighting, viewing areas etc Good provision of supporting infrastructure which is well located, in good condition and well well maintained Some provision of supporting infrastructure but could be expanded upon and be of better quality and better maintained Lacking in infrastructure or inadequate and poorly maintained c Range of buildings and other infrastructure e.g. car park, café, visitor centre (criteria only applicable to sites of sufficient scale) Good provision of infrastructure which is in good condition and well maintained Some provision of supporting infrastructure but could be expanded upon and be of better quality and better maintained Lacking in infrastructure or inadequate and poorly maintained sub total 3 Visitor experience a Perception of safety No areas with poor sight lines, entrapment points, obvious signs of anti-social behaviour Some areas with poor sight lines etc but these can readily be addressed Lots of remote areas of poor visibility and remote entrapment points with no escape options b Variety of experience e.g. open glades, wooded areas, ponds viewpoints etc Good range of habitat types, visual interest and a a varied user experience Reasonable range of habitat types, visual interest and user experiences Lack of interest and poor user experience. c Open and welcoming/inviting Space has an obvious sense of place and is ledgible as a publically accessible and usable resource Space can and is used but some sections of the community by the overall feel could be improved encouraging more use Space feels unwelcoming and deters use sub total 4 Management and maintenance a Comprehensive Management Plan in place which guides action (only applicable to sites of a sufficient scale) Recent and comprehensive Management Plan in place and being delivered Historic Management Plan exists but out of date but still some adhoc management No Management Plan b Quality and appropriatenes of maintenance All areas are well maintained in line with the habitat requirements and time of year Some maintenance on ad hoc basis No evidence of habitat management c Control of litter, dog fouling and vandalism No evidence of fouling/litter/vandalism/fly tipping/drinking Some limited evidence of fouling/litter/vandalism etc but doesn't detract from the overall usage of the space Extensive fouling/litter/vandalism etc seriously deterring use of the space sub total 5 Biodiversity and contribution to habitat network a Diversity of species and age structure at field, shrub and canopy layers A wide range of plants and trees of differing species, height and age structure. High proportion of native species. A moderate range of plant and tree diversity with moderate proportion of native species A poor range of plant and tree diversity b Range and quality of habitat types present other than woodland A mosaic of different habitats types e.g. broadleaved woodland, species rich grassland, open water and wetland Some habitat diversity but limited Monoculture with very limited biodiversity value c Woodland is part of a wider woodland network Obviously within reach of other adjacent habitat patches allowing species movement Possibility of species movement via the routes above but not as well connected. Fragmented space sitting in isolation and is unlikely to be part of a habitat network sub total Total Notes: continue on back if required Natural Spaces Site name Quality Assessment Category & Page 179
Page 180
PAN 65 code 6.1 SLUs Date Surveyor City, District or Local Park Excellent -5 Good - 4 Acceptable - 3 Poor - 2 Very poor - 1 Score 1 Access relative to function a Access points obvious, in good repair and Disability Discrimination Act compliant Entrance points clearly defined, signed, inviting, clean, welcoming, well maintained and accessible to all. Apparent as an entrance and in average condition e.g. some signage, entrance features Entrance points not accessible to all, poorly maintained and/or inappropriately located b Paths which give access to the main features of the site in good repair and Disability Discrimination Act compliant Paths in excellent condition and are level with good bound surfaces, edges well defined, debris and weed free and well maintained Path generally in good condition and the right place, some maintenance/expansion required Paths generally in poor condition, maintenance needed, desire lines indicate route issues c Path network appropriate to the scale and layout of the site Extensive path network servicing all parts of the site Reasonable path network servicing some of the site No, or very limited path network sub total 2 Design and layout a Visual interest and balance between elements present Good balance between aesthetic, amenity and recreational elements creating an attractive space Adequate design and balance between the elements Poor design and layout with little interest b Configuration of elements is logical, legible and creates useable space Design and location of elements takes account of topography and aspect supporting use. Some aspects of the site function well but are let down by less well designed elements Elements disconnected and illegible. Poor design and layout. c Landscaping and vegetation appropriate to space Planting & vegetation well laid out, successfully reflecting and enhancing slopes, views, vistas etc Planting & vegetation reasonably well laid out to reflect and enhance slopes, views, vistas etc Planting & vegetation fail to reflect and enhance slopes, views, vistas creating a bland space sub total 3 Supporting infrastructure a Provision of orientation and directional signage and interpretation Signage and interpretation well designed and delivered, legible and well maintaned with no signs of vandalism Some signage provided, is in reasonable condition and maintained to an acceptable standard Lacking in signage or inadequate and poorly maintained b Provision of seats, bins, lighting, viewing areas etc Good provision of supporting infrastructure which is well located, in good condition and well well maintained Some provision of supporting infrastructure but could be expanded upon and be of better quality and better maintained Lacking in infrastructure or inadequate and poorly maintained c Range of buildings and other infrastructure e.g. car park, café, visitor centre (criteria only applicable to sites of sufficient scale) Good provision of infrastructure which is in good condition and well maintained Some provision of supporting infrastructure but could be expanded upon and be of better quality and better maintained Lacking in infrastructure or inadequate and poorly maintained sub total 4 Visitor experience a Range of user functions 3 or more functions e.g. formal play, MUGA, kickabout area, wild areas, seating and relaxation areas, bandstand, etc 1 or 2 functions available to user Site is effectively mown grass with little functional value b Perception of safety No areas with poor sight lines, entrapment points, obvious signs of anti-social behaviour Some areas with poor sight lines etc but these can readily be addressed Lots of remote areas of poor visibility and remote entrapment points with no escape options c Open and welcoming/inviting Space has an obvious sense of place and is ledgible as a publically accessible and usable resource Space can and is used but some sections of the community by the overall feel could be improved encouraging more use Space feels unwelcoming and deters use sub total 5 Management and maintenance a Comprehensive Management Plan in place which guides action (only applicable to sites of a sufficient scale) Recent and comprehensive Management Plan in place and being delivered Historic Management Plan exists but out of date but still some adhoc management No Management Plan b Quality of Maintenance Evidence of regular and appropriate maintenance to a high standard in all areas Evidence of appropriate maintenance to a reasonable standard in key areas Evidence of minimal or poor quality maintenance in most areas c Control of vandalism, litter, dog fouling No or very limited vandalism/fouling/litter which doesn't affect the user experience with good provision of dog and litter bins Some limited evidence of vandalism/fouling/litter, but doesn't detract from the overall usage of the open space. Occasional bins. Lots of vandalsim/fouling/litter seriously deterring the usage of the site. No bins. sub total 6 Biodiversity contribution to habitat network a Diversity of planting which supports wildlife by providing food and shelter A wide range of plants and trees of differing species, height and age structure. High proportion of native species. A moderate range of plant and tree diversity with moderate proportion of native species A poor range of plant and tree diversity b Range and quality of habitat types present A mosaic of different habitats types e.g. broadleaved woodland, species rich grassland, open water and wetland Some habitat diversity but limited Monoculture with very limited biodiversity value c Habitats present are likely to be part of a wider network Obviously within reach of other adjacent habitat patches allowing species movement Possibility of species movement via the routes above but not as well connected. Fragmented space sitting in isolation and is unlikely to be part of a habitat network sub total Total Notes: Continue on back if required Parks and Gardens Site Name : Quality Assessment Criteria Page 180
Page 181
6.4 tick for each 1 Age Range a Up to 7yrs b 7 to 14 yrs c 14 yrs plus 2 Range of equipment 3 2 1 Score a number of play pieces 10+ 10<5 5<0 b diversity of play experience offered Good Satisfactory Poor c opportunities for natural play Good Satisfactory Poor 3 Condition of equipment and safety surface 3 2 1 a Maintenance and vandalism Good Satisfactory Poor b Old and outdated equipment New Satisfactory Old c Evidence of removed pieces Many Some None 3 Supporting infrastructure 3 2 1 a Presence of seating, bins, lighting Good Some No b Condition of supporting infrastructure Good Satisfactory Poor 4 Access and security 3 2 1 a Enclosed/fenced with gate/dog grill Yes Partly No c Overlooked by nearby housing Yes Partly No d Good all-ability footpath links to surrounding streets Yes Yes No Total Notes: Within amenity greenspace? Stand-alone? Children's Play Site No: Site Name: Surveyor Date: Within park? Page 181
Page 182
ITEM 7 - Appendix 6 Green Network and Green Infrastructure – comments received on draft version and Council’s proposed response Respondent Comment WDC response The Coal Authority Our records indicate that within the West Dunbartonshire area there are recorded coal mining features present at surface and shallow depth including; mine entries, shallow coal workings and reported surface hazards. These features pose a potential risk to surface stability and public safety. The Coal Authority’s records also indicate that surface coal resource is present on the site, although this should not be taken to imply that mineral extraction would be economically viable, technically feasible or environmentally acceptable. As you will be aware those authorities with responsibility for minerals planning and safeguarding will have identified where they consider minerals of national importance are present in your area and related policy considerations. As part of the planning process consideration should be given to such advice in respect of the indicated surface coal resource. It is noted however that this is a draft SPG on Green Network and Green Infrastructure and I can confirm that the Planning team at the Coal Authority have no specific comments to make on this documents. It is noted that the Coal Authority has no specific comments on this document. It may however be worth noting that if SUDs are proposed as part of developments green infrastructure consideration will need to be given by These comments, about the design and development process of SUDs, are more relevant to the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance and the respondent Page 182
Page 183
the developer to the implications of this in relation to the stability and public safety risks posed by coal mining legacy. The developer should seek their own advice from a technically competent person to ensure that a proper assessment has been made of the potential interaction between hydrology, the proposed drainage system and ground stability, including the implications this may have for any mine workings which may be present beneath the site. has agreed they may be addressed in relation to the consultation on that draft supplementary guidance. Glasgow & Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership Generally the SG is very good, clear, concise and focusses on the things we'd want to see delivered through development. This support is welcomed. Page 4: Suggest this text here and in the graphic below is changed: Under Greenspace substitute for: “is any vegetated land or structure, water, path or geological feature within and on the edges of settlements.” Under Green Infrastructure substitute for: “is greenspace which is designed and/or managed to provide identified functions.” Agreed, Figure 1 has been changed to reflect these comments. Page 5: Request for wording in the ‘Planning and the green network and green infrastructure’ section to be strengthened Agreed, the phrase “where possible” has been deleted, which brings the text in the supplementary guidance in to line with the strategy as written in the LDP2. Page 7: Suggested alternative wording in the ‘Embedding the green network and green infrastructure’ section: add “providing an overall net gain in provision” to first bullet point; and add “which have designed functions for a range of users” to 4th bullet point. Agreed, these changed have been made, with a qualification that net gain can be either qualitative or quantitative (Page 8). Page 183
Page 184
Page 8: In Green infrastructure function: habitat enhancement section, use the term ‘nature networks’ in line with the draft NPF requirements? Agreed, the wording has been changed to ‘nature networks’. Page 11: Incidental greenspace and landscaping will not count to towards the quantity standard. Developers should provide a site plan indicating which spaces comprise provision Agreed, this wording has been added. Page 19 – Appendix 2: Only some of the relevant LDP policies are cross-referenced in the graphic Noted, the graphic has been updated with all policy cross-references. Historic Environment Scotland The drafts for our historic environment interests have been considered , and can confirm that we have no comments on their content. It is noted that Historic Environment Scotland has no specific comments on this document. Homes for Scotland Introduction Homes for Scotland (HFS) welcomes the opportunity to comment on West Dunbartonshire’s Draft Supplementary Guidance (SG) in relation to Green Network and Green Infrastructure. This submission sets out our representations in relation to the published draft SG. Firstly though, there are some general matters of concern to HFS. Noted General Concerns It is stated within this Guidance that will be adopted as statutory supplementary guidance, forming part of Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2). Given LDP2 has not yet been adopted, and therefore its final form is not currently known, it is problematic to be publishing SG to support this. It is not even known whether LDP2 will in fact ever be adopted. General Concerns The status of the Supplementary Guidance has been clarified at the front of the document. The guidance is intended to be adopted as supplementary guidance to the Local Development Plan (LDP2) and provides further detailed guidance on the content thereof, it is therefore not premature in relation to the emerging National Planning Framework or Development Planning Regulations, as the LDP has been prepared Page 184
Page 185
LDP2 does not currently form part of the Development Plan, as it remains unadopted. Therefore, the lower tier of the Development Plan in West Dunbartonshire is the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan (WDLP), adopted in March 2010. The status of this Plan has been significantly eroded, as it is now over 7 years out of date. The draft SG has also been released just ahead of the anticipated new Development Management Regulations and National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). For these reasons it could be argued that the revision and delivery of new SG is premature. As noted above, it is stated that the Council intends to adopt the proposed new SG as part of the statutory Development Plan. However, this statutory status might only last for a limited period as all such guidance will at some point have to be non-statutory under the soon to be published new Regulations and NPF4. While it is acknowledged that Scottish Ministers have made provision for a 24 month ‘transitional period’ following publication of the new Regulations, the draft new SG could end up being part of the adopted development plan for a limited period after which the council will require to undertake a further revision to reflect the non-statutory status thereafter. As we don’t yet know what the new Regulations will look like and how the transitional period will be implemented, HFS is of the view that the Council and will be adopted based on the current Scottish Planning Policy, and the current Development Planning Regulations and in line with transitional arrangements. The guidance on transitional arrangements indicates that Planning Authorities will require to decide if the content of Supplementary Guidance should move to planning guidance or be included within local development plan itself. However the guidance also indicates that new supplementary guidance can be prepared and adopted until Section 22 of the 1997 Act is repealed and for a further 24 month period thereafter. Page 185
Page 186
should consider moving straight to publication of non- statutory SGs as other Local Authorities, including South Lanarkshire Council, have done. Regardless, the draft Guidance, in places, appears to go beyond merely supplementing policies within the LDP but rather looks to introduce new and more onerous requirements for developments to meet. This is not an appropriate use of SG as the principles of policy have not been properly scrutinised or tested as part of the LDP examination. Planning Circular 6/2013 (Development Planning) notes that Regulation 27 (2) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 requires SG to be limited to the provision of further information or detail in respect of policies or proposals set out in the SDP or LDP. There must be a sufficient “hook‟ in the SDP or LDP policies or proposals to hang the SG on, to give it statutory weight. This matter was reinforced by a letter sent to All Heads of Planning on 15 January 2015 by The Chief Planner, which states: “For supplementary guidance to be issued in connection with a local development plan, this means that the guidance may only deal with the provision of further information or detail in respect of policies or proposals set out in the local development plan and then only provided those are matters which are expressly identified in a statement contained in the The Council considers that LDP2 provides sufficient ‘hooks’ for the Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance. The Supplementary Guidance is referenced 16 times in LDP2, in various sections of the Plan, in both policies and explanatory text, reflective of the Plan’s green infrastructure first approach. The Supplementary Guidance serves the purpose of providing further information or detail in respect of policies set out in LDP2. Page 186
Page 187
plan as matters which are to be dealt with in supplementary guidance.” We believe specific sections of the draft SG breach these requirements, as detailed below. Any mechanism which may seek to restrict the deliverability of new homes to meet the housing crisis which prevails in Scotland must be resisted. As we move towards the new system under NPF4, the threshold for what constitutes a “deliverable” site is greater than previously existed, and it is against this backdrop that all policies/strategies must now sit. Affecting the deliverability of sites through the introduction and requirement of a range of additional asks must be seriously considered. The Scottish Government have indicated in the draft NPF4 that the Climate and Nature Crises should be given the highest priority when considering planning issues. While it is acknowledged that the final NPF has yet to be published, the Planning Authority recognises that the Climate Crisis, Nature Crisis and any housing crisis are all part of the range of issues which are considered when preparing policy and guidance and it sits with the Planning Authority to afford appropriate weight to these and all other relevant considerations. Green Infrastructure Delivery in New Development The draft Guidance refers to situations where a developer contribution towards off-site improvements may be sought. Whilst the principle of this is supported there should be reference to hybrid scenarios where a combination of off and on-site provision/improvements may be appropriate. It is agreed that a hybrid approach may be acceptable where on-site provision cannot be met in full, as indicated by the Developer’s Flowchart, Appendix 1 and Appendix 3, examples 4 and 5. Further clarification of this has been added to the guidance (page 15). However the requirement, and preference, for on-site provision with a limited number of exceptions is retained. Biodiversity Enhancement Biodiversity Enhancement Page 187
Page 188
While HFS does not object to the principle of ‘biodiversity enhancement’, there is currently insufficient information as to precisely what this will mean in practice. Draft NPF4 indicates that Scottish Ministers are still considering this themselves and it therefore appears likely that there will be further national guidance on the matter in the final version of NPF4. It is therefore premature to implement this requirement for new planning applications. Policy CP2e requires Habitat Enhancement, and indicates that, “Development proposals must protect, restore and enhance biodiversity habitat networks, and environmental quality within and linking to the site. Opportunities for improving the conservation status of priority species and the inclusion of ecological features within the built environment should be considered” This policy is within the plan and has been through examination. It is therefore disagreed that it is premature to provide further detail on this policy. No change required. Open Space – Establishing Need and Opportunity Table 1 outlines that Open Space provision may be required for proposals of 10 or more units, in situations where “need/opportunity identified”. Further clarification is required here. How is need and opportunity to be assessed? What specific assessment processes are in place which would trigger the requirement for Open Space? There is a lack of information here, which risks causing uncertainty, and subsequently viability concerns. It is also worth noting that this ambiguous phrasing also pertains to the potential requirement to deliver Access Networks, Water Management and Habitat Networks. Appendix 1 of the Supplementary Guidance sets out a flow chart which provides a guide to the expectations for the provision of open space. The guidance also states that “The green network requirements for each individual site will be discussed and agreed at pre-application stage.” Policy CP2 Green Infrastructure and the Supplementary Guidance set out a green infrastructure first approach to the provision of access networks; open space; water management; and habitat enhancement so as to contribute to the development and enhancement of a multi-functional green network. The policy and guidance indicate that this is best achieved through a design led approach from the outset. Further guidance on how these functions can be layered together to provide multiple benefits for “health, wellbeing, wildlife, as well as, climate change mitigation and adaptation” are given in the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance. No change is required in this regard. Page 188
Page 189
Open Space Requirements The draft SG states: “All new housing developments should provide access to 30m2 of publicly useable open space per person.” The Council’s most recent update to the Open Space Audit was in 2018 and is therefore four years old. It is not clear, therefore, how the Council has reached the conclusion that the above volume of Open Space is required to be provided. It is also recommended that the Council aligns its Open Space requirements with many other Local Authorities’ approaches, including East Lothian Council, by amending the requirement to be provided on a per dwelling basis, rather than per person, given the number of dwellings will be known (and constant), whereas the number of people will not. Based on the 2011 Census the average household occupancy within West Dunbartonshire is 2.15 people per household. This data should be used to calculate the Open Space requirement and potential contribution rather than extrapolated data based on the Scottish Household Survey. The Census data is an accurate snapshot in time. The 30m2 per person requirement is established by the Local Development Plan (LDP2), which has been through examination. The Council considers that basing the open space calculation on the average household size of different dwelling sizes provides a more accurate open space requirement than using a single average household size figure. This approach has been used by the Council since 2015 so is a well established approach in West Dunbartonshire. No change is required in this regard. The draft Guidance seeks to assess proposals against three key standards – accessibility, quality and quantity. The quality element of this is based on the Council’s updated Open Space Audit (2018) and The Council has now made the scores of its Open Space Audit available online (https://westdunbarton.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webap pviewer/index.html?id=fe102759a63e4dfbb5251b214 Page 189
Page 190
the guidance notes that a contribution will be required to upgrade off-site infrastructure where it is below a threshold score. The Open Space Audit is not public and the scores are therefore not available. HFS is concerned that without sharing the evidence, there is a risk that the Council are not complying with the tests set out in Planning Circular 3/2012 if there is not full disclosure when sums are being suggested. It is also understood that under the requirements of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 that an Open Space Strategy must contain an audit of existing Open Space provision and an assessment of current and future requirements. East Ayrshire have produced Green Infrastructure/Open Space Standards Supplementary Guidance which scores open space within settlements. A further Council and East Ayrshire Leisure publication titled Green Infrastructure and Green Network Strategy Volume 2 then provides a more detailed qualitative assessment and lists specific upgrades that are required to specific parks. The general direction the Scottish Government appear to be heading is the prioritisation of brownfield land. As such, there will likely be a much higher dependency on brownfield and higher density development. This being the case, it is likely true that there will be insufficient land to meet the housing need if Open Space requirements are not sufficiently flexible, and evidence of their requirement is extremely robust. The rigidity of Open Space requirements and their potential to hinder brownfield 00f058a) and an information note has been added as an appendix to the Supplementary Guidance. An updated audit will be undertaken as part of the next Local Development Plan (LDP3) process. The Local Development Plan (LDP2) and this Supplementary Guidance were prepared under the provisions of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006. The approaches taken by other local authorities are not binding on West Dunbartonshire Council, but the Council will continue to investigate and be informed by best/good practice elsewhere. West Dunbartonshire Council have always prioritised the development of brownfield land and encourage higher density in urban locations. It is considered important for provision and consistency that open space standards are set. The Supplementary Guidance provides flexibility in allowing a financial contribution towards the green network to be provided if sufficient provision cannot be made on site. Page 190
Page 191
development from delivering the volume of homes NPF4 says is required needs to be reviewed. It is also important to note that brownfield-only development is unlikely to deliver the volume of homes required, as well as the Open Space requirements being sought. General Developer Contributions The draft SG states: “The Council will publish a schedule of general and specific projects that developer contributions will be used towards. This will be updated annually.” This raises significant concerns, and risks affecting the viability of sites. The presumption appears to be that developer contributions may not be ring-fenced to deal with impact of a specific development. This point requires clarification. Any amendment to the contributions required with regards to Open Space must be informed by an Open Space Audit. It is suggested that a joined-up assessment of housing need and Open Space requirement be undertaken, which would lead to the Council to identifying what is needed and where, and, accordingly, would necessitate a review of the allocated land. As noted above, any mechanism which would seek to restrict the supply of deliverable land should be resisted. It is vital that the housing crisis is addressed, West Dunbartonshire Council Planning Committee, approved the process to report and allocate developer contributions received through the planning system on 8 June 2022. These are available to view at https://www.west- dunbarton.gov.uk/council/strategies-plans-and- policies/local-development-planning/other-guidance- and-information/ The allocations document sets out that developer contributions received will be allocated based on: proximity to the site the allocation has been received from; deliverability of the project; and eligible project types, with some specific projects identified. Through these criteria, the Council can link projects to deal with the impact of a specific development. Changes to the allocation of land would be a matter for the next Local Development Plan, Page 191
Page 192
and that placemaking policies are suitably adaptable to factor in viability matters. Retention Period for Funds The draft SG seeks a 10-year time period for the retention of funds. HFS objects to this proposed provision on the basis that a period of 10+ years is excessive. If a contribution can’t be spent within a shorter timescale (e.g., 5 years), then it is questionable whether it was appropriate in the first place and if it meets the requirements of Planning Circular 3/2012. It is considered that this retention period is reasonable considering development timelines for housing sites or the subsequent delivery of associated green infrastructure projects. Planning Circular 3/2012 does not specify a reasonable timeframe, it therefore sits with the planning authority to fix one that is reasonable. It is agreed that projects, associated with a given development, should delivered before this trigger is met. NatureScot Overall support this Guidance and appreciate West Dunbartonshire’s continued commitment to green networks and green infrastructure. In particular, support the strategy of Local Development Plan 2 which underpins the guidance and which ‘seeks to safeguard the existing green network, and to ensure new development enhances and expands it by improving existing green infrastructure assets, the connections between them and by creating new multi- functional green and open spaces’ (page 4). We commend you on being awarded the ‘Building for Nature Award’ for LDP2, recognising the whole lifecycle approach to green infrastructure from design, construction to sustainable management. They also support the identified purpose of the Guidance as outlined on page 3 : ‘to define the green network in West Dunbartonshire and identify its assets and opportunities; outline the principles for embedding the green network at the heart of new This support is welcomed. Page 192
Page 193
development using a green infrastructure first approach; define open space standards that will be required of new development and how these standards will be achieved; and describe how developer contributions for green infrastructure associated with new developments will be calculated. They acknowledge the recognition given to the role of the planning system as a key mechanism for delivering the green network and the role of green network in delivering outcomes, particularly with regard to improving health and well-being, meeting climate change targets, placemaking and securing positive effects for biodiversity (page 5). Part 2 – Green infrastructure delivery in new development They support the requirements for development proposals set out on page 7, for safeguarding, enhancing and expanding the green network and green infrastructure. The requirements encompass enhancing the functionality and biodiversity value of existing assets, utilising the site appraisal and design process to identify opportunities to enhance the value of existing assets. They welcome the value attributed to existing assets and consider that this will also help deliver positive effects for biodiversity. Green infrastructure functions (page 7) Welcome the focus given to the integration of the green infrastructure functions of water management, habitat enhancement, access and open space within Page 193
Page 194
the design and layout of development as part of the green infrastructure first approach, ensuring a whole life approach to green infrastructure provision and which also links and contributes to the wider green network. Overall, they consider the document to be clear and well presented, providing useful advice to developers, including the Developer’s Flowchart, the Green Infrastructure Checklist and Developer Contribution Example, contained in the appendices. Persimmon Homes The principle of setting out on and off-site requirements is welcomed. This support is welcomed. Based on the 2011 Census the average household occupancy within West Dunbartonshire is 2.15 people per household. This data should be used to calculate the open space requirement and potential contribution rather than extrapolated data based on the Scottish Household Survey. The Census data is an accurate snapshot in time. The open space standard per person, and ratio of household size to dwelling size is established in the Local Development Plan (LDP2), which has been through examination. The use of house sizes in specific developments rather than average household occupancy is considered to provide a more accurate open space requirement. No change is required in this regard. The draft guidance makes reference to situations where a developer contribution towards off-site improvements may be sought. Whilst the principle of this is supported there should be reference to hybrid scenarios where a combination of off and on-site provision/improvements may be appropriate. It is agreed that a hybrid approach may be acceptable where on-site provision cannot be met in full, as indicated by the Developer’s Flowchart, Appendix 1; and Appendix 3, examples 5 and 5. Further clarification of this has been added to the guidance (page 15. However the requirement, and preference, for on-site provision with a limited number of exceptions is retained. The draft guidance seeks to assess proposals against three key standards – accessibility, quality and quantity. The quality element of this is based on the The Council has now made the scores of its 2018 Open Space Audit available online (https://westdunbarton.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webap Page 194
Page 195
Council’s Open Space Audit that was updated in 2018 and the guidance notes that a contribution will be required to upgrade off-site infrastructure where it is below a threshold score. The open space audit is not public and the scores are therefore not available. We are concerned that without sharing the evidence, there is a risk that the Council are not complying with the tests set out in Circular 3/2012 if there is not full disclosure when sums are being suggested. The scale and kind test is of most relevance. It is also understood that under the requirements of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 that an open space strategy must contain an audit of existing open space provision and an assessment of current and future requirements. East Ayrshire have produced Green Infrastructure/Open Space Standards supplementary guidance which scores open space within settlements. A further Council and East Ayrshire Leisure publication titled Green Infrastructure and Green Network Strategy Volume 2 then provides a more detailed qualitative assessment and lists specific upgrades that are required to specific parks. pviewer/index.html?id=fe102759a63e4dfbb5251b214 00f058a) and an information note has been added as an appendix to the Supplementary Guidance. The Local Development Plan (LDP2) and this Supplementary Guidance were prepared under the provisions of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006. The approaches taken by other local authorities are not binding on West Dunbartonshire Council, but the Council will continue to investigate and be informed by best/good practice elsewhere. Scottish Government Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) states at paragraph 232: “In the design of green infrastructure, consideration should be given to the qualities of successful places.” We suggest the SG should make reference to those qualities, which are set out in paragraphs 41-46 of SPP. Agreed, reference to the six qualities of successful places has been added (page 5). Page 195
Page 196
In part 4, it is stated that contributions for green infrastructure will be sought in line with the circumstances set out in Policy GI4 of the LDP, and lists those four circumstances. Two of those circumstances are: Where a development site is accessible to open spaces but those spaces are of a poor quality; and Where development sites are accessible to good quality open spaces but a contribution to the green network is required to enhance its provision to the Central Scotland Green Network. It is not clear in the draft SG (particularly the flowchart in Appendix 1) whether developer contributions under Policy GI4 will/may be required in the above two circumstances even if the development includes sufficient open space (meeting the relevant quality and quantity standard) within the development site. The flowchart in Appendix 1 implies that such contributions would be required in such instances, but Example 1 in Appendix 3 does not. This should be clarified. Footnotes have been added to the flowchart to clarify that: if a residential development meets the quantity standard through on-site provision, no financial contribution to the green network is required; and that an equipped play area is required on a site of 50 units or more, if there is not an equipped play area within 250m of the site (this highlights a requirement already included in Part 3 of the guidance). Page 10, ‘Accessibility standard’ It is stated that the accessibility standard is: “Everyone will live within a 250m walk of a 0.2 ha usable and good quality greenspace.” If ‘good quality’ Agreed, a change has been made to clarify this (page 12). Page 196
Page 197
is intended to mean that the space meets the ‘quality standard’ i.e. meets or exceeds the threshold score set out in Table 2, this should be made clear. Pages 10-11, ‘Quality standard’ The draft SG on pages 10-11 refers to a ‘Quality standard’, and states that the quality of an open space is an assessment-derived score based on work undertaken as part of the Open Space Audit carried out in 2016 and updated in 2018 to reflect changes to some spaces. It is stated that “The quality standard is: All publicly usable open spaces should meet or exceed the threshold score set out in Table 2”. Table 2 includes different “Quality standard threshold scores” expressed as a percentage for different types of open spaces. However, it is not clear in the draft SG how to identify/calculate the score of existing or proposed open spaces, to determine whether they meet or exceed the threshold score set out in Table 2. This should be made clear. The Council has now made the scores of its 2018 Open Space Audit available online (https://westdunbarton.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webap pviewer/index.html?id=fe102759a63e4dfbb5251b214 00f058a) and an information note has been added as an appendix to the Supplementary Guidance. Page 11 ‘Quantity standard’ There is a formatting error on page 11 below the heading ‘Quantity standard’ – it is assumed that the text in the box should be below the text in the first paragraph. This formatting error has been corrected. Page 11 ‘Quantity standard’ It is stated that “Development sites should provide this quantity of open space [30 m2 per person] as a minimum where the accessibility standard identifies a The quantity standard has been amended to clarify this point. Page 197
Page 198
need based on an analysis of open space provision for the wider area”. However this implies that the open space is always required to be provided within the development site, which seems to contradict the text in the box, which refers to “access to” the open space. It also seems to contradict the text under the heading ‘Accessibility standard’ which states that the site appraisal/ assessment will inform what type of space, if any is required within the development or if a financial contribution to an existing space is more appropriate. These apparent contradictions should be addressed. Appendix 3: Developer contributions examples It would be useful to expand/revise the examples to show exactly how they follow the process shown in the flowchart in Appendix 1 (e.g. the application of the questions regarding the accessibility and quality standards). A Developer’s flowchart analysis has been added to each example. Appendix 3: Developer contributions examples – Example 1 It would be useful to expand the first example to show how the ‘site appraisal’ method would be used to determine the form of open space required to be provided. The purpose of Example 1 is primarily to provide a simple arithmetic example of calculating the open space contribution based on the quantity standard. However, additional information has been added to explain that the calculated level of open space would be required on-site in this example as the site is not within 250m walking distance of an usable open space. Appendix 3: Developer contributions examples – Example 3 This typo has been corrected to amend the reference to 250m. Page 198
Page 199
The example refers to a financial contribution to upgrade play equipment in a park less than 400m walking distance. It is not clear whether/how this is considered acceptable in relation to the ‘accessibility standard’ which refers to a 250m walking distance. This should be clarified. Appendix 3: Developer contributions examples – Example 6, and explanation of Quality standard on pages 10-11 The example states that “the first step is to see if it meets the accessibility standard i.e. is it within 250m of a 0.2ha amenity greenspace, play space or natural/semi-natural greenspace?” (emphasis added). The example then refers to a “park” within 250m of the site. It states that “the play area is below the 50% threshold and requires investment”. However, the specified ‘Quality standard threshold score’ for ‘Parks and gardens’ in Table 2 is 69%. It is not clear whether/why there has to be a play space scoring over 50% within 250m of the development site, if the park scores at least 69%. This should be made clear. Adding an explanation as to how the scoring system works may help the reader to understand this. The appraisal shows that a play area within walking distance of the site is below the quality threshold, meaning that it is a valid and eligible project for developer contribution funding. Additional wording has been added to provide clarification. There is no mention of historic environment assets so suggest adding the following: On page 19, ‘Appendix 2: Green infrastructure checklist’ consideration should be given to an additional check box that states “identifies historic environment assets and recognises their significance in the site design”, within the ‘Site Analysis’ flowchart Agreed, this change has been made. Page 199
Page 200
blue box, under the ‘Site Appraisal’ section. This would ensure the consideration of gardens and designed landscapes, scheduled monuments and The Antonine Wall (FRE) World Heritage Site and recognise their contribution to green infrastructure. RSPB Scotland . In general, the guidance is welcomed and the onus it puts on developers to protect and enhance the green network and green infrastructure. Noted Page 8 Green infrastructure function: habitat enhancement 1. Some of the wording of the document might be interpreted as suggesting that biodiversity protection and enhancement should be identified and considered, rather than actually delivered. It is recommended that this wording be strengthened: Replace: “Proposals for new development should consider whether the site can protect or enhance habitats to safeguard existing networks or deliver new habitat to connect fragmented networks.” With ‘Proposals for new development must protect or enhance habitats, to safeguard existing networks or deliver new habitat to connect fragmented networks.’ This would still be valid even when there are no significant habitat features on site, as the development can progress whilst they remain protected. A change has been made to ‘Proposals for new development must consider whether the site….’. The intention of this part of the supplementary guidance is to show how the requirement of Policy CP2e can be met. Policy CP2e does include the stronger formulation “Development proposals must protect, restore and enhance biodiversity habitat networks, and environmental quality within and linking to the site” and this guidance shows that consideration of how this can happen as informed by appropriate surveys. 2. The document suggests that the Green Network Blueprint developed by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership should be used to identify Agreed. This change has been made. Page 200
Page 201
whether the site can protect or enhance habitats to safeguard existing networks or deliver new habitat to connect fragmented networks. The Blueprint does not provide sufficient detail to do this and it is recommended that the following be reworded: Replace: “This work should be guided by the Green Network Blueprint developed by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership, which details existing habitats critical to the network and where connections should be made to improve habitat connectivity.” With ‘This should be informed by appropriate surveys and assessment. The Green Network Blueprint developed by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership can provide strategic guidance on habitats critical to the wider network and where connections should be made to improve habitat connectivity.’ Page 9 Table 1 They are concerned that the Matrix suggests that the provision towards habitat networks is dependent on whether there is a need or opportunity. It is felt that this could lead to confusion, particularly if the intention of the guidance is that sites should be enhanced for biodiversity, in which case a ‘need’ should already be established. It is unclear when a site ‘needs’ to be enhanced and when does it not. The wording should be amended to add clarity to this. The matrix has been amended to indicate that habitat provision/enhancement is required on residential development sites of 10 or more houses. Scottish Environment The commitment to a green infrastructure first approach to development is supported. Welcome the measures therein to safeguard, enhance and expand It is noted that Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has not specific comments on this document and the support for the green infrastructure first Page 201
Page 202
Protection Agency existing networks and the connections between them and support multi-functionality (e.g. by integrating water management measures such as SuDS). approach as well as the measures to safeguard, enhance and expand existing networks are welcomed. Sportscotland The guidance and policies referenced within appear to generally support, protect and improve green space that (alongside other functions) provide opportunities to engage in physical activity, sport and recreation. The procedural approach towards green space provision appears logical. In relation to outdoor sports facilities specifically – such as pitches, playing fields, golf courses, bowling greens etc – it‘s not clear how demand for these will be accounted for when assessing and providing for green space in new developments or calculations for developer contributions. It is understood that the Open Space Audit 2016 (update 2018) will inform new green space typology, provision and investment – based on need and demand. They have not been able to access this document. The previous Open Space Audit 2011, which is available online, excluded some spaces for sport (pitches) in the audit process. It’s not clear whether this is the case in the revised document. The planning and provision of places for sport and recreation should be based on an up-to-date audit of facilities alongside a strategic assessment of demand and need for them. The 2016 Open Space Audit, like the 2011 audit, did not include sports pitches (MUGAs were assessed). Sports pitches are an eligible project for developer contribution funding, although it is accepted that an up to date sports pitch strategy would be beneficial in allocating contributions towards these resources. Strathclyde partnership for Transport No comments Noted Page 202
Page 203
Local resident First of all I shall make a comment on the introduction. There are references here to the outstanding natural environment being shaped by the area’s history, boasting of our parks, woodland areas, designed landscapes at Overtoun House, Kilpatrick Hills etc. However these areas are largely out of bounds to the local horse riders for various reasons. Our area as so many others has been shaped by the use of horses, without them there would be no industry, no transport, nothing. Without horses nothing was possible but yet today this has been forgotten, our canal towpaths are dangerous, our surfaces are unsuitable and our roads are dangerous. We owe horses everything but there is seemingly no place for them in our area, they have been forgotten. This council is laying down cobbles on our high streets but is it even known why there were cobbled streets in the first place - to stop the cart horses feet slipping, these horses helped our industries flourish and made transport possible. They are our heritage and there should be a special place for our horses within West Dunbartonshire. Look at places like London, public riding arenas in the parks, bridleways in the parks what does West Dunbartonshire have? Around half a mile of actual designated bridleway if that (Auchnacraig estate) and no parking access for horseboxes so we cant even Whilst the comments support the benefits of increasing facilities for horses and horse riding, unfortunately the guidance document is not considered to be the appropriate document for the promotion of horse-riding and horse-riding facilities that the respondent is seeking. Page 203
Page 204
get to use the tiny part of bridleway provided. Our hills are gated and have unsuitable surfaces, steps and unsuitable narrow bridges are everywhere, our riding areas are built upon or inaccessible and to top it all in our official documents such as this horses are not even mentioned. There are many horse owners in the area, several livery and private yards. Horse owners have immense spending power, the equestrian industry is a huge tourist industry and recreational industry not to mention one of the most green forms of travel possible, horses get people out of their houses and into the outdoors and fresh air, they help with mental health , it is a scientific fact that being around them lowers your heart rate. We must promote horses and equestrian activity in our area. We have great places to ride we just need access to them before its too late and you build everywhere. Horses can elevate our area from the socially and economically deprived area it currently is. Most if not all horse riders have been involved in a road traffic incident of some sort, I know I have, we take our lives in our hands taking our horses out of their fields and this council does nothing so I hope you will take on board my comments and we can see some changes being made. Benefits of green networks and green infrastructure The following are listed as a benefit It is acknowledged that horseriding is another recreational activity and sport that can benefit from improved access to green infrastructure, however no Page 204
Page 205
Off road active travel and recreation routes Locations for sport and recreation It goes on to say they are made more valuable when they are multi functional and connected providing off road routes This should be expanded to include reference to horse related activities and access – not all sport and recreation is football, walking or cycling. Horse riding is much more inclusive than many sports as men and women compete on equal terms and together, age and ability is no barrier either. Horses can allow freedom of movement to those who cannot have this on their own and horse riding makes places more accessible than with wheelchairs. single sport is singled out in this section, so no change should be made in this regard. These comments are also relevant to the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance and the respondent has agreed they may be addressed in relation to that consultation. When paths are for multi users thought should be given to all potential users and suitable surfaces installed, designated bridleways could be installed - these could be side by side with a “horse lane” or suitable parking provided for horseboxes. Less use of steps to allow better access for horses These comments are more relevant to the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance and the respondent has agreed they may be addressed in relation to that consultation. The access priorities mentioned currently have no mention of equestrian access and access to many of these places is impossible or limited at best. Kilpatrick Hills - gated and keys needed – when I have enquired before about getting a key, yes I was given it but I was originally told I had to hand the key back in after my ride. I did manage to be allowed to These specific issues raised in relation to equestrian access are outwith the scope of this consultation. They have been passed to the relevant service. Page 205
Page 206
keep hold of the key however for most people with less connections than I perhaps have mean the hills are a no go area. On a rare nice day a horse rider can not then try to get a key last minute especially when this is likely to be a weekend, evening or at short notice so in effect the hills are inaccessible. Surfaces of the Kilpatrick Hill paths. The lower reaches are okay so if you got a key th, however if you get as far as the Humphrey then the surfaces are mostly unsuitable unless you try to stick to the grass edges which is seemingly frowned upon. Rough stone tracks are not suitable for the modern horse so im not sure why these surfaces are so widely used. The John Muir Way is more or less impassable for horse riders All licensed premises in the area should be contacted for their opinions on horse access and should be automatically given keys to gates areas each yr without fail (if the gate system remains in place) eg saltings, bowling, overtoun, auchnacraig, forestry commission (ok hills) Bowling harbour - gated in evening and the other route is unsuitably surfaced. Some paths are too narrow and unsafe. Tarmacking paths is not always the answer as more naturalised routes can be more beneficial to use as a horse rider. Maintenance of all areas needs looked at, shrubs cut back, fallen trees removed, paths kept open and usable etc Page 206
Page 207
Forth and Clyde canal whilst the surface is suitable is plagued by illegal quad and motor bikers making it a volatile route at certain times. Nothing is ever done about these bikes so although the route along canal path taking in the saltings and bowling harbour and beyond to Milton is well surfaced and suitable it is sometimes unusable due to the dangers. There are off roads routes running alongside that if maintained properly (old railway line) could provide a safer option or if the quad bike situation was policed it could make the canal path route safer and more suitable. Unsuitable bridges in certain parts - ie behind Hillview nursing home – some of our rides are urban and involve industrial estates as these are safe places in evenings and weekends but are not often thought about as such but again we need access as sometimes these industrial areas have the most green spaces or provide access to parks. Dalmuir park – no horsebox parking, no bridleway, unsuitable bridges, limited access and unsuitable surface at the path between park and golf course Levengrove park - no horsebox parking, no bridleway The Saltings parking is closed off to those with horseboxes so only walkers and cyclists can use it. This needs addressed as why have off road routes when horse riders are effectively banned from its use if we cant get there to ride. Bridges making shorter circular routes not in use and seemingly no plans to Page 207
Page 208
rectify. Some bridges unsuitable for horses (wooden one with chevrons and no other crossing next to it is one example). Auchnacraig estate - no suitable parking as locked and gated cars can get in but not horseboxes. Unsuitable and broken decking used to cover boggy areas. Lack of signposting for out of town riders showing routes to other areas. Horse riders have no safe route to Hardgate and the hills, there is no horse crossing anywhere, there are no off road routes and cut off by the A82. Overtoun estate – gated and locked and steps everywhere making most of it inaccessible to horse riders. Exxon development - no equestrian access thought of at all - this could be like mugdock country park but no nothing about equestrian access anywhere. Carless site - excellent opportunity here to link up many local routes from old Kilpatrick, bowling and Clydebank - again no mention of equestrian usage/access Hardgate knowes – no equestrian parking or access as far as im aware but not a place I ride as again I cant get there so assume no one else can either. Whilst applaud the plans to conserve routes and the current infrastructure mentioned under KH1, G1I, The approach set out in the Supplementary Guidance is based on the Local Development Plan, and Page 208
Page 209
ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6 and CON3 need to do more and go further in regards to enhancing and expanding the green network. complements and is proportionate to that approach. It would not be appropriate for the Supplementary Guidance to go beyond what is included in the Local Development Plan. Green infrastructure function – agree with this which is mentioned on p8 however there is no mention of horse access, equestrian facilities or connecting currently used equestrian routes, do not assume that because you don’t see horses or know nothing of them that they are not present and using the area. The section on access networks relates to all forms on non-motorised access, whilst not identifying any specific type. Therefore a specific reference to horse access, equestrian facilities etc is not considered appropriate. Reference to multi-user paths have been added to the guidance. Contributions could be used more effectively and certainly should include equestrian access facilities. You need to be aware of the local equestrian sites and premises and plan accordingly. The people living in new homes see horses as a local amenity and children love to see them riding past or enjoy going to see them at their fields but if you do not sort out the correct access and facilities this will be lost. Contributions made could be used to fund improvements or to include equestrian access. Where appropriate the Council will seek to develop or require multi-user paths that would also be appropriate for equestrian use. Reference to multi- user paths have been added to the guidance. Funding is the reason our equestrian facilities are sub standard so this is a chance to rectify it. Equestrian facilities, as part of multi-user green network projects, would be an eligible use of developer contribution funding. However, this document does not set out eligible projects. The contributions from developers needs to be extended to include non residential developments as these are often on sites used by horse riders and are the bigger areas giving more opportunity to get funding for more appropriate paths etc ….Industrial estates are useful and safe hacking areas at weekends and evenings and winter nights. The guidance does not seek developer contributions from commercial or non-residential development, where the focus is the provision of green infrastructure within the development itself. This is because this type of development is not considered to increase user demand for the green network outwith the development site in the same way that residential development does. Page 209
Page 210
The money being returned after 10 yrs if not used is madness. This needs removed there cannot be some usage to which the funding could be put – pathway improvements for one to allow equestrian access – the bridges at Saltings is another example to which it could be put. Money should be used not returned. It is considered that this retention period is reasonable considering development timelines for housing sites or the subsequent delivery of associated green infrastructure projects. The inclusion of a retention period will also encourage the Council to make use of funds. Planning Circular 3/2012 does not specify a reasonable timeframe, it therefore sits with the planning authority to fix one that is reasonable. It is agreed that projects should be delivered as associated with a given development before this trigger is met. Horses and biodiversity go hand in hand, you can look at my field and see what the nature is like there. Horses are not a barrier to nature and wildlife habitats nor are they a nuisance not when proper access and riding routes are provided to us. In particular it would eradicate any perceived nuisance aspects of horse riding in the area – riders on pavements in Hardgate – they have no horse crossing nor proper access to safe off road riding from their yards at Hardgate near roundabout to the bridleway at Cochno. This could be addressed by use of developer funding. The document does not suggest that horses are a barrier to nature/habitats, nor that they are a nuisance. The purpose of this document is not to set out the specific projects that developer contributions will be spent on. However the comments made will be taken into account when future projects are being scoped out. Maintenance or stewardship is also an issue – grass needs cut, paths cut into it is a useful feature for horse access (this does take place at the small park near golden jubilee hospital and its very useful, one of the few things that actually helps horse access, there is also parking here for horseboxes, and there is a need more of this elsewhere). Verges cut down allows horses to be off the main parts of track in light of there not being an actual The guidance includes a section on green infrastructure stewardship, requiring that maintenance arrangements are put in place for green infrastructure associated with new development. Page 210
Page 211
horse track installed. Wide verges at side of roads gets us off the roads too. This enhances safety for all road and path users and also reduces hay fever issues which does affect horses as well as people. Bridges need fixed or made more suitable (paths can be created under or beside them in some cases) and rubbish in particular glass needs removed more regularly. There is funding for off road access available from British Horse Society and horse riders if they could get better off road access but funds need diverted to some equestrian usage so please include it within this document and future plans. The supplementary guidance does not to set out specifics on the types of projects that developer contributions will be spent on. This information is set out in the Developer Contributions documents available on https://www.west- dunbarton.gov.uk/council/strategies-plans-and- policies/local-development-planning/other-guidance- and-information/ Developer payments should be local to the development and not used out of the area. They should be of benefit to the people living in and around that area and should only be used for some kind of green space or access purpose and percentages could be split up so its not all going to playparks, it needs to be equal so it does not just benefit one group of people. Right now horse riders are a forgotten part of this so some money should be spent on that initially to balance things up. Where people can walk, horses can too, you just need to include the horse riding aspect, they are not mutually exclusive. Where the money should be spent should be more visible and perhaps up for discussion, more frequent The Council has approved separate documents explaining how developer contributions will be allocated, monitored and reported https://www.west- dunbarton.gov.uk/council/strategies-plans-and- policies/local-development-planning/other-guidance- and-information/ Page 211
Page 212
updates should be made, annually is not enough. I can certainly put forward some suggestions that would immediately assist horse riders in the area and im willing to be part of any projects or discussions on this perhaps with the access officer or greenspace staff. It cant and shouldn’t all go to playparks and community gardens. On a wider note developers need to be stopped pulling down the mature trees on site and replacing them with tiny saplings, this doesn’t help with climate change in any way and happens all the time. In one example a block of flats, over 300 trees were cut down and they have been replaced with small shrubs about 10 of them. These trees were all mature with many in excess of 50 yrs old. This must be stopped, developers can keep existing trees around boundaries which makes the whole site nicer for residents and better for wildlife but time and time again everything is cleared and a blank site is the starting point.The keeping of mature trees must be enforced even the ones which seemingly are not in best of health, even an unhealthy tree can live for hundreds of yrs. I have 2 ancient willows on my rented field and both grow almost horizontally, they are still alive, no danger of falling over and are a beautiful feature. Existing trees onsite must be kept and developers must adhere to this. Climate change is important so take actions to prevent it worsening. These comments are more relevant to the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance and the respondent has agreed they may be addressed in relation to that consultation. The Council is also intending to prepare planning guidance (non-statutory) on trees which would cover these matters. Balconies are not an acceptable outdoor space, gardens should be compulsory on all developments These comments are more relevant to the Creating Places Supplementary Guidance and the respondent Page 212
Page 213
even if it means less buildings on site (no bad thing). Who uses their balconies, the ones on the main road in Clydebank face on to a busy road, who is going to sit out there with all the fumes from the road. Gardens are a must not unusable balconies. Do remember that this council has covered in most of these balconies in recent years for safety reasons so don’t start putting them in again instead of actual gardens. has agreed they may be addressed in relation to that consultation. Page 213
Page 214
Page 214
Page 215
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Strategic Lead, Regulatory and Regeneration Planning Committee: 16 November 2022 _____________________________________________________________ Subject: Planning appeal decision – coffee shop with drive-through, Morrisons car park, 36 Glasgow Road, Dumbarton 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee that an appeal relating to a Committee decision to refuse planning permission for a drive- through coffee shop on part of the Morrisons supermarket car park on Glasgow Road, Dumbarton has been dismissed. 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee note the outcome of the appeal. 3. Background 3.1 Planning application DC21/176/FUL for a drive-through coffee shop was refused at Planning Committee on 8 December 2021. The reasons for the refusal were that the proposed development was contrary to the development plan as it would have a detrimental impact on Dumbarton town centre, and as it did not prioritise active travel and would promote use of the private car. 4. Main Issues 4.1 The applicant submitted an appeal against the refusal of planning permission and a claim for award of expenses to the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. The Council’s Planning Service responded to the appeal and claim for expenses. 4.2 The appeal decision was published on 1 November 2022. The Reporter dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission. In doing so, the Reporter considered the main issues to be the effects on: the network of centres in Dumbarton; traffic and transportation; the historic environment; residential amenity; design; and economic benefits. 4.3 With regards to the network of centres, the Reporter accepted that, given specific design requirements in relation to the drive-through layout, finding a suitable site in the town centre had not been possible in this case. However, the Reporter found there to be insufficient evidence to ITEM 8 Page 215
Page 216
demonstrate that the proposal would not undermine Dumbarton town centre, or that its function would complement other centres within the network of centres, specifically the town centre and Dumbarton East. 4.4 On traffic and transportation, the Reporter found that whilst adequate provision appears to have been made for pedestrians and cyclists, the development would not maximise the extent to which travel demands are met through walking, cycling and public transport. 4.5 The Reporter found that the proposed development would not affect the special interest or setting of the adjacent C-listed church and that impact on residential development could be adequately controlled by planning conditions. The design of the proposed building was found to be of a high quality and respecting its surroundings. The employment and economic benefits of the proposal were also recognised by the Reporter. 4.6 On balance, the Reporter found that the positive benefits of the proposal did not outweigh concerns relating to impact on the town and local centre. 4.7 The appellant’s claim for expenses was also dismissed. 5. People Implications 5.1 There are no people implications associated with this report. 6. Financial and Procurement Implications 6.1 There are no financial or procurement issues associated with this report. 7. Risk Analysis 7.1 There are no risks associated with this report. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) 8.1 There are no equalities issues associated with this report. 9. Consultation 9.1 Consultation was undertaken during the consideration of the planning application. 10. Strategic Assessment 10.1 The Council decision on this planning application is considered to have been consistent with the following strategic priorities: Page 216
Page 217
• Our Environment - Greener Future strategic - with regard to supporting sustainable travel • Our Economy – Strong and Flourishing – with regard to supporting local businesses. Pamela Clifford Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 16 November 2022 _________________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: Pamela Clifford, Planning & Building Standards Manager pamela.clifford@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Alan Williamson, Development Planning & Place Team Leader alan.williamson@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendices: None Background Papers: Report to Planning Committee, 8 December, 2021 – DC21/176/FUL - Proposed coffee shop with drive- through facility etc at Morrisons Supermarket, 36 Glasgow Road, Dumbarton Planning appeal decision - https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/Document.aspx?id= 895680 Wards Affected: Ward 3 Page 217