Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 2 June 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 2 June 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 26 May 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 2 JUNE 2025 at 11:30 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: LAND EAST OF TALIESIN WEST, GARELOCHHEAD (REF: 24/0008/LRB) (a) Protected Species Walkover Report (Pages 3 - 36) (b) Comment from Local Biodiversity Officer (Pages 37 - 38) (c) Further Information and comment Planning (Pages 39 - 48) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Andrew Kain Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 0154 604392 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Project: 24_PEA_10_92 - CJ Site: Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead, Helensburgh G84 0AU, UK Client: Lorne Thomson This Report is the copyright of Woodland Solutions Northern Limited t/a ROAVR Group. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Project Number: 24_PEA_10_92 - CJ Report Type: Site Walkover - Otters - Potential Roost Features Site Address: Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead, Helensburgh G84 0AU, UK Role: Name: Date: Client Lorne Thomson N/A Surveyor Connor S. Johnston 31/10/24 Consultant Connor S. Johnston Reviewer Revision History Date: Version number: Summary of changes: 31/10/24 1.0 First Draft 1.0 First Issue ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 4
Page 5
Summary: Site Surveyed Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead National Grid Reference: NS 23668 91235 Purpose & Brief Protected species and PRA commissioned by Lorne Tomson Development Proposals The proposed development involves the construction of a house on the western boundary of the site on a patch of grassland Methods Otter and GLTA (Ground Level Tree Assessment) walkover Confirmed Ecological Constraints None Potential Ecological Constraints Roosting bats Recommendations For Further Survey Works CEMP implementation, Pre works check for otter signs Opportunities For Ecological Enhancements Bat boxes Removal of Invasive Species ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 5
Page 6
Table of Contents Acknowledgements: Client Documents: 1 Introduction SITE DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS SCOPE OF WORKS 2 Methodology DESKTOP STUDY Otters PRELIMINARY BAT ROOST ASSESSMENT (PRA) SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS AND MITIGATION LIMITATIONS 3 Policy and Legislative Context POLICY AND LEGISLATION NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 4 Desktop Study HISTORICAL SPECIES RECORDS 5 Site Survey Results 6 Evaluation and Assessment 8 Conclusions ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS MITIGATION STRATEGIES SUMMARY 9 References and Bibliography 10 Limitations Appendix 1: Site Location and Assessment Boundary ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 6
Page 7
Acknowledgements: Data referred to within this report was sourced from the NBN Atlas. This resource is managed by the National Biodiversity Network and is designed to support environmental research, conservation, and decision-making. Client Documents: This report has been completed on the assumption that the plans provided by the client at the time of issue of this report remain the same. A list of the documents provided by the client can be found in the table below. Table: Documents provided by the client as of October 2024 Plans provided by the client as of 29/10/2024 2019_0057-03 1 Introduction 1.1 ROAVR Group were commissioned to undertake a Protected species walkover to determine the presence/absence of Potential Roost Features (PRF’s) and Otters at land near Glencairn Park, Garelochhead, Helensburgh G84 0AU, UK 1.2 The survey was comprised of a desktop study and site walkover 1.3 The methodology and results are outlined within the report where applicable. 1.4 The report is to be submitted to support a planning application to redevelop the site. 1.5 The information and recommendations within this report have been prepared and provided in accordance with CIEEM’s Code of Professional Conduct (CIEEM, 2022). ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 7
Page 8
SITE DESCRIPTION 1.6 The survey site covers an area of approximately 2.2 hectares and is centred on ‘NS 23668 91235’. 1.7 The site is situated in Garelochhead in the Argyll and Bute Council control area. The site is located on the West side of the town and is accessed via the B872 road. 1.8 The site is currently a mixture of broadleaved woodland, species-poor neutral grassland, areas of bare ground and patches of scrub and bracken with the McAulay burn running through the centre of the site. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 1.9 The site is planned for redevelopment, with a house proposed for construction in the western portion over the species-poor grassland. Future plans may include the development of a car park in the northern section of the site, currently comprising bare ground. SCOPE OF WORKS 1.10 The aims of this assessment were to: - Identify the likely ecological constraints associated with the proposed development concerning otters and potential roosting features used by bats - Identify suitable mitigation measures (if required); - Determine whether further surveys are necessary 2 Methodology DESKTOP STUDY 2.1 Site-specific information concerning protected species and protected habitats within a 2km search area was sourced from NBN Atlas. 2.2 To ensure that ecological data searches were up to date, species data were screened and all data records pre-2014 were omitted from the results. 2.3 The results of the desktop study should be considered to be indicative only. ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 8
Page 9
Otters 2.4 The site walkover followed the standing advice from NatureScot. The site was surveyed including a systematic search for spraints, paw prints, paths, slides, food remains, holts and places of shelter. 2.5 The survey was conducted on foot. Habitats and features of importance were mapped using a GPS-enabled handset. PRELIMINARY BAT ROOST ASSESSMENT (PRA) 2.7 A Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment, comprised of a preliminary ground level tree assessment (GLTA) undertaken by Connor Johnston during the site survey on 31/10/2024. The GLTA was undertaken in line with the Bat Conservation Trust’s ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Best Practice Guidelines’ (Collins, 2023) using non-invasive methods. 2.8 The survey included an active search for bats, evidence of bats (such as droppings, feeding remains, urine splatters, oil staining, bat fur and/or scratch marks) and potential roosting features (PRFs). PRFs of trees are listed in Table 2.8.1. PRFs of built structures are listed in Table 2.8.2. The lists are not exhaustive but show examples of the most commonly used roosting features of built structures and trees. Table 2.8.1: Potential roosting features (PRFs) in built structures listed in Bat Conservation Trust’s ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Best Practice Guidelines’ (Collins, 2023). Potential roosting features (PRFs) in built structures External Internal - Access/egress through windowsills, window panes and walls; - Behind peeling paintwork or lifted rendering; - Behind hanging tiles; - Weatherboarding; - Eaves; - Soffit boxes; - Fascias; - Lead flashing; - Gaps under felt (even including those of flats roofs); - Under tiles/slates; - Existing bat boxes; - Gaps in brickwork or stonework which provide access/egress to cavity or rubble-filled walls - Behind wooden panelling; - In lintels above doors and windows; - Behind window shutters and curtains; - Behind pictures, posters, furniture, peeling paintwork, peeling wallpaper, lifted plaster and boarded windows; - Inside cupboards and in chimneys accessible from fireplaces; - Within attic roof voids; - The top of gable end or dividing walls; - The top of chimney breasts; - Ridge and hip beams and other roof beams; - Mortise and tenon joints; - All beams; - The junction of roof timbers, especially where ridge and hip beams meet; - Behind purlins; - Between tiles and the roof lining; - Under flat felt roofs ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 9
Page 10
Table 2.8.2: Potential roosting features (PRFs) in trees listed in Bat Conservation Trust’s ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Best Practice Guidelines’ (Collins, 2023) Table 6.6. Table 2.8.2. PRF types that can be exploited by bats and how they form (adapted from Bat Roosts in Trees, BTHK, 2018) reproduced from Table 6.6. (Collins, 2023.) PRFs formed by disease and decay PRFs formed by damage PRFs formed by association ● Woodpecker holes ● Squirrel holes ● Knot holes ● Pruning cuts ● Tear outs ● Wounds ● Cankers ● Compression forks ● Butt rots ● Lighting strikes ● Hazard beams ● Subsidence ● Cracks ● Shearing cracks ● Transverse snaps ● Welds ● Lifting bark ● Desiccation ● Fissures ● Frost cracks ● Fluting ● Ivy Table 2.8.3. Guidelines for assessing the suitability of trees on proposed development sites for bats, to be applied using professional judgement. Reproduced from Table 6.6. (Collins, 2023.) Suitability Description NONE Either no PRFs in the tree or highly unlikely to be any FAR Further assessment required to establish if PRFs are present in the tree PRF A tree with at least one PRF present 2.9 A Site Map was produced to show the location of built structures, trees and potential roosting features (PRFs) (Appendix 1 figure A1.1). ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 10
Page 11
SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 2.10 The likelihood of occurrence of protected ecological features and species was ranked following the criteria listed in Tables 2.10.1 and 2.10.2. Likelihood of occurrence was assessed using data collected during the desk study and after evaluation of the habitats on-site (during the site survey) as to their likelihood to provide suitability for protected species (i.e. presence of breeding, nesting, roosting, foraging, commuting and/or refuge habitat for example). Table 2.10.1: Criteria used to assess the likelihood of occurrence for protected ecological features and species on-site (excl. bats). Likelihood of occurrence Criteria Present Confirmed as present during the site survey or by confirmed historical records. High Species are known to be present within proximity to the site (records present). Habitats on-site are of high quality for the species and/or likely to support a large population. The site is well connected to good quality habitat within the local area. Moderate Species are known to be present within the local area (records present). Habitats on-site are of moderate quality for the species and/or likely to support a moderate population. The site and connected habitats provide all of the ecological requirements of the species. Suitability of habitats on-site may be limited due to disconnectivity to the wider landscape, poor to moderate habitat available within the wider locality, and/or due to the presence of only a small area of suitable habitat. Low Few or no records of the species within the local area. Habitats on-site are of poor quality for the species and/or likely to support just a few individuals. The suitability of habitats may be limited due to disturbance, isolation and/or poor quality habitat available within the wider locality. However, species presence cannot be discounted due to the national distribution of the species or the nature of on- site and surrounding habitats (if all required ecological requirements for the species are present). Negligible While presence cannot be absolutely discounted, the site includes very limited or poor quality habitat for a particular species. Connected habitats do not fulfil the ecological requirements of the species. There are no local records and/or the site is outside the known national range of the species. ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 11
Page 12
Table 2.10.2: Criteria used to assess the likelihood of occurrence (site’s suitability) for bats, from Bat Conservation Trust’s ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Best Practice Guidelines’ (Collins, 2016). Suitability Criteria Roosting bats Foraging / Commuting bats Negligible Negligible habitat features on-site likely to be used by roosting bats. Negligible habitat features on-site likely to be used by commuting or foraging bats. Low A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bats opportunistically. However, these potential roost sites do not provide enough space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions and/or suitable surrounding habitat to be used regularly or by larger numbers of bats (i.e. unlikely to be suitable for maternity or hibernation). A tree of sufficient size and age to contain PRFs but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential. Habitat that could be used by small numbers of commuting bats but isolated ( i.e. not very well connected to the surrounding landscape by other habitat). Suitable, but isolated habitat that could be used by small numbers of bats for foraging. Moderate A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions and/or suitable surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (with respect to roost type only - with respect to roost type only). Continuous habitat connected to the wider landscape that could be used by bats for commuting. Habitat that is connected to the wider landscape that could be used for bats for foraging. High A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitats. Continuous, high-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by commuting bats. High-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by foraging bats. Site is close to and connected to known roosts. ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS AND MITIGATION 2.11 An evaluation of the potential ecological constraints to the proposed development and appropriate mitigation strategies was made following CIEEM’s ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 12
Page 13
(CIEEM, 2018). LIMITATIONS 2.12 Only one site visit was undertaken, therefore, a full evaluation of species present throughout the year could not be made. Furthermore, the site survey was undertaken in October. Therefore, there were seasonal constraints to species identification. However, the data collected during the site survey was sufficient to make an appropriate assessment of the site. 3 Policy and Legislative Context 3.1 This section includes the legislative context of those protected species or other notable species that are recorded on-site or have the potential to be present on-site. Details on specific legislation for other protected or notable species that have not been identified as being present, or having the potential to be present, are not included below. POLICY AND LEGISLATION 3.11 All UK bat species and their roosts are strictly protected under European and UK legislation (Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (CHSR), and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, (1981) (WCA). Furthermore, Annexe II of the Habitats Directive lists four UK bat species, providing them further protection. Under the National Planning Framework, bats and their roots must be considered during development. 3.12 Non-licensed bat workers are permitted to carry out preliminary roost assessments providing that they do not enter a known roost site or use invasive survey techniques such as endoscopes or artificial light. Survey constraints are discussed later in this report. 3.13 Otters are a European Protected Species and are fully protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended. Numerous offences are published concerning otters and it is an offence to deliberately or recklessly: ● capture, injure or kill an otter ● harass an otter or group of otters ● disturb an otter in a holt or any other structure or place it uses for shelter or protection ● disturb an otter while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its young ● obstruct access to a holt or other structure or place otters use for shelter or protection, or otherwise deny the animal use of that place ● disturb an otter in a manner or in circumstances likely to significantly affect ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 13
Page 14
the local distribution or abundance of the species ● disturb an otter in a manner or in circumstances likely to impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or otherwise care for its young It is also an offence to: ● damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal (whether or not deliberately or recklessly) ● keep, transport, sell or exchange, or offer for sale or exchange any wild otter (or any part or derivative of one) obtained after 10 June 1994 Otter shelters are legally protected whether or not an otter is present. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY 3.2 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF), introduced in February 2023 sets out the Government’s planning policies for Scotland and how these are expected to be applied in the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Scotland’s planning system and development have an important contribution to make towards addressing the global biodiversity crisis. This is reflected in the Fourth National Planning Framework (NPF4), which sets out new requirements for development to deliver positive effects, primarily under Policy 3. This states that all development will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant restoring degraded habitats. Proposals for local development will include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity in accordance with national and local guidance. 3.3 The Government's objectives for planning are to promote sustainable development, to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of Scotland’s wildlife and geology and to contribute to rural renewal and urban renaissance. ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 14
Page 15
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.4 This report has been commissioned to comply with local policy. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION 3.6 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1982) 3.7 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1983) 3.9 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949) 3.10 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) 3.11 Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and by Section 11 (Schedule 6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland) 3.12 The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 3.13 The Habitats Regulations (Scotland) 2017 3.14 The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 3.15 The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (2004) 3.16 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) 3.17 The Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1975) 3.18 The Hedgerows Regulations (1997) 3.19 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (1994) 3.20 Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) 3.21 Wild Mammals (Protection) Act (1996) ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 15
Page 16
4 Desktop Study HISTORICAL SPECIES RECORDS 4.4 Protected species records relating to the site and 2km search area were obtained from the NBN ATLAS as part of the desktop study. 4.5 A full list of identified species recorded within the 2km search area can be requested from LERC. 4.6 ● There were no records of otters (Lutra lutra) within 2km of the site. ● There were two records for Soprano Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) and one record of Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 16
Page 17
5 Site Survey Results 5.1 The site survey was undertaken by Connor Johnston on the 31st October 2024. The weather conditions were considered to be appropriate for the survey (Table 5.1.1). Table 5.1.1: Weather conditions at the time of the survey. Date of site survey: 31/10/2024 Temperature 12 degrees celsius Wind 16kmh Precipitation 10% *Data from Met Office. ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 17
Page 18
5.2 Potential Roost Features External Feature of value to bats Notes Photo Rocky Crevice PRF 1 Night or transitional roost (low) This large crevice approximately 20cm long and 15cm tall on the underside of the bridge offers a sheltered, stable environment that is well-protected from weather and predators. Its height above the burn (1.5M) and structural depth make it potentially suitable for bats as a transitional or night roost, especially for resting between feeding activities. Located at NS 23609 91131 facing East ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 18
Page 19
Oak Tree PRF 2 Night or transitional roost (low) This feature is a longitudinal cavity approximately 30cm long and of undetermined depth in a moss-covered branch of an oak tree. Its location, natural cover, and potential internal space provide suitable conditions for individual bats as potential temporary roost, particularly for species that favour branch cavities in trees for shelter and protection. Located at NS 23585 91149 facing Southwest at a 3m elevation ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 19
Page 20
Oak Tree PRF 3 Night or transitional roost (low) This feature is a narrow cavity of undetermined depth approximately 20cm long and 5cm wide in the moss-covered trunk of an oak tree, located near a branch junction. It offers suitable conditions for individual bats or small groups as a potential temporary roost, particularly for species that favour trunk cavities in trees for shelter and protection Located at NS 23679 91210 facing West at an elevation of 4m ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 20
Page 21
Oak Tree PRF 4 Night, transitional or daytime roost potential (Moderate) The longitudinal split in the oak tree trunk, measuring approximately 2 metres in length and 10 centimetres in width, is a significant potential roost feature. Such splits, especially when they penetrate deeply into the trunk, offer sheltered environments that can serve as day, night, or transitional roosts for various bat species. The size of this split enhances its suitability, providing ample space and protection. Over time, as the split potentially widens due to natural processes, its value as a roosting site may increase, offering even more favourable conditions for bats Located at NS 23670 91253 facing West at an elevation of 4m ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 21
Page 22
Oak Tree PRF 5 Night, transitional or daytime roost potential (Moderate) This natural cavity approximately 15x15cm in an overhanging branch provides a sheltered and stable environment, making it suitable for use by individual bats or small groups as a day or night roost. Its internal space offers protection from outside elements, and the accessible entrance enhances its potential for roosting, particularly for species that favour tree cavities for shelter. There is evidence that this branch has been used as a rope swing historically which would have periodically caused disturbance for any roosting bats. Located at NS 23755 91216 at an elevation of 5m ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 22
Page 23
Oak Tree PRF 6 Night, transitional or daytime roost potential (Moderate) This natural cavity in a moss-covered branch surrounded by holly provides a sheltered and secure environment, offering potential as a day or night roost for individual bats or small groups. Its positioning and entrance size make it accessible while providing sufficient protection from weather and predators, making it suitable for species that utilise tree cavities for roosting. Located at NS 23735 91202 at an elevation of 3m facing West ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 23
Page 24
Ivy covered tree PRF 7 Transitional or night roost potential (low) This tree, heavily overgrown with mature ivy, features multiple sheltered cavities formed by the woody growth of the ivy. The dense ivy cover, including both woody stems and foliage, provides adequate protection for individual bats and creates a stable microclimate. The presence of several small cavities offers the potential to host multiple bats, making it a suitable environment for roosting. Located at NS 23726 91194 at an elevation of 4m with small cavities in all directions ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 24
Page 25
6 Evaluation and Assessment 6.1 Results from the desktop study and site survey were evaluated to assess the likelihood of occurrence for Otters and Bat potential (as per Tables 2.10.1 and 2.10.2). An evaluation of the potential impacts due to the proposed development and recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures are provided in Table 6.1.1 below: ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 25
Page 26
Table 6.1.1: Likelihood of occurrence of protected ecological features and species on-site, potential impacts due to the proposed development and recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures. Protected feature / species Likelihood of occurrence / suitability Comments / Justification Impact due to Proposed Development Required Mitigation Measures Bats (Chiroptera) Roosting bats Moderate There were historical records of Common and Soprano within 2km of the site. The site overall has good connectivity, and the habitat has a moderate likelihood of roosting bats The walkover determined that several natural and manmade features were suitable for roosting bats. The proposed development involves the construction of a house on neutral grassland and will not destroy any PRFs on site. The proposed development is likely to result in disturbance to suitable roosting habitats at PRF 4 and PRF 3 as they are within the area of work. The implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) could be implemented to minimise disturbance to potential bat roosts. This would involve a licensed bat ecologist conducting a pre-works inspection immediately before work begins to confirm the absence of bats, with all works carried out under their supervision. Low-impact methods, such as using hand tools near potential roost features, would reduce disturbance, and work would be scheduled to avoid sensitive times, recognising that the roosts are unlikely to be used for hibernation ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 26
Page 27
Protected feature / species Likelihood of occurrence / suitability Comments / Justification Impact due to Proposed Development Required Mitigation Measures Foraging/Commuting bats High The woodland and grassland on site are considered to be part of a mosaic of suitable foraging/commuting habitats. Mitigation measures must be put in place to ensure that disturbance does not increase during and/or post-development. The proposed development may result in the loss of suitable foraging/commuting habitats if suitable mitigation strategies are not put in place. Construction works should be limited to daylight hours (excl. dawn and dusk) to prevent disturbance to nighttime foraging activity. Post-construction, the use of artificial lighting should be limited where possible. Motion sensors on outside lighting will prevent prolonged disturbance. It is recommended that outside lighting be set on short-timers (1 minute) and that the sensitivity be set to large moving objects only. Other terrestrial mammals (excl. bats). Otters (Lutra lutra) Low There are no known records of Otters within 2km of the site since 1991. There was suitable habitat in the nearby watercourse but no field signs were identified at the time of the survey None. No specific mitigation is required at this time; however, as the species are transient, pre-works checks should be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist to ensure no animals are present along the watercourse at the time of works being carried out. ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 27
Page 28
Protected feature / species Likelihood of occurrence / suitability Comments / Justification Impact due to Proposed Development Required Mitigation Measures Common and widespread mammals Rabbits Confirmed. There was evidence of Rabbits on-site in the form of droppings. The proposed development will not result in a substantial loss that will impact upon local populations long-term. Mitigation measures must be put in place to minimise disturbance during the construction phase. Any necessary excavation of animal burrows should be done carefully to avoid unnecessary suffering (such as crushing or asphyxiation). Construction works should be limited to daylight hours to prevent disturbance to nighttime foraging activity. Any trenches or other excavations left open overnight should either be well covered or provided with an escape ramp (comprised of a sloped side or wooden plank reaching up to ground level or slightly above), to allow any wildlife that falls to escape. Any newly built boundary features should incorporate ‘wildlife gaps’ (comprised of a 13x13cm gap at the base of the feature), to allow widllfie to pass through. ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 28
Page 29
Protected feature / species Likelihood of occurrence / suitability Comments / Justification Impact due to Proposed Development Required Mitigation Measures Invasive plant species Confirmed Multiple invasive species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), including Rhododendron and Japanese Knotweed, were identified during the survey. Invasive plant species have the potential to impact protected species and habitats It is recommended to consult an expert in invasive species management to ensure proper and effective removal. Professionals can assess the site-specific conditions and recommend the most appropriate removal methods, such as mechanical cutting combined with herbicide application or other techniques suitable for the habitat ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 29
Page 30
. 8 Conclusions 8.1 The site at Land at Glencairn Park, Garelochhead is proposed to be redeveloped with the construction of a house along the western boundary of the site on a patch of grassland. 8.2 The site has moderate potential for roosting bats, supported by historical records of Common and Soprano Pipistrelles within 2 km of the area. The site features good connectivity and suitable habitats, with several natural and manmade features identified as potential roosting features (PRFs). Although the proposed development will not directly destroy any PRFs, construction activities are likely to disturb roosting habitats at PRF 3 and PRF 4, which fall within the works area. To mitigate this, it is recommended to implement a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This plan should include: ● A pre-works inspection by a licensed bat ecologist to confirm the absence of bats immediately before construction begins. ● Supervising all works near potential roost features under the guidance of the bat ecologist. ● Using low-impact methods, such as hand tools near PRFs, to reduce disturbance. ● Scheduling work to avoid sensitive periods, as the roosts are unlikely to be used for hibernation. 8.3 The site includes woodland and grassland, forming part of a mosaic of habitats highly suitable for foraging and commuting bats. To prevent adverse impacts on these habitats: ● Construction should be limited to daylight hours, avoiding dawn and dusk, to minimize disturbance to nighttime foraging activity. ● Post-construction, artificial lighting should be minimized, with outside lights set on short timers (e.g., one minute) and equipped with motion sensors sensitive only to large objects. 8.4 No evidence of otters was found during the survey, and there are no recent records within 2 km of the site. Despite suitable habitat in a nearby burn, no mitigation is required for this species at this time. However, pre works checks are recommended due to the suitability of nearby habitat 8.5 No incidental evidence of protected species was found on site apart from rabbit droppings. The proposed development is unlikely to significantly impact local populations long-term. However, the following mitigation measures are recommended: ● Excavations of animal burrows should be carried out with care to avoid harm, such as crushing or asphyxiation. ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 30
Page 31
● Construction should be limited to daylight hours to avoid disturbing nighttime foraging activity. ● Trenches or other excavations left open overnight should be covered or fitted with escape ramps (e.g., a sloped side or wooden plank). ● Any newly constructed boundary features should include wildlife gaps (13x13 cm) to allow wildlife movement. ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS 8.3 Development proposals must have regard for protected species identified as potentially occurring on, or near to, the site. Mitigation measures to protect these species have been produced within this report to ensure that the proposed works comply with relevant UK legislation. 8.6 Further mitigation measures have been outlined within the report to ensure that protected species are not impacted by the development. Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) supervision will be required throughout the construction phase to ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented appropriately. MITIGATION STRATEGIES 8.7 No further surveys should be required, however a CEMP should be implemented to ensure necessary precautions are taken. 8.9 A tool box talk should be given to all relevant personal by a suitable qualified ecologist before any works commence on-site to outline ecological constraints and the required mitigation measures. 8.10 The grassland should be retained at a short sward prior to any demolition/construction works commencing on-site in order to ensure that the habitat does not become more favourable to amphibians and/or reptiles. 8.12 Tree works (if required) should take place outside the breeding season (typically March-October) or once a suitability-qualified ecologist has inspected the trees for breeding birds and confirmed that there are no active nests. 8.13 Construction works should be limited to daylight hours (excl. dawn and dusk) to prevent disturbance to nighttime foraging activity. 8.14 Vegetation removal must be undertaken using hand tools. Cut vegetative materials should be checked and removed from the site immediately. 8.15 Any trenches or other excavations left open overnight should be well covered to deter Badgers from entering. If this is not possible, any trenches or other excavations left open overnight should either be ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 31
Page 32
provided with an escape ramp (comprised of a sloped side or wooden plank reaching up to ground level or slightly above), to allow any wildlife that falls in to escape. 8.16 Any necessary excavation of animal burrows should be done carefully to avoid unnecessary suffering (such as crushing or asphyxiation). 8.17 During hibernation season (October to March), piles of leaf litter and logs should be retained to ensure hibernating hedgehogs are not harmed. If removal is unavoidable, the piles must be carefully checked before burning. 8.18 Post-construction, the use of artificial lighting should be limited where possible. Motion sensors on outside lighting will prevent prolonged disturbance. It is recommended that outside lighting be set on short-timers (1 minute) and that the sensitivity is set to large moving objects only. 8.19 Any newly built boundary features should incorporate ‘wildlife gaps’ (comprising a 13x13cm gap at the base of the feature), to allow wildlife to pass through. SUMMARY 8.20 Subject to the completion of a CEMP to ensure suitable mitigation measures are implemented, the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant ecological impact on otter and bat species in the area. ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 32
Page 33
9 References and Bibliography 1. ARG UK. (2010). Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. ARG UK, UK. 2. CIEEM. (2017). Guide to Ecological Surveys and Their Purpose. CIEEM, Winchester. 3. CIEEM. (2017). Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. CIEEM, Winchester. 4. CIEEM. (2019). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal, Marine. CIEEM, Winchester. 5. CIEEM. (2021). Biodiversity Net Gain Report & Audit Templates. CIEEM, Winchester. 6. CIEEM. (2022). Code of Professional Conduct. CIEEM, Winchester. 7. CIRIA, CIEEM & IEMA. (2016). Biodiversity Net Gain. Good practice principles for development. CIEEM, Winchester. 8. CIRIA, CIEEM & IEMA. (2019). Biodiversity Net Gain. Good practice principles for development: A practical guide. CIEEM, Winchester. 9. J. Collins. (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition. The Bat Conservation Trust, London 10. DEFRA. (2022). DEFRA MAGIC. https://magic.defra.gov.uk. 11. English Nature. (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, UK. 12. Gunnell, K., Grant, G. & Williams, C. (2012). Landscape and Urban Design for Bats and Biodiversity. Bat Conservation Trust, London. 13. The UK Habitat Classification Manual (Butcher et al., 2020). 14. Langton, T., Beckett, C. & Foster, J. (2001). Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook. Froglife, Suffolk. 15. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/. 16. Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. 17. Mitchell-Jone, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. (2004). Bat Workers Manual 3rd Edition. JNCC, UK. 18. Scottish Badgers. (2018). Surveying for Badgers Good Practice Guidelines Version 1. Scottish Badgers, Scotland. 19. Reason, P.F. and Wray, S. (2023). UK Bat Mitigation Guidelines: a guide to impact assessment, mitigation and compensation for developments affecting bats. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Ampfield. ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 33
Page 34
10 Limitations 10.1 ROAVR Group has prepared this Report for the sole use of the above named Client/Agent in accordance with our terms of business, under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by us. 10.2 This Report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of ROAVR Group. The assessments made assume that the land use will continue for its current purpose without significant change. ROAVR Group has not independently verified information obtained from third parties. 10.3 This report, data tables and raw data remain the copyright of ROAVR until such time as any monies owed are settled in full and the report may be withdrawn at any time. 10.4 The ultimate decision to do/not do any work on any structure/tree/feature and any legal consequences of any action taken/not taken lies solely with yourselves and/or your employees/subcontractors. ROAVR Group accepts no liability or responsibility in any way for any actions taken/not taken by you and/or your employees and/or any other person/organisation engaged in carrying out/not carrying out any of the proposed work. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time. Prepared by: Connor Johnston Checked by: Aiden Berg ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 34
Page 35
Appendix 1: Site Location and Assessment Boundary Figure A1.1 Site location (Purple) Survey Boundary (Red) ROAVR Group all rights reserved. Page 35
Page 36
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 37
Classification: OFFICIAL Notice of Request for Review - Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead (Ref: 24/0008/LRB and 20/01822/PPP) Please find below my response to the Protected Species Walkover Report. European Protected Species Otter (Lutra lutra) • No evidence recorded on site Comment: I agree that pre-works checks should be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist immediately prior to works commencing. Bats (varying species) • 4 Potential Bat Roosting Features (PRF) of Low suitability were recorded on site • 3 Potential Bat Roosting Features (PRF) of Moderate suitability were recorded on site • No PRF’s are to be destroyed by the proposed development • 2 PRF’s (one with low suitability and one with moderate suitability) are likely to result in disturbance from the proposed development • The site offers High suitability for foraging / commuting bats Comment: I agree with the findings and find that the development would not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range but the potential roots should be protected where possible. The trees identified as having PRF should not be removed and should be protected during the construction period. Also the proposed mitigation measures within the report should be following and secured by condition and a condition should ensure a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is provided at the next application stage (AMSC). This should include details of mitigation measures necessary to avoid disturbance to any potential roosting and / or foraging / commuting bats including the retention of the trees with PRF. Recommendations: The following should be covered by conditions that shall be discharged at the next application stage (AMSC): • Prior to commencement of development a CEMP shall be submitted to and approved by the local authority. The CEMP shall include the appropriate mitigation measures as recommended within the Protected Species Walkover Report, namely: - A pre-works inspection by a licensed bat ecologist to confirm the absence of bats immediately before construction begins. - Supervision of all works near potential roost features under the guidance of the bat ecologist. - The use of low-impact methods of construction, such as hand tools near PRFs, to reduce disturbance. Page 37 Agenda Item 3b
Page 38
Classification: OFFICIAL - Scheduling of work within non-sensitive periods in relation to bats (late November until March). • Prior to commencement of development a tree survey shall be submitted to the local authority. This survey should identify any trees to be felled, all trees to be retained and include the retention of all trees with potential bat roost features. A Tree Protection Plan shall also be submitted to ensure the all retained trees and their root systems are protected throughout construction. • Prior to commencement of development an updated Landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by the local authority. This plan should include; - each tree retained and proposed to be planted; including species location and age of each tree, timings of planting and programme of ongoing monitoring and management. - Proposed biodiversity enhancement measures to include location and purpose (bat / bird / red squirrel box, retention of log piles etc.). - Location and species of woodland meadow mix, timings of planting and programme of ongoing monitoring and management. - Location and species of bee, bird and butterfly meadow mix, timings of planting and programme of ongoing monitoring and management. - Location and species of hedging mix, timings of planting and programme of ongoing monitoring and management. It is noted that the applicant should pay regard to the ‘Developing with Nature’ guidance on the NatureScot website https://www.nature.scot/doc/developing- nature-guidance#planting-for-nature • Throughout the construction period it is required that the applicant appoints an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) for the duration of the works. The ECoW shall carry out pre-works surveys, Toolbox Talks and ensure implementation of the required mitigation measures. • Throughout the construction period the applicant is required to consult with an appropriate expert on the removal of the Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) on site to ensure it is removed appropriately and with minimal impact on the surrounding environment. Helen McCallin BSc (Hons), MSc Local Biodiversity Project Officer Argyll & Bute Council Page 38
Page 39
Classification: OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF SINGLE DWELLINGHOUSE AT LAND WEST OF MCAULAY BURN, GARELOCHHEAD PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 20/01822/PP LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 24/0008/LRB 20th JANUARY 2025 Page 39 Agenda Item 3c
Page 40
Classification: OFFICIAL INFORMATION REQUIRED The following request has been made: • In circulating the Protected Species Walkover Report, the LRB have afforded you [the planning authority] the opportunity to review and provide comment on the report and to review the conditions and reasons that may be attached to any approval of the application no later than 20 January 2025. • The LRB have also requested that the relevant planning obligation (either an agreement with the planning authority or a unilateral obligation by the appellant under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 or some suitable alternative arrangement as may be agreed by the parties) to be completed and registered or recorded, as the case may be, and submitted only to the LRB (localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk) as soon as its recorded/registered or at the latest by 2 May 2025, being the end of the 26-week period. On the 6th January we received the comments from the Biodiversity Officer in relation to the Protected Species walkover survey and their recommendation for the amended conditions. The planning authority have reviewed the planning conditions and have set these out in the first section of this document. The conditions have incorporated the comments from the Biodiversity officer and the comments from SEPA made on 24th October in relation to the draft conditions. These are now a final set of conditions. In relation to the second request, we are working with the applicant to finalise either a planning obligation (Section 75 agreement) with the planning authority or a unilateral obligation by the appellant under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. In the absence of any further instruction from the LRB we are working to the recommended heads of terms provided in the previous further information request. The heads of terms seek to ensure the woodland, paths, memorial and any other works are retained, enhanced and maintained in perpetuity in the interest of amenity and to safeguard this Open Space Protection Area in the long term. Recommended heads of term: o Prior to start of any commencement of works on site, a site management plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority for the application site including the woodland and open areas, memorial and proposed new footpaths. o The site management plan must include management of any Invasive Non-Native Species, in particular Japanese Knotweed and enhancement of any habitats/species as identified in ecological and tree surveys (to be undertaken) of the site. o Details of what shall be included in the site management plan including a detailed action plan and timings for works and long-term maintenance of the footpaths. o Details of how frequently this site management plan shall be reviewed and updated (timescales) in agreement with the planning authority. o Details of how this site management plan will be implemented and reviewed in perpetuity. Page 40
Page 41
Classification: OFFICIAL Revised Draft Conditions Draft conditions and reasons to attach to the permission in the event that Members of the LRB are minded to approve the application with a planning obligation. Standard Time Limit Condition This consent constitutes a Planning Permission in Principle under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended and as such does not authorise the commencement of development until matters requiring the further consent of the Planning Authority, as specified in Condition 1 (within the list of Additional Conditions below), have been satisfied. Application(s) for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions must be made in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 within the time limits specified below. Any application for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions must be submitted to the Planning Authority no later than three years from the date of this permission in principle. Any elements of the Planning Permission in Principle for which further approval of the Planning Authority has not been sought within the prescribed three year time period will no longer be capable of being implemented within the terms of this permission. The development to which this planning permission in principle relates must commence no later than five years from the date of this permission, or within the expiration of two years from the final approval of all Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions, whichever is the later. If the development has not commenced within this period, then this planning permission in principle shall lapse. Reason: To accord with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended. Standard Soil Condition Where the development involves ground breaking works, soil management should be undertaken in compliance with the established best practice set out in the DEFRA publication “Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites 2009”, unless an alternative methodology for sustainable management of soil is submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that sustainable management of soils and compliance with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 5A. 1. PPP - Matters Requiring AMSC Submission Plans, survey and other particulars of the matters specified in conditions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 below shall be submitted by way of application(s) for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions in accordance with the timescales and other limitations in Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended. Thereafter the development shall be completed wholly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To accord with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended. Page 41
Page 42
Classification: OFFICIAL 2. PPP - Approved Details The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 5th October 2020 and the approved drawings listed in the table below. Plan Title Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Site location plan and indicative siting 2019_0057-03 D 13/01/2021 Reason: To accord with Regulation 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. 3. PPP – Flooding The proposed house hereby permitted shall be sited to the west of McAuley Burn on ground levels of greater than 5.80mAOD (inclusive of a climate change allowance and free board of 0.6m). Reason: To ensure that the proposed house is not at risk of flooding. 4. PPP – Removal of Permitted Development Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended), (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order(s) with or without modifications), nothing in Article 2(4) of or the Schedule to that Order, shall operate so as to permit, within the area subject of this permission, any development referred to in Part 1 and Classes 3A, 3AA, 3C, 3E and Part 2 and Class 7 of the aforementioned Schedule, as summarised below: PART 1: DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF A DWELLINGHOUSE Class 3A: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a building for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the alteration, maintenance or improvement of such a building. Class 3AA: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a building for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse. Class 3C: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the replacement in whole or in part of such a surface. Class 3E: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure any part of which would be within or would bound the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. PART 2: SUNDRY MINOR OPERATIONS Class 7: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure. No such development shall be carried out at any time within this Part and these Classes without the express grant of planning permission. Page 42
Page 43
Classification: OFFICIAL Reason: To protect the sensitive area and the setting of the proposed dwellinghouse, in the interest of visual amenity and flooding, from unsympathetic siting and design of developments normally carried out without planning permission; these normally being permitted under Article 2(4) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended). 5. PPP - Timescale to be Agreed for Completion Pursuant to Condition 1 - no development shall commence until details of the proposed timescale for completion of the approved development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved timescale for completion unless an alternative timescale for completion is otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 6. PPP - Design and Finishes of Dwellinghouse Pursuant to Condition 1 - no development shall commence until plans and particulars of the site layout including final curtilage of the dwellinghouse, design and external finishes of the dwellinghouse have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. These details shall incorporate: i. A statement addressing the Action Checklist for developing design contained within the Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guide 2006; ii. A statement addressing the biodiversity surveys and how they have been taken into account in terms of siting/design; iii. Details of finished ground floor level of the development relative to an identifiable fixed datum located outwith the application site, along with details of the existing and proposed site levels shown in the form of sectional drawings/contour plans/site level survey, or a combination of these; iv. Details of an area within the application site for the placement of refuse/recycling bins and EV charge point; v. Details of the re-defined curtilage of the dwellinghouse taking into account the topography of the site, the walkover report, any natural features and the forthcoming tree survey. Reason: To accord with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended, and in order to integrate the proposed dwellinghouse with its surroundings. 7. PPP – Design and Finishes of Public realm works Pursuant to Condition 1 - no development shall commence until plans and particulars of the design and materials of the proposed public realm works have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. These details shall incorporate: i. Details of the construction specification for the paths; ii. Details of any benches and seating; iii. Details of location and materials to be used in forming the area around the Memorial; iv. Details and location of the proposed Memorial. The approved Public realm works shall thereafter be fully completed prior to development commencing on the dwellinghouse plot. Page 43
Page 44
Classification: OFFICIAL Reason: To accord with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended, and in order to integrate the public realm works with its surroundings. 8. PPP - Roads, Access and Parking Pursuant to Condition 1 - no development shall commence until plans and particulars of the means of vehicular access and parking/turning arrangements to serve the development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Such details shall incorporate: i. Formation of the vehicular access at the junction with the B833 public road in accordance with the Council's Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08/005B with visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres to point X by 42 metres to point Y from the centre line of the junction; ii. The provision of parking and turning in accordance with the requirements of Policy 40 and the Car Parking Standards of the adopted 'Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2' 2024; iii. The provision of a bin storage area adjacent to the public road. Prior to work starting on site, the approved scheme of works in respect of junction layout shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the junction at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. The approved parking and turning layout shall be implemented in full prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 9. PPP - Sustainable Drainage System Pursuant to Condition 1, the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA's SuDS Manual C753 and the details shall first submitted and approved in writing with the planning authority. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. Note to Applicant: Further advice on SuDS can be found in SEPA's Standing Advice for Small Scale Development - www.sepa.org.uk 10. PPP – Tree Survey, Retention and Protection Pursuant to Condition 1 - no development shall commence until a scheme for the retention and safeguarding of trees during construction has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise: Page 44
Page 45
Classification: OFFICIAL i) A survey of trees on, and overhanging, the entire site indicating the location, species, height, canopy spread and condition of each tree and specify any trees to be removed due to health or safety reasons; ii) An assessment of the amenity and nature conservation value of tree groups and individual trees which shall inform the layout of the development proposed; iii) A programme of measures for the protection of trees during construction works which shall include the positioning of fencing in accordance with BS 5837:2012 "Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction"; iv) Details of additional and replacement tree planting within the site; v) All trees identified with potential bat roost features should be retained where possible and if to be removed, then a suitable bat mitigation scheme shall be submitted and approved in writing with the planning authority. Tree protection measures shall be implemented for the full duration of construction works in accordance with the duly approved scheme. No trees shall be lopped, topped or felled other than in accordance with the details of the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to retain trees as part of the development in the interests of amenity and nature conservation. 11. PPP - Landscaping and Biodiversity Enhancement (Dwellinghouse plot) Pursuant to Condition 1 - no development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping for the curtilage of the dwelling has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a planting plan and schedule which shall include details of: i. Existing and proposed ground levels in relation to an identified fixed datum; ii. Existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; iii. Location design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; iv. Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted; v. A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development; vi. A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent maintenance. All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures (bird nesting boxes, 'swift bricks', wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes etc.) shall be implemented in full before the dwelling house hereby approved is first brought into use. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next Page 45
Page 46
Classification: OFFICIAL available planting season following the development first being brought into use. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interests of amenity. 12. PPP - Landscaping and Biodiversity Enhancement (Public realm works) Pursuant to Condition 1 - no development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping for the public realm works has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a planting plan and schedule which shall include details of: i. Existing and proposed ground levels in relation to an identified fixed datum; ii. Existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; iii. Location design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; iv. Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted; v. Details of how the scheme will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development; vi. A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent ongoing maintenance; vii. Location of bat / bird / red squirrel boxes, retention of log piles; viii. Location and species of woodland meadow mix, timings of planting and programme of ongoing monitoring and management; ix. Location and species of bee, bird and butterfly meadow mix, timings of planting and programme of ongoing monitoring and management; x. Location and species of hedging mix, timings of planting and programme of ongoing monitoring and management; xi. Throughout the construction period the applicant is required to consult with an appropriate expert on the removal of the Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) on site to ensure it is removed appropriately and with minimal impact on the surrounding environment. All of the hard and soft landscaping works and biodiversity enhancement measures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to works beginning on the dwellinghouse (part of this decision). Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interests of amenity. 13. PPP - Construction Environmental Management Plan (Public realm works) Page 46
Page 47
Classification: OFFICIAL Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan shall be fully adhered to throughout the construction period, and shall provide, amongst other things, for: i. The CEMP shall include the appropriate mitigation measures as recommended within the Protected Species Walkover Report; ii. Pollution prevention measures; iii. Identification of any sources of dust and assessing the impacts on those living nearby and incorporation of suitable measures for controlling dust; iv. Measures for preventing spills; v. Temporary lighting details; vi. Specifications and a timetable of works for the construction phase of the development; vii. Staff training as induction for work on site including a Toolbox Talk detailing the potential for protected species and how harm is to be avoided should these be encountered; viii. Measures to avoid entrapment or harm to mammals; ix. Pollution prevention measures including management of plant, materials, chemicals and fuels, and washing/storage arrangements; x. Measures to prevent light spillage to surrounding spaces in particular woodland and rivers; xi. The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; xii. Loading and unloading of plant and materials; xiii. The erection and maintenance of any security hoarding/fencing; xiv. Details of minimising the impact of noise-generating works on nearby residential properties - best practicable means for the mitigation of noise and vibration, as per BS 5228-1 and 2:2009+A1:2014, must be identified; xv. A pre-works inspection by a licensed bat ecologist to confirm the absence of bats immediately before construction begins; xvi. The use of low-impact methods of construction, such as hand tools near potential bat roost features, to reduce disturbance; xvii. Scheduling of work within non-sensitive periods in relation to bats (late November until March). The submitted details shall have regard to SEPA's Guidelines for Pollution Prevention 5: Works and maintenance in or near water and current guidance from the Institute of Lighting Professionals regarding the reduction of obtrusive light. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and in the interests of residential amenity. 14. PPP - Ecological Clerk of Works (Public realm works) Throughout the construction of the public realm works, an appropriately qualified ‘Ecological Clerk of Works’ (ECOW) shall be available to direct the micro-siting of the paths, benches and memorial, to ensure that sensitive features are avoided, and that habitat enhancement works and all mitigation and restoration measures are fully implemented. The ECOW shall liaise with Councils Biodiversity Officer and the role of the ECOW shall be clearly conveyed to all personnel prior to their commencement of work on the site. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. Page 47
Page 48
Classification: OFFICIAL Draft Informatives In order to comply with Sections 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, prior to works commencing on site it is the responsibility of the developer to complete and submit the following ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ form to the Planning Authority specifying the date on which the development will start. Failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a breach of planning control under Section 123(1) of the Act. 4. In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date upon which the development was completed Page 48