Supplementary Document Pack (Bookmarked) Planning Committee 14 06 23 (2)
West Dunbartonshire Council · 14 June 2023
Back to Planning Committee — 14 June 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Supplementary Agenda Planning Committee Date: Wednesday, 14 June 2023 Time: 10:00 Venue: Civic Space, 16 Church Street, Dumbarton Contact: Email: Nicola.moorcroft@west-dunbarton.gov.uk committee.admin@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Dear Member ITEM TO FOLLOW I refer to the agenda for the above meeting that was issued on 1 June 2023 and now enclose a copy of Item 5c which was not available for issue at that time. Yours faithfully PETER HESSETT Chief Executive Page 1
Page 2
Note referred to:- 5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS Submit reports by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager in respect of the following Planning application:- (c) DC22/156/FUL - Relocation and reconfiguration of current 5 - 33 car parking area new employee vehicular entry and exit access routes from existing roundabout, relocated on-site lorry parking, rerouted internal access roads and associated works at Kilmalid, Stirling Road, Dumbarton G82 2SS by Chivas Brothers Ltd. Page 2
Page 3
Distribution:- Councillor Lawrence O’Neill (Chair) Councillor Gurpreet Singh Johal (Vice Chair) Councillor Karen Conaghan Councillor Ian Dickson Councillor Daniel Lennie Provost Douglas McAllister Councillor June McKay Councillor Chris Pollock Councillor Hazel Sorrell Councillor Sophie Traynor All other Councillors for information Date of Issue: 8 June 2023 Page 3
Page 4
Page 4
Page 5
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 14th June 2023 _____________________________________________________________ DC22/156/FUL: Relocation and reconfiguration of current car parking area, new employee vehicular entry and exit access routes from existing roundabout, relocated on-site lorry parking, rerouted internal access roads and associated works at Kilmalid, Stirling Road, Dumbarton by Chivas Brothers Ltd. 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 The planning application is a major development as set out in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and 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 subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 and delegate authority to the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager to issue the decision following the satisfactory conclusion of the referral of the planning application to the Scottish Ministers. 3. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 The application relates to the Chivas Brothers’ spirit vatting and bottling plant at Kilmalid, situated at the south end of the Vale of Leven Industrial Estate, Dumbarton. The existing Kilmalid plant was first approved in 1974 and has been subject to significant modernisation and enlargement over the years. The Kilmalid site currently occupies an area of 13.8 hectares. The original bottling hall, Clyde Hall, was constructed around 1978 with a further bottling hall, Leven Hall, added to the site in 2000. A third bottling hall, Balloch Hall, was added in 2019 to facilitate the relocation of a bottling facility from a site in Paisley. In addition to the three bottling halls, a variety of other facilities make up the wider site including disgorging and filling operations; a blend centre; cased goods storage; offices; lorry parking and barrel storage. Current access to the site is from the Lionsgate Roundabout at the entrance to the Vale of Leven Industrial Estate. Although there are ITEM 5c Page 5
Page 6
other industrial units nearby (including the Aggreko factory), the site is largely surrounded by greenfield land. To the north east, the plant borders the industrial estate access road but is set back from it behind parkland, while to the south it borders open fields. To the west the site backs onto low-lying areas of woodland and scrub along the east bank of the River Leven. The application site itself, sits to the south of the existing Kilmalid plant with a spur reaching south east to the existing Stag roundabout. 3.2 Currently there is only a single point of access and egress to the Kilmalid site with this being taken from the Lionsgate Roundabout on Stirling Road. Another access route to the north of the site was approved in October 2022 (planning application DC20/128), but to date, this access has not been constructed. The existing access caters for all raw material deliveries, finished goods distribution, spirit tanker delivers, barrel deliveries, employee vehicles and employee pedestrian routes. 3.3 In order to address a variety of operational challenges at the site associated with staff, HGV and other vehicles accessing, moving around and parking within the site, a number of proposals are being brought forward. These include: • The formation of a secondary employee access from the Stag Roundabout on the A813, inclusive of bridge over the Murroch Burn, to a reconfigured employee carpark on the southern side of the facility which will allow for the creation of an additional 60 parking spaces within the site. • Improved pedestrian and cycle routes to the site from the Stag Roundabout via Lomondgate Roundabout on the A82 underpass to Dumbarton. • Formation of new lorry parking area. • Creation of a feature entrance gateway north of the Murroch Burn to access the site via the new road from the south. • Creation of a new open landscaped pedestrian plaza from the head of the new access road and car park entrance to the pedestrian entrance to the site on the southern boundary. • Creation of a bus turning and drop off area to the top of the new access road and connecting with the pedestrian links to the new entrance plaza. • Localised diversion of the core path to the southern site boundary and a resurfacing of the core path with a hard wearing finish to a width of 3 metres. Comprehensive soft landscaping across the new development site including new tree and hedgerow planting and planting to the entrance plaza area. Improved site wide soft and hard landscaping. Page 6
Page 7
• The existing gatehouse and adjacent Lionsgate Roundabout dedicated to commercial vehicles only following construction of the new southern access road. 3.4 In recent years there have been a number of planning applications granted permission for the site. Most significantly was the third bottling hall granted in planning permission in 2017 (ref: DC17/129) inclusive of delivery, storage and dispatch areas and associated administration and support facilities, along with external barrel storage area, delivery roads and parking for HGVs, additional staff parking, landscaping and SUDS drainage scheme. The new bottling facility relocated operations from a bottling site in Paisley to Kilmalid. An additional car park providing 138 spaces to the east of the site (ref: DC21/057/FUL) and a new northern access road and security gatehouse (ref: DC20/128) which amends the arrangement approved as part of the bottling hall application were both granted in 2022. The car park is currently under construction but the new northern access has not been taken forward at this time. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency initially submitted a holding objection to the proposal due to their being a lack of information on flood risk grounds. Additional details were subsequently provided by the applicant and SEPA confirm that they are broadly in agreement with the assessment of flood risk and the proposed mitigation. SEPA highlight that Policy 22 of NPF4 promotes a precautionary approach to flooding by avoiding new development in areas at risk of flooding. The proposal involves a new road across an area of land that falls within the definition of a flood risk area described above. SEPA advise that the Planning Authority are best placed to determine the acceptability of the proposals in accordance with the overall policy framework in NPF4. Therefore, if the Council is satisfied the requirements have been met, then SEPA can offer no objection to this planning application on the grounds of flood risk. However, if it is determined the requirements are not met and the proposal does not meet the exceptions defined in Policy 22, then based on the site specifics SEPA’s position should be considered as an objection relating to the access road through the flood risk area. The development proposals do not meet the exceptions defined in Policy 22, therefore SEPA object to the application. This is discussed further in Section 7 of the report. 4.2 West Dunbartonshire Council Environmental Health Service have no objections subject to conditions relating to addressing contaminated land matters and hours of construction work. 4.3 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service have no objections in relation to both roads and flooding matters. Page 7
Page 8
4.4 West of Scotland Archaeological Service (WoSAS) advise that a condition requiring a written scheme of investigation in relation to a programme of archaeological works to be submitted and approved prior to any development on site should be attached to any planning permission granted. 4.5 West Dunbartonshire Council Biodiversity Officer advises that the Habitat Survey is acceptable although some points are highlighted in respect of additional species and mitigation. The requirement for biodiversity enhancement is highlighted as is the requirement to understand the current biodiversity potential baseline. 4.6 Scottish Water and SP Energy Networks have no objections to the application. 5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 None received. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 6.1 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was adopted by the Scottish Ministers on 13th of February 2023 and now forms part of the Development Plan. NPF4 recognises the importance of the whisky industry as part of the food and drink sector and the significant contribution this brings to the economy. However, this general support for the whisky industry requires to be considered in the wider policy context of NPF4. 6.2 Policy 1 relates to tackling the climate and nature crises and states that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 2 also relates to the climate in the form of climate mitigation and adaptation and states development proposals will be sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible and development proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Policy 3 states that proposals for major development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, including nature networks so they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention. The proposal is for the reconfiguration of infrastructure associated with an existing development. Whilst there are proposed changes to parking, the level of traffic movements associated to the bottling facility are not predicted to increase. It is considered that an enhancement of biodiversity beyond the current baseline can be achieved with proposed tree planting, landscaping and other features. Features such Page 8
Page 9
as electric vehicle charging points are also provided. The proposal has considered both climate change and biodiversity in accordance with the policies. There will be no unacceptable impact on existing ecology and thus no conflict with Policy 4, which seeks to protect the natural environment including designated sites and protected species. 6.3 Policy 5 relates to Soils. Development proposals on prime agricultural land, or land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use, as identified in the Local Development Plan, will only be supported in certain circumstances as listed in the policy. Whilst the land has been used for agriculture previously, Scotland’s Soils map classifies the lands as Class 4.2, which is not “prime” agricultural land and does not include any peatland habitat or carbon rich soils. As such the development is in accordance with Policy 5. 6.4 Development proposals that enhance, expand and improve woodland and tree cover will be supported in accordance with Policy 6. There are no areas of protected woodland or trees which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order within the site boundary. However a tree report has been submitted in support of the planning application and it identifies 206 trees within the site, 7 of which are classed as “A” high quality, 53 are “B” moderate quality, 122 are “C” low quality and 24 are “U” and unsuitable for retention on the basis of condition. The proposals retain trees as far as possible, and whilst some tree removal is proposed the majority of trees are to be retained and protected, and those that are identified for removal are of generally lower quality in terms of the survey findings. A total of 41 trees are proposed for removal, with one of these being Category A. The proposal includes new tree planting throughout the site with a total of 93 new trees planned and it is considered that the proposal will increase tree cover and is in accordance with the Policy. There is no impact upon historic assets and therefore no conflict with Policy 7. 6.5 Policy 8 supports development within the green belt in a limited number of circumstances. The proposal crosses a section of designated green belt land which runs along the Murroch Burn. It is considered that the development type is not covered by any of the circumstances covered in Policy 8, however, this section of green belt is however between two areas identified as industrial land within the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. The part of the development which crosses the green belt is the new access road. Whilst the road will have a low impact on the green belt, the proposals encroachment within the green belt is contrary to Policy 8 of the NPF4. This is considered further in Section 7 below which assesses the proposal in the context of all material considerations. 6.6 Policy 13 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel Page 9
Page 10
and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. Whilst the proposal relates to an existing site and whilst the proposal does not increase floorspace or the wider transport demands of the site, it remains that the location of the site together with the shift pattern do not lend themselves to a sustainable travel arrangement with employee travel dominated by the private car. Whilst the proposal seeks to resolve operational issues with access and parking within the site, the provision of additional parking, combined with previous additional parking granted planning permission will not seek to encourage a modal shift away from the private car. A travel plan associated with the planning permission for the bottling facility has sought to address this issue but has not avoided the need for additional parking as is now proposed. The applicant encourages car sharing, provide a cycle to work scheme, have and are expanding EV charging infrastructure and cycle shelters across the site. The supporting documents also note that proposals for a shuttle bus service between the site and public transport nodes (for example the railway station) are being progressed. It is also proposed to increase the width of the core path. The approach set out above together with a full review of the site Travel Plan which can be addressed by condition will ensure efforts to support sustainable travel and encourage a shift away from the private car are maximised. With such an approach, the proposal can be considered acceptable with reference to Policy 13. 6.7 Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale as per Policy 14. The proposal to reconfigure the vehicle access and car parking arrangements will improve the quality of the area by improving the safety of those using the area, particularly pedestrians. 6.8 Policy 20 relates to blue and green infrastructure. Development proposals for or incorporating new or enhanced blue and/or green infrastructure will be supported. The application seeks to amend the route of, and resurface a core path. The core path alters slightly in its alignment, however will be upgraded in terms of its width, to 3m and its surface. This is considered an enhancement of green infrastructure, in accordance with the Policy. 6.9 Flood risk and water management is covered in Policy 22. Development proposals at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported under certain circumstances. The proposal involves a new road across an area of land that falls within the definition of a flood risk area. However, Policy 22 (a) does indicate development proposals in a flood risk area will be supported if they are for ‘(i) essential infrastructure where the location is required for operational reasons’. The Council has concluded that the proposal is not essential infrastructure as defined by NPF4 and not supported by part (a) of Policy 22 of NPF4. Notwithstanding this, all risks of flooding are understood and addressed, there is no reduction in floodplain capacity or increased flood risk, and the development will remain safe and Page 10
Page 11
operational during flood events with alternative accesses. However, as discussed further in Section 7 below, the proposal is contrary to Policy 22. 6.10 Policy 26 supports proposals for business and industry on sites allocated for those uses in Local Development Plans. Policy 26 also gives support for business and industry uses which are compatible with the primary function of the area as well as other employment uses which do not prejudice the primary function of the area and are compatible with the business/industrial character of the area. A large proportion of the site is designated within the Council’s proposed Local Development Plan 2 as a business and industry opportunity. Therefore, the proposal for infrastructure associated with bottling facility is considered to be in accordance with the Policy. 6.11 Overall, the proposal is considered to be contrary to aspects of both Policy 8 and Policy 22 of NPF4, relating to the encroachment on the green belt and flooding respectively. Having fully assessed all material planning considerations as set out in Section 7 below, the benefits of further inward investment which supports an important local employer within a key industry, and addressing various operational issues that are identified at the site outweigh that the proposal is not one which is specifically supported by Policies 8 and 22 of NPF4. West Dunbartonshire Adopted Local Plan 2010 6.12 Policy GB1 presumes against development within the green belt with a limited number of exceptions. It is considered that the development type is not covered by any of the circumstances covered in Policy GB1. Whilst the new access road crossing the green belt will have a low impact, the proposals encroachment within the green belt is contrary to Policy GB1. 6.13 Policy GD1 requires all new development to be of a high quality of design and to respect the character and amenity of the area in which it is located. The proposal will have limited visual impact in association with the existing industrial setting of the existing operational plant. Whilst the new access road crosses undeveloped land the impact of the road and bridge over the Burn within the surrounding landscape will be limited. 6.14 Much of the site is designated as LE1 (15). Policy LE1 sets “a presumption in favour of uses which positively extend the permanent employment potential of the sites” with this designation. It also safeguards the sites for industrial and business uses only (use classes 4, 5 and 6), with the preferred uses listed in Schedule LE1. Schedule LE1 indicates that the site is safeguarded for the expansion of the adjacent unit, and that all of classes 4, 5 and 6 are preferred. Policy LE1A reserves the site for accommodating the potential expansion of the processes associated with the Kilmalid operational plant and shall be used for no other purposes. The site is being Page 11
Page 12
used for the expansion of the infrastructure of the Kilmalid operational plant and as such is in accordance with the policies. 6.15 Site access to the main development site is taken via the Kilmalid Specialised Economic Development Site (now referred to as Lomondgate) and policy LE5 applies. This site is designated for industry and business uses and other uses that positively extend the permanent employment potential of the site. The proposal is for alterations to access and infrastructure that will allow the Kilmalid bottling facility to function more efficiently and as such it is considered that this will positively extend the permanent employment potential of the site in accordance with the policy. 6.16 Policy LE6 identifies the Vale of Leven Industrial Estate, including the development site, as a Strategic Industrial and Business Location. It is to be safeguarded for economic development uses and there shall be a strong presumption against uses other than for business and industry. Again, whilst the development itself is for infrastructure rather than a new industrial of business unit, it is associated with, and adds to the function of the Kilmalid bottling facility and as such aids with economic development. 6.17 Policy T1 states that the Council supports measures to provide sustainable transport modes including footpaths, cycle routes and improved access to public transport. The policy goes on to state that this is particularly in respect of employment areas. Policy T4 requires developers to ensure that sites are well integrated into walking, cycling and public transport routes and give priority to the positioning of footpaths, cycleways and bus stops at the main entrances to developments. As stated above, the plant benefits from access to bus connections and the cycle provisions are intended to increase. The applicants encourage car sharing, provide a cycle to work scheme, have and are expanding EV charging infrastructure and cycle shelters across the site. Subject to a review of the wider travel plan brought forward for the site following the granting of permission for the new bottling hall, the proposal is considered to accord with Policy T1 and T4. 6.18 Policy E1 states that in exercising its planning function the Council will further the conservation of biodiversity. Policy E5 states new development proposed on sites with, or adjacent to, existing trees or woodlands will be assessed in accordance with best practice. Whilst trees are being removed from the site in order to facilitate the development, more trees are being proposed to be planted than removed. 6.19 Policies F1, F2 and F3 address flooding, drainage and flood protection. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies F1 and F3 owing to the development encroaching into an area identified as being at risk of flooding on the site. Matters relating to archaeology can be satisfactorily addressed to ensure no conflict with Policy BE5. Page 12
Page 13
6.20 Overall, the proposal is supported or has no conflict with many policies of the adopted Local Plan. However, it is considered to be contrary to Policies GB1, F1 and F3 with regards to the encroachment into the Green Belt and flood risk area respectively. 7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 7.1 On 15 March 2023, the Planning Committee took a decision that the Council would not adopt Local Development Plan 2. The Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), incorporating the recommended modifications of the Examination Report received on 22 April 2020, which were accepted by the Planning Committee of 19 August 2020, remains the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore afforded significant weight in the assessment and determination of planning applications, subject to compatibility with NPF4. The Scottish Ministers’ Direction relating to the adoption of LDP2, dated 18 December 2020, is also a material consideration. 7.2 Vale of Leven Industrial Estate Policy 1 supports Class 5 and 6 employment uses within the industrial estate. Lomondgate Policy 1 states that within the Lomondgate Business Park proposals will only be acceptable if they meet the certain criteria including: a masterplan for the site has been developed; at least 50% of the site is developed for Class 4, 5 & 6 development; successful integration of development within the landscape; requirement for access and route improvements and active travel connections to maximise access to employment opportunities. Whilst the proposal is not for a new building, it does support an existing employment use and does improve travel connections. Whilst no updated masterplan has been produced, the impact of the proposed development on the site is the inclusion of a new access road, which does not significantly impact on remaining development land. The proposed access road forms a continuation of the existing road to the south west of the Aggreko building. As it travels north over the Murroch Burn, it is also landscaped to an acceptable standard. 7.3 Policy GB1 restricts development in the green belt to a limited number of circumstances. It is considered that the development type is not covered by any of the circumstances covered in Policy GB1. Whilst the new access road crossing the green belt will have a low impact, the proposals encroachment within the green belt is contrary to Policy GB1. 7.4 Policy E1 directs proposals for business industrial, or storage and distribution uses to the sites listed in Schedule 4. Schedule 4 includes this site as E1(12), indicating that Use Classes 4, 5 and 6 are acceptable, and reserving this site for expansion of the Chivas Bottling facility. The proposed Page 13
Page 14
development is associated with the Chivas bottling facility and as discussed in detail in Section 7 below, is considered to accord with this policy. Policy E2 sets out the criteria which are require to be demonstrated for alternative uses on industrial and business sites. This is not considered an alternative use as it supports an existing industrial use. 7.5 Policy ENV5 seeks to protect the quality and enjoyment of the water environment. The proposed development is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on the water quality or environment. Policy ENV6 states that development which would have a significant probability of being affected by flooding or increase the probability of flooding elsewhere will not be accepted. Owing to the development encroaching into an area identified as being at risk of flooding on the site, the proposal is thus contrary to Policy ENV6. Developers will be required to establish the nature of any contamination on any potential development site in accordance with Policy ENV9. Appropriate conditions can ensure compliance with policy ENV9. 7.6 Development proposals are required to prioritise active travel, by incorporating new, and providing links to, existing footpaths, cycle routes and public transport routes in accordance with Policy CON1. This policy also requires electrical charging points to be provided within major business and industrial developments. Although the development cannot be said to prioritise active travel, it does improve active travel connections to the site and incorporates electric vehicle charging points. Policy CON3 requires proposals to avoid adversely impacting on core paths or to provide mitigation to overcome any such impacts. Whilst there is an impact on the core path, an appropriate localised diversion is proposed within the site and the proposal is not considered to adversely impact upon the core path. Moreover, the applicant further proposes new surfacing to other, undiverted sections of the path. 7.7 No concerns arise regarding the impact on the adjacent listed building and there is thus no conflict with Policy BE2 and matters relating to archaeology can be satisfactorily addressed to ensure no conflict with Policy BE1. Policy ENV1 states all new development should enhance biodiversity as part of the green network. The proposal includes biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures and the requirement to further consider what enhancement could be achieved can be addressed by condition. Policy CP1 requires new development to take a design led approach to creating sustainable places which puts the needs of people first and demonstrate the six qualities of successful places. The proposal segregates pedestrians from HGV routes together with creating a new entrance point and high quality arrival plaza which again segregates the pedestrian entrance from the wider car park. Such approaches contribute to the six qualities of successful places. Policy CP2 requires all development to demonstrate that Page 14
Page 15
green infrastructure has been integrated into the design approach from the outset. 7.8 Overall, the proposal is supported or has no conflict with many policies of proposed Local Development Plan 2. However, it is considered to be contrary to Policies GB1 and ENV6 with regards to the encroachment into the Green Belt and flood risk area respectively. Green Network and Green Infrastructure Planning Guidance (2022) and Creating Places Planning Guidance (2022) 7.9 The Green Network and Green Infrastructure Planning Guidance indicates that “New build commercial and industrial developments should comply with the principles of good design set out in Policies CP1 and CP2 of Local Development Plan 2 and the Creating Places Planning Guidance, and look for opportunities to provide amenity space, access links, SuDS and enhance biodiversity through planting.” The proposal creates access links, an attractive pedestrian entry plaza with associated landscaping, utilises SuDS and seeks to enhance biodiversity. The principle of this approach complies with the guidance. Regarding the Creating Places Planning Guidance, whilst there are no new buildings created by the development, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the relevant considerations set out in the Setting and Green Infrastructure sections. Principle of Development and impact on the Green Belt 7.10 The Kilmalid plant is an important local employer, and the food and drink industry is a strategically important business sector within the area. The site employs around 950 permanent employees with a further 200 temporary staff. The majority of the application site is allocated in the adopted and proposed plans for industrial use, and the principle of a development relating to the continued operation of the site is supported in principle by the relevant policies of NPF4 together with the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. 7.11 The proposal site is within a Strategic Economic Investment Location (SEIL) and the majority of the site is within an area specifically designated for Business and Industrial use, and reserved for expansion of the operations at the adjacent plant. Whilst the proposal does not result in an increase in business and industrial floorspace related to Use Classes 4, 5 or 6 as per the development plan allocation, it is clear from the applicant’s supporting documents that the development is intrinsically linked to the operation of the existing plant and on completion will become part of a wider Class 5 industrial site. It is further recognised that the site of the wider Facility has undergone significant internal investment and reconfiguration in recent years, including the construction of a new bottling hall on an alternative site to that identified in the adopted Local Plan or proposed Local Development Plan 2. Whilst the site has thus expanded, it has not resulted in built Page 15
Page 16
development on the proposal site as envisaged by the development plan. This means that the use of the reserved expansion site for the current car/lorry park proposal rather than for further industrial floorspace is the preference of the site operator. 7.12 In further considering the principle of development, the development proposal takes access from, and uses land within the Lomondgate area for the new access road. This area is separately reserved for business and industry. The adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 set criteria for the alternative uses of this land which the proposal should be assessed against. The applicant highlights that the proposals are clearly linked to the operational enhancement of an existing and established industrial use, and it follows that they cannot be accommodated on an alternative site to achieve the same objective. It is accepted that the applicant has demonstrated a specific locational need with no suitable alternative locations. The access road is located to minimise impact on the remaining industrial and business land and the provision of the access road is not considered to adversely impact on the potential attractiveness of the Lomondgate location for future business and development. Moreover, the development may provide a catalyst for future investment in the wider industrial allocated sites. Whilst an updated masterplan for the wider Lomondgate site has not been provided in relation to this development, it is not considered that the provision of the access road will compromise the ability to secure and deliver the development of the wider site in the future. 7.13 However, notwithstanding this, the proposal inclusive of access road will extend the site into the green belt as defined by both the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. Policy 8 of NPF4 sets out the up- to-date development plan position in respect of development proposals within the green belt, advising that such proposals will only be supported in certain circumstances. Whilst the applicant argues that the proposal would result in the intensification of an established use, the established use is not in itself within the green belt nor is the proposal connected with intensifying the overall use of the plant. In anycase it is not the intent of the Policy to facilitate the expansion of existing sites where they encroach on the green belt. 7.14 Policy 8 goes on to set out that additionally, development proposals affecting the Green Belt require to provide the reasons as to why the Green Belt location is essential and cannot be accommodated on an alternative site, that the purpose of the Green Belt is not undermined, the proposal is compatible with established landscape character and the proposal minimises visual impact. In the supporting documentation, the applicant has set out that since the site was first developed, many factors relating to access and egress, volume of vehicle movements, security and quality controls have evolved. Whilst the gatehouse still serves as a primary Page 16
Page 17
security function, it no longer provides the “sense of arrival” to the site that it had when it was initially installed. The proposal is being brought forward to address established operational challenges associated with staff, HGV and other vehicles accessing, moving around and parking within the site. The proposals will reconfigure the access, parking and vehicle circulation routes to separate staff vehicles and HGVs and thus reducing the potential for interaction between pedestrians, staff and HGVs. It is also identified by the applicant that at particular times of the day, most notably during shift changes, congestion can occur with vehicles in the site and spill out to the A813. As noted in para 7.11 above, the applicant highlights that the proposals are clearly linked to the operational enhancement of an existing and established industrial use. It is accepted that the development could not be accommodated on an alternative site and there is no disagreement with the applicant’s position. The applicant’s position that the principal impact on the Green Belt arises from the access road and that character and function of the Green Belt in this location will remain is also accepted. New planting and landscaping will also have the potential to enhance the appearance of the area. The Green Belt is also viewed within the context of the adjacent industrial location, road infrastructure and overhead high voltage power lines, and there is no disagreement with the applicant’s position that the proposal would not result in significant or adverse impacts on countryside and landscape character in this area, or adjacent settlements. No buildings are proposed and this will further reduce visual impacts from the surrounding area. 7.15 Whilst not specifically highlighted in Policy 8 of NPF4 as a development proposal specifically supported in the Green Belt, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated a locational requirement to support an important local employer within an important industry that supports the Scottish economy and that the aims, function and integrity of the Green Belt will not be undermined by the development proposal, with mitigation proposed as part of the design. It is considered that despite not being a development proposal specifically supported in the Green Belt by Policy 8 of NPF4 and thus contrary to this aspect of the Policy, the overall intent of the Policy is achieved and the principle of the development can be accepted. The adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 both take a similar approach to NPF4 in respect of protecting the Green Belt and only allowing development in limited circumstances. The proposal is considered contrary to both Plans. 7.16 Overall, the justification of the proposal set out by the applicant together with the full detail of the development proposals have been considered. Whilst the proposal is at variance with some aspects of the development plan, most notably Policy 8 of the NPF4, together with Policy GB1 of both the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2, it is considered that the material considerations are such that the principle of the Page 17
Page 18
proposal can be considered acceptable, subject to an assessment of the matters below. Landscape character, visual impact and design 7.17 Landscape character is the distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs in a landscape leading to the way that it is perceived. The site has the characteristics and appearance of agricultural and grazing land but is situated with the main Kilmalid site to the north, a large factory building to the east and the A82 Trunk Road to the south. Two overhead high voltage electricity transmission also traverse the site from east to west. A variety of trees and overgrown hedgerow are also found, but the character of the site is not inherently rural. It is very much viewed in the context of a mixed industrial and edge of settlement location. 7.18 The construction of the new car park, lorry park and associated access routes will have a visual impact. However, views from the A82 trunk road are substantially screened by existing trees in the foreground. Views from the riverside and from the residential area beyond would also be screened by existing trees, and the bottling hall would also be the prominent feature in the landscape from this location, rather than this proposal. Views from Stirling Road are limited due to the Aggreko building located between the road and much of the application site. There are no significant level changes proposed across the site, although there will be undulations across the site, with new SuDS areas, bridge across the Murroch Burn and bunding. A comprehensive landscaping scheme is proposed to soften the new development and minimise visual impact within the landscape. This includes augmenting existing retained trees and hedgerows with significant new tree planting. An entrance garden and plaza from the head of the new access road and car park entrance to the pedestrian entrance to the site on the southern boundary will be formed to provide access to the main operational section of the wider facility and this will create a clear and attractive arrival point. Whilst a large area of hard surface is to be created, the visual impact can further be mitigated with the careful use of different surfacing materials and the final details of this can be addressed by condition. The final design and appearance of the bridge over the Murroch Burn can also be addressed by condition. 7.19 Overall, it is considered that whilst there will be a visual impact resulting from the development, the positioning within the landscape together with the design proposals which include areas of new planting and landscaping ensures that the impact on local landscape character is acceptable. Impact on trees and hedgerows 7.20 A large number of trees and hedgerows are located across the site, and the application submission is informed by a tree survey which assesses the individual trees. These vary in quality from Category A mature trees to U Page 18
Page 19
classified trees which are, for arboricultural reasons, unsuitable for retention even in the absence of a development proposal. The application proposal will result in the removal of 41 trees. The applicant sets out that the proposals have been developed to protect and retain trees as far as possible, and whilst some tree removal is proposed, the significant majority of trees within and adjacent to the site are to be retained and protected. With the exception of one Category A tree, the trees to be removed are generally identified as being of lower quality Category C trees with a more limited lifespan, and U classified trees where the correct course of action is removal. The application proposal includes the planting of 93 new trees as part of a comprehensive landscaping scheme which will compensate for any loss of trees and hedgerows on site. Overall, as the new planting matures, the proposals will result in an enhancement of tree cover at this location to the long term benefit of the appearance of the wider landscape. Ecology, biodiversity and the natural environment 7.21 Ecological issues are considered by the applicant in a Habitat Survey. The survey area includes both the application site and surrounding land. The applicant notes that no part of the site is identified as internationally or nationally important for nature conservation reasons with the nearest SSSI being just under 2km from the site. There are also no local designations within the site although a Local Nature Conservation Site lies in close proximity to the west. The Murroch Glen is listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory and also lies in close proximity to the site, albeit the site does not encroach on this area. A variety of habitat types have been identified within the survey area including dense scrub, plantation woodland, marshy grassland, poor semi-improved grassland, arable land, hardstanding and defunct hedgerow. The appraisal identifies habitat exists for a variety of species including bats, otter, water vole, reptiles, badger, birds including suitable habitat to support nesting birds. 7.22 Features suitable for roosting bats were found within mature sycamore trees within the middle of the site together with dead Ash trees to the south of the site. Further survey work is recommended in respect of the Sycamore trees if these are to be removed or impacted upon by the development. The submitted drawings indicate that these trees will be retained although in close proximity to the proposed construction work. Further survey work is also recommended prior to any works commencing within 30 metres of the trees. As the possibility for roosting bats is established, the appropriate time to undertake further survey work to ensure no disturbance occurs is prior to construction and it is thus acceptable to address this by condition. In respect of the Ash trees to the south of the site, two activity surveys are recommended if works is to be carried out to the tree or if works are to take place within 30 metres of them. These trees are to the south of the site, unaffected by the proposals and in excess of 30 metres from any potential construction work. It is therefore not considered further survey works is Page 19
Page 20
required in respect of these trees. No field signs of otter, water vole or badger were found on site. However, evidence of otter was found to the north of the site and the site has suitable foraging and commuting habitats, together with suitable habitat for otter holts to the eastern end of the burn. Despite there being no field signs, suitable habitat for foraging and commuting badger exists. The site is noted as being unsuitable for hedgehog. The habitat survey advises that pre-construction surveys for otter and badger be carried out within eight weeks prior to construction commencing due to the high mobility of wildlife. The avoidance of site clearance works during the bird breeding season (March to September inclusive) is preferred but if this is not possible the Habitat Survey recommends a nesting bird survey be undertaken by an experienced ecologist no more than 48 hours prior to any work being undertaken. No further survey work in respect of reptiles is highlighted as being required. The need to re-establish the baseline if works have not commenced within 12 months is highlighted although it is noted that the bat survey is identified as being valid for 18 months. This can be addressed by condition. 7.23 The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has considered the Habitat Survey submitted. No additional survey work is identified as being required, however the Biodiversity Officer highlights the wide range of recommendations for follow up surveys prior to the commencement of any works on site as well as detailed advice on lighting schemes and advises that these matters are addressed by condition. Clarification is sought on the bridge over the Murroch Burn and whether mammal ledges should be incorporated. It is considered that the requirement to incorporate mammal ledges into the design can be addressed by condition. The Biodiversity Officer highlights a known breeding sand martin colony on the Murroch Burn near the A82 and that this should be considered in any mitigation. It is possible that this colony is not only outwith the application site but outwith the survey area, hence not being identified in the Habitat Survey, however the requirement for identifying any required mitigation can be addressed by condition. The Biodiversity Officer also highlights the lack of a consultation to the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust. With the exception of the road crossing to the Murroch Burn and removal of an existing culvert in favour of a new bridge which will improve the flow of the burn and reduce the chance of blockages, the proposal has no impact on the Murroch Burn. The Habitat Survey does not identify any requirement for survey work in respect of the potential impact on fish species and the proposal is set back from and does not impact upon the River Leven. Such a consultation is therefore not considered necessary. 7.24 NPF4 has a strong focus on the protection of biodiversity, reversing biodiversity loss and delivering positive effects from development including biodiversity enhancement and the incorporation of nature based solutions. The very nature of the proposal, which will form large areas of hardstanding Page 20
Page 21
for vehicles, means that careful consideration is required of how new planting and landscaped areas can be incorporated into the development to give a tangible enhancement of biodiversity. The habitat survey demonstrates that with appropriate mitigation as set out within the recommendations, the development will not adversely impact upon protected and other species or important biodiversity designations or habitat. The habitat survey further identifies enhancement opportunities to protect, restore and enhance biodiversity habitat networks and environmental quality. This includes planting which considers the connectivity of habitats and the use of native species. The incorporation of nectar rich plants which flower at different times of the year is also highlighted. The establishment of a bordering hedgerow between the new car park and land beyond is recognised and the landscaping proposals indicate such an approach. The incorporation of bird nesting boxes together with bat boxes is highlighted although no specific details of how these recommendations are incorporated into the development are provided. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer highlights that it is difficult to establish the biodiversity baseline in the absence of a report or inventory detailing tree and hedgerow loss. Whilst a tree removal plan is provided together with a tree survey, the comments of the Biodiversity Officer in respect of the requirements to establish a clear baseline to inform if the new planting proposals offer a positive effect for biodiversity are noted. It is considered that the application submission demonstrates significant potential to provide new planting and other features which will have a positive benefit in respect of biodiversity in the local area as required by NPF4. The submission of details which demonstrates an understanding on how the proposal enhances biodiversity beyond the current baseline of this and addresses any additions or adjustments to the landscaping proposals in respect of this can be addressed by condition. 7.25 Overall, subject to the approach set out above and the imposition of conditions to any planning permission granted there are no unacceptable ecology or biodiversity issues caused by the proposal and it is considered that an enhancement of biodiversity beyond the current baseline can be achieved. Traffic, Access and Road Safety 7.26 The applicant sets out that the proposal is to address established operational challenges associated with staff, HGV and other vehicles accessing, moving around and parking within the site. There is no associated proposal to further increase floorspace within the wider site and the applicant has indicated that the proposals are not to facilitate or support any uplift in activity, number of vehicle visits to the site nor are they to support any increase in staffing levels. The proposals are directed towards improving the efficiency and safety of the site for staff and other visitors. The applicant sets out that presently, access to the site for all staff and Page 21
Page 22
visitors together with deliveries is taken directly from the existing industrial estate access road. Vehicle checking requirements can often cause delays for HGVs entering the site which results in congestion within the site which can in turn impact on traffic on the public road. A shortfall in parking can also cause delays during shift changes with incoming staff who travel by car unable to find a car park space. Shift changeover arrangements results in the incoming shift arriving prior to the outgoing shift leaving, resulting in significant additional parking demand. Car park occupancy and demand has been identified to exceed availability resulting in overspill parking within the site. The additional parking area will accommodate this overspill together with providing capacity for visitors. The proposal will also allow the creation of a secure onsite lorry park to hold finished goods prior to distribution to UK markets or port for export. The applicant also highlights that the changes to the internal site arrangements are a Health and Safety requirement in respect of segregating HGVs and pedestrians. The new access road will provide for additional emergency access in the event of a major incident. 7.27 With no new floorspace proposed and no proposed increase in staffing numbers, the proposal will accommodate existing traffic already travelling to the facility rather than generate new or additional traffic which would have the potential to impact on traffic using the existing road network. Indeed, there is no objection or points raised from the Council’s Roads Service in respect of the operation of the existing road network. In terms of the new access, this is noted by the Roads Service as being a new private road and accordingly it is not necessary to provide detailed observations on design or construction details. Following some points of clarification from the applicant on the operation of the private road inclusive of traffic calming, the Road’s Service have no objection to the proposals. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not result in any traffic or road safety implications. Sustainable Transport 7.28 In assessing the previous application for the new bottling facility, it was recognised that the new facility would increase the staffing levels on site and due to a combination of the location of the plant within an industrial area away from nearby residential properties and a shift pattern that did not readily match with public transport provision, a high proportion of staff would be expected to travel by car. It was considered that while location of the site and the nature of shift working were not ideal for sustainable travel, the applicant’s proposal was acceptable. A condition was attached requiring a comprehensive Travel Plan that sets out proposals for reducing dependency to be agreed. This includes the applicant encouraging car sharing, provide a cycle to work scheme, have and are expanding EV charging infrastructure and cycle shelters across the site. The supporting documents for the current application also note that proposals for a shuttle Page 22
Page 23
bus service between the site and public transport nodes (for example the railway station) are being progressed. 7.29 This proposal does not increase floorspace, staff numbers or the operation of the long established site beyond the current position. The segregation of HGVs and other traffic together with the provision of walking routes to the new entrance plaza inclusive of identified crossing points is welcomed. It remains that the site is also no less accessible by public transport than as current. The provision of electric vehicle and cycle charging points can be addressed by condition. However, despite the travel plan agreed as part of the previous planning permission for the bottling hall, the requirement for additional car parking and the overspill parking within the site identified by the applicant in support of the proposal indicates that there has been no modal shift in travel patterns, which remain dominated by the private car. The provision of additional car parking may alleviate on-site parking problems, but it will do nothing to promote a shift in travel patterns. Given this and the fact that to date, the previously agreed travel plan appears to have been unsuccessful in promoting a shift away from the private car, it is considered appropriate to require a full review of the travel plan. This will require to include what targets have been achieved, what targets have not been achieved and why they have not been achieved. Further initiatives will also require to be brought forward in the future to ensure the achievement of a meaningful switch away from the private car. This can be addressed by condition. 7.30 Overall, whilst it remains that the location of the site and the nature of shift working are not ideal for sustainable travel, the approach set out above will ensure efforts to support sustainable travel and encourage a shift away from the private car are maximised. Flooding and Drainage 7.31 The assessment of flooding matters is informed by the applicant’s Technical Memo on flooding, which was updated during the assessment of the application following an initial holding objection from SEPA. A hydrological and hydraulic modelling assessment has been undertaken to identify the 1 in 200 year and 1 in 200 year plus climate change uplift flood levels and flow pathways. This identifies that in extreme flow conditions, the Murroch Burn is predicted to overtop the left bank of the channel and flood the proposed access road location. Mitigation in the form of a bypass structure is included in the design to maintain the flow pathway. Bank erosion has also been recorded and protection measures may also be required to mitigate further loss. Modelling of the post-development scenario indicates that flood levels both up and downstream of the site would remain largely unchanged, with a 60mm increase to flood levels immediately upstream of the road during the 1 in 200 year plus climate change scenario and a slight reduction to the flood extent on land to the south and east. Proposed flow Page 23
Page 24
pathways will ensure the functionality of the floodplain storage is not compromised by the proposed road. 7.32 SEPA confirm that they are broadly in agreement with the assessment of flood risk and the proposed mitigation. The Council’s Roads Service in their capacity as local flood prevention authority note that the proposed location of the road is outwith the Coastal Flood Reach and the soffit dimensions of the new bridge over the Murroch Burn shows that it will not be classified as a restrictive structure which would increase fluvial flood risk. Accordingly, they offer no objections to the proposal. 7.33 Notwithstanding the above and the broad acceptance that the proposal does not increase flood risk, adversely impact upon flood plain storage or result in flooding of anything beyond an access road, SEPA highlight that Policy 22 of NPF4 promotes a precautionary approach to flooding by avoiding new development in areas at risk of flooding. This is defined as ‘land or built form with an annual probability of being flooded of greater than 0.5% which must include an appropriate allowance for future climate change’. The proposal involves a new road across an area of land that falls within the definition of a flood risk area described above. However, Policy 22 (a) does indicate development proposals in a flood risk area will be supported if they are for essential infrastructure where the location is required for operational reasons. SEPA advise that the Planning Authority are best placed to determine the acceptability of the proposals in accordance with the overall policy framework in NPF4. Therefore, if the Council is satisfied the requirements have been met, then they can offer no objection to this planning application on the grounds of flood risk. However, if it is determined the requirements are not met and the proposal does not meet the exceptions defined in Policy 22, then based on the site specifics SEPA’s position should be considered as an objection relating to the access road through the flood risk area. 7.34 The applicant highlights that only a small part of the application proposals are potentially impacted by flooding and that the road is necessary to secure site specific health and safety benefits and qualifies as essential infrastructure required for operational reasons, as defined in NPF4. The applicant further highlights that this qualification is due to the road being a transport proposal which supports and facilitates the delivery of business and industrial development that is identified in and supported by allocations in the local plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. The applicant contends that this establishes that the proposal falls within the scope of the first of the set of tests set by Policy 22 in that the proposed road is ‘essential infrastructure where the location is required for operational reasons’. In considering the applicant’s position, it is important to note that essential infrastructure is clearly defined in NPF4. For transport proposals to fall under this definition, they require to be identified in the local development Page 24
Page 25
plan. Whilst the applicant is correct that the access road is associated with developing a business and industrial allocation within the adopted local plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2, it is in itself not a transport proposal identified in the Plans. It also extends across an area of green belt. Accordingly, the proposal is not essential infrastructure as defined by NPF4 and not supported by part (a) of Policy 22 of NPF4. Notwithstanding this, all risks of flooding are understood and addressed, there is no reduction in floodplain capacity or increased flood risk, and the development will remain safe and operational during flood events with alternative accesses. No new buildings will be constructed that are at risk of flooding. The proposal also seeks to manage surface water through sustainable drainage systems. Therefore, despite being in conflict with Policy 22 (a) of NPF4, there is nothing that suggests that overall an unacceptable risk of flooding occurs and the proposal compromises the overall precautionary approach of NPF4 is compromised. Owing to the development encroaching into an area identified as being at risk of flooding on the site the development is not supported by Policies F1 and F3 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy ENV6 of the proposed Local Development Plan. 7.35 Despite the position set out above, as the proposal is not essential infrastructure as defined by NPF4 and not supported by part (a) of Policy 22 of NPF4, the response from SEPA must be treated as an objection. Therefore, if the Council considered that on balance, material considerations were such that the application should be approved contrary to Policy 22 of NPF4, the objection from SEPA would require the Council to notify the Scottish Ministers before planning permission could be granted. Impact on recreation, open space and the core path network 7.36 The development will not result in the loss of open space that has been laid out with the purpose of providing amenity, an area of public access or an area for countryside recreation. There is also no impact on any areas of open space specifically identified on the Proposals Maps of the adopted local plan or proposed local development plan. Consequently, it is not considered that the proposal will adversely impact on open space or countryside recreation or the sustainable access to such. 7.37 The proposal does impact on the local footpath network with a core path located to the south of the site. This runs from Stirling Road towards the banks of the Leven where it continues in a generally southerly direction. A localised section of this core path will be affected by the development with the route diverted to allow it to cross the new access road before continuing towards Stirling Road. Overall, the impact on the wider core path will be not be significant. The diversion proposed is considered to be appropriate and the impact on users of the core path will be minimal. The diversion of the core path can be addressed via the relevant provisions in the Planning Legislation following the grant of any planning permission. Page 25
Page 26
Impact on built and cultural heritage 7.38 One listed building lies within approximately 40 metres of the application site. The Category B “Entrance to Vale of Leven Industrial Estate” which comprises a classical portico with 4 fluted ionic columns on a podium of steps is to the east of the northern part of the application site adjacent of the Lionsgate roundabout. Despite the proximity to the site, the industrial nature of the adjacent area is already an established part of its setting and the development proposal is not considered to impact on the setting of the listed building. 7.39 Turning to archaeology, the applicant has submitted an archaeological evaluation in support of the proposal and this was informed by a programme of trial trenching, with five trenches excavated to investigate the survival of physical remains relating to the site of a farmstead named Gateside which is shown as being within the development area on various historic maps. No structural remains were identified although possible demolition material was noted. A shred of post medieval glazed pottery was recovered along with shreds dating from late 19th or early 20th century. The West of Scotland Archaeological Service advises that although the trenches did not identify any surviving features or artefacts, archaeological monitoring during the ground works as suggested by the applicant’s report should be implemented. A condition is advised in this respect and this can be attached if planning permission is granted. Other technical matters and those raised in the consultation responses 7.40 The Council’s Environmental Health Service offers no objections to the proposal with conditions recommended in respect of the possibility of encountering unexpected contamination and the importation and reuse of soils. No concerns are raised in respect of the possibility for the development to adversely impact on residential amenity. A condition is, however, recommended in respect of the hours of construction to ensure no unacceptable disturbance occurs at unsocial hours. 7.41 The site is within an identified zone where a consultation is required with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and they do not advise against the grant of planning permission for this proposal nor is any further consultation identified as being required. Scottish Water and Scottish Power Energy Networks offer no impediment to the proposal although both consultees identify that they have infrastructure in the area. 7.42 Finally, whilst the land has been used for agriculture previously, Scotland’s Soils map classifies the lands as Class 4.2, which is not “prime” agricultural land and does not include any peatland habitat or carbon rich soils. Page 26
Page 27
Pre-application consultation 7. 43 The application was subject to statutory Pre-Application Consultation, and a public consultation event was held in Strathleven House on 19th July 2022. Attendance at the public meeting was limited. Separate meetings were held with Bonhill and Dalmonach Community Council and Strathleven Regeneration C.I.C. Assurances were offered to the Community Council on the retention of the core path as part of the proposals and the proposed route of the access road was adjusted in collaboration with Strathleven Regeneration C.I.C. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 The applicant is an important local employer in a strategically important industrial sector. NPF4 recognises the importance of the whisky industry as part of the food and drink sector and the significant contribution this brings to the economy. The Kilmalid site is also within a Strategic Industrial and Business Location where employment development is encouraged. The site has undergone significant recent investment and the current proposal continues this investment which supports employment at the site which in turn provides significant economic benefit for the Dumbarton and wider area. Overall, this is supported. The application proposal is designed to address a variety of operational issues within the existing site including alleviating existing congestion and associated road safety concerns, segregating HGVs and other traffic, and addressing parking capacity and existing overspill parking. 8.2 Policy 26 of NPF4 supports development proposals for business and industrial uses on sites allocated within the Local Development Plan. The majority of the site is within an area specifically designated for Business and Industrial use, and reserved for expansion of the operations at the plant. As noted above, whilst the proposal does not result in an increase in business and industrial floorspace related to Use Classes 4, 5 or 6 as per the development plan allocation, it is clear from the applicant’s supporting documents that the development is intrinsically linked to the operation of the existing plant and on completion will become part of a wider industrial site. Part of the site does, however, extend into the Green Belt and the development proposal is not specifically identified in Policy 8 of NPF4 as one which is supported in the Green Belt. It is considered, however, that the applicant has demonstrated a locational requirement to support an important local employer and it is considered that the aims, function and integrity of the Green Belt will not be undermined by the development proposal. 8.3 It is acknowledged that a section of the access road is located on an area which is identified as being at risk of flooding. In assessing the proposal, all Page 27
Page 28
risks of flooding are understood and addressed, there is no reduction in floodplain capacity or increased flood risk, and the development will remain safe and operational during flood events with alternative accesses. No new buildings will be constructed that are at risk of flooding. The proposal also seeks to manage surface water through SuDS. However, in policy terms the proposal is not supported by Policy 22 (a) of NPF4 as it is in a flood risk area. 8.4 In further assessing the application proposal with reference to landscape, visual impact and design, impact on trees and hedgerows, impact on ecology and biodiversity inclusive of achieving a biodiversity gain, traffic and road safety, sustainable transport, impact on open space and recreation, and impact on built and cultural heritage, all have been addressed and do not present any impediment to the granting of planning permission. With the exception of the response from SEPA, no concerns arise that cannot be addressed by appropriate condition. 8.5 Section 25 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As set out above, the proposal is considered to be contrary to aspects of both Policy 8 and Policy 22 of NPF4, relating to the encroachment to the Green Belt and flooding respectively. For the same reasons, the proposal is also contrary to Policies F1, F3 (flooding) and GB1 (Green Belt) of the adopted Local Plan together with Policies ENV6 (flooding) and GB1 of proposed Local Development Plan 2. Having fully assessed all material planning considerations, the benefits of further inward investment which supports an important local employer within a key industry, and addressing various operational issues that are identified at the site outweigh that the proposal is not one which is specifically supported by Policies 8 and 22 of NPF4. It is therefore concluded that the material considerations are such that this application can be supported and the departure from specific policy aspects of NPF4 is justified and planning permission supported. 8.6 It is the case, however, that due to the proposal being contrary to Policy 22 (a) of NPF4, and as SEPA set out in their consultation response, the response requires to be treated as an objection and referral would be required to the Scottish Ministers under The Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009., should the Committee be minded to grant planning permission. 9. CONDITIONS 1. Prior to the commencement of development on site, exact details, specifications and samples of all proposed hardsurfacing to be used 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 Page 28
Page 29
development shall be completed in strict accordance with the approved material details. 2. That prior to the commencement of works on site, final details of the proposed road bridge over the Murroch Burn, inclusive of design, external materials and samples of external materials 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. 3. The approved hard and soft landscaping and all associated approved planting details, inclusive of all new tree planting, shall be implemented within a timescale to be agreed prior to the commencement of works on site. 4. That any trees, shrubs or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged or become diseased within five years of completion of the landscaping shall be replaced within the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. 5. 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 commencement of works on site. Management and maintenance shall commence within a timescale agreed with the Planning Authority. 6. Notwithstanding the approved plans and condition 3 above, and prior to the commencement of works on site, a further submission which demonstrates an understanding on how the proposal enhances biodiversity beyond the current baseline including any adjustments to the approved landscaping proposals together with the implementation on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All measures shall then be implemented as approved. 7. All recommendations within the Phase 1 Habitat Survey dated 15th March 2022 shall be followed. This shall include all required further survey work identified as being required inclusive of Bats, Otter, Badger and nesting birds. All further survey work undertaken shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works on site and implemented as approved. 8. Notwithstanding condition 7 above, further survey shall be undertaken to identify any possible impact on the Sand Martin colony known to breed on the Murroch Burn near the A82 and the requirement for mitigation. The survey shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and any required mitigation identified implemented within an agreed timescale with the Planning Authority. . . 9. Notwithstanding condition 7 above and prior to the commencement of works on site, details of the incorporation of mammal ledges into the design of the new bridge over the Murroch Burn shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Works shall then proceed as approved. Page 29
Page 30
10. Notwithstanding condition 7 above, full details of how the enhancement proposals set out in the Habitat Survey will be implemented on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The implementation of these proposals shall then proceed as approved. 11. That prior to the commencement of works, on site tree protection measures for all trees to be retained both within or adjacent to the application site shall be erected in accordance with British Standards Recommendations for trees in Relation to Construction, currently BS 5837:2012, with evidence of this having been undertaken and not removed during the course of construction work. 12. That prior to the commencement of works on site, a full review of the Travel Plan for the site shall be undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, this review shall include setting out what targets of the Travel Plan agreed in connection with planning permission DC17/129 have been achieved, what targets have not been achieved and why they have not been achieved, and what further initiatives will be brought forward in the future to ensure the achievement of a meaningful switch away from the private car. Any agreed actions and measures shall be implemented at the same time as the site being brought into use. 13. Prior to the commencement of works on site, full details of the location and design of electric vehicle and electric cycle charging points/units and associated infrastructure and ducting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, this shall include how future required provision shall be accommodated. The approved charging points/units/ducting and associated infrastructure shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details and maintained at all times thereafter. 14. The development shall be drained in accordance with the details set out on the approved drainage drawings and the drainage arrangements, inclusive of SuDs, shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation and use of the development hereby permitted, otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. 15. 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. 16. 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. Page 30
Page 31
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 17. During the period of construction, all works and ancillary operations (including piling) 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 • Saturday: 0800-1300 • Sundays and public holidays: No working 18. No development shall take place within the development site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to, and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with the West of Scotland Archelogy Service. Thereafter, the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archology Service. 19. Notwithstanding the approved plans, details of the design and siting of all external lighting shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site and shall be implemented as approved. Pamela Clifford Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 14th June 2023 Person to Contact: Pamela Clifford, Planning & Building Standards Manager Email: Pamela.Clifford@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application forms and plans 2. National Planning Framework 4 3. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 4. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended Page 31
Page 32
5. Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance (Finalised 2022) 6. Consultation responses Wards affected: Ward 2 - Leven Page 32
Page 33
¯ Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (C) Crown copyright and database right 01/06/2023. All rights reserved. West Dunbartonshire OS Licence Number 100020790. Scale: 1:4,000@A401/06/2023 DC22/156/FULWest Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street Dumbarton G82 1QL Page 33