Scottish Government Section 36 Consultation: Construction and Operation of Balliemeanoch Pumped Storage Hydro Scheme: 4.4 Km to the South of Portsonachan and 9 Km Northwest of Inveraray (Ref: 24/01324/S36)
Argyll and Bute Council · 16 September 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 16 September 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Consultation Report relative to a S36 Application to the Scottish Ministers under Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989 in respect of Balliemeanoch Pump Hydro Storage Proposals Reference No: 24/01324/S36 ECU Reference: ECU00003444 Planning Hierarchy: Section 36 Consultation (Major Development) Applicant: Scottish Gov Consultation Proposal: Construction and operation of Balliemeanoch pumped storage hydro scheme. Site Address: 4.4 Km To The South Of Portsonachan And 9 Km Northwest Of Inveraray Members are requested to note that as the Planning Authority are only a Consultee in respect of S36 Electricity Act proposals. The website containing all application documents, external consultee responses and third party representations can be found on the Energy Consents Unit website, operated on behalf of the Scottish Ministers at the link below: Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details Clicking the documents tab will open a page where the application documents, consultation responses and third part representations/objections can be viewed. DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Section 36 Consent Construction of a Pump Storage Hydro-Electric Scheme comprising the following. Above Ground : Construction of; • Headpond - comprises the upper reservoir and Embankments • Headpond inlet / outlet structure • Borrow Pits • Switching Station • Tailpond Inlet/Outlet structure • Development Site Access • Access tracks - both temporary and permanent, • Two lower gate houses • Temporary and Permanent Compounds (construction and operation) • Tunnel access, • New access to the Development Site from the public transport network,
Page 2
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Construction of marine jetty with removable platform, (part retained structure) in Loch Fyne. Below Ground: Construction of; • High and Low Pressure Tunnels • Spillway and scour pipes • Surge shafts • Power cavern/house • Transformer cavern • Main inlet valve cavern • Emergency Egress Tunnel • Access Tunnel to powerhouse • Power cable tunnel to transformer • Ventilation tunnel to power cavern (ii) Other specified operations • Temporary Cofferdam in Loch Awe • Temporary B840 Realignment • Potential temporary diversion of Public Footpaths • Site Clearance works • Compound set up works • Installation of portable generators on site where grid connection not possible • Provision of temporary worker welfare building • Provision of temporary on site workers accommodation Members are requested to note that the application details were amended by the applicant following objections being received, mainly expressing concerns relating to the alteration to the water levels of Loch Awe and consequent potential adverse flooding impacts on roads, houses and businesses. There were also objections to the original larger proposal from SEPA and NatureScot related to the impact of the development on peat and habitat. The applicant therefore has revised and reduced the scale of the development. The current application has been amended from the original scheme and now constitutes the application details before the Council with the original EIAR now supported by additional environmental evaluation contained within the FEI documentation. The current application differs from the original application in the following main ways. Summary of Key Changes from original application proposals • The volume of water used has reduced from approximately 52 million cubic meters to approximately 15million cubic meters due to reduction in the size of the proposed upper head pond storage area. • The changes in water level on Loch Awe, which can result from the operation of the Development has reduced from 1.2 m to 0.4 m. • The rate at which the loch water levels can change as a result of the operation of the Development has also been reduced to around 28 mm per hour (a little over 1 inch), with the duration of operation reduced from over 30 hours to 15 hours.
Page 3
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Embankment 1 reduced in height from 95 m to 63 m (above existing ground level). Embankment 2 has reduced in height from 13 m to 9 m. • The installed generation capacity has been reduced to accommodate the above operational changes, to a maximum of 900 MW (from 1500 MW). • Borrow pit (for dam construction material) reduced from 10,678,050 m3 to 2,432,660 m3 with reduced peat excavation from 642,450 m3 to 140,560 m3. • The proposed upper limit at which the project can operate has also been brought down by 470 mm, meaning when the loch is naturally very high and rising because of heavy rain, the project will not add further water back into the loch. Instead, any extracted water will remain in the headpond under those conditions, thereby reducing the maximum level to which the loch will rise. • The proposals will also alter the amount of permanent and temporary access tracks associated with alterations to the overall layout of surface development as follows to increase the amount of permanent access track due to the alterations proposed to the permanent compound locations. The total length of new access tracks (excavated) has increased by approximately 2,500 m, to a total length of 6,650 m due to the following; 1) Relocation of PC09 (Permanent Compound) 2) The re-classification of the proposed access track to the north of the headpond from temporary to permanent, to provide access to the relocated PC17, PC18 and PC19. (Note, access to PC17 – PC19 was previously proposed across the crest of Embankment 1. Due to topographical constraints in the reevaluated location, this is no longer feasible, hence the re-classification of the temporary access track to permanent) (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that no objection be raised to the revised S36 proposals subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as are discussed and summarised within this report and other consultation responses, and that the current “holding objection” lodged with the Scottish Ministers be withdrawn. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Internal Consultation Responses received A&B Biodiversity Officer : Dated 27.11.24 & 04.09.25 No objection A&B Env Protection Dated 22.01.25 No objection A&B Flooding/Drainage Dated 05.11.24 No objection A&B Marine Policy Dated 04/09/25 No objection External consultee responses to revised scheme material to recommendation SEPA Dated 03.09.25 Partial Objection (Peat) NatureScot Dated 28.08. 25 No Objection HES Dated 18.07.25 No Objection Transport Scotland Dated 28.07.25 No Objection
Page 4
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Scottish Forestry Dated 28.07.25 No Objection MOD Dated 09.07.25 No Objection NATS Dated 01.07.25 No Objection Mowi Dated 19.08.25 No Objection Please note all external consultee responses to both the original and revised proposals are available on the ECU website (as they are the determining authority to whom these are sent). They can be viewed at the following link; Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details (D) HISTORY: Yes The following applications have been submitted in the last 5 years which overlap with or are contained within the red line boundary of the development site. 23/00795/S36 - Section 36 Consultation for erection of 13 turbines each up to a maximum of 180 m in height to blade tip. Land approximately 6 km northwest of Inveraray and 4.5 km east of Dalavich Argyll and Bute. 23/0291/ELCNOT - Proposed new 33 kV overhead line. Land approximately 757 metres southeast of Oaklea East Lochaweside Dalmally Argyll and Bute. LPA response to notification - no comment 22/00094/PP - Erection of 25-metre-high steel lattice tower and associated ancillary works. Land southeast of Balliemeanoch Farm East Lochaweside Argyll and Bute. Application approved 20 July 2022. 22/01298/S37 - Installation of 275 Kv overhead line connection. Land south of Dalmally and east of Cladich Argyll and Bute. Approved by Scottish Ministers following PLI. 21/01534/PNWAY - Formation of forest track. Three Bridges Forest Inveraray Argyll and Bute. Prior approval is not required – 25 August 2021. (E) PUBLICITY: N/A. S36 Application to ECU (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Y As this is a S36 proposal representations must be sent to the ECU and not the Planning Authority. A link to these objections and supporting submissions is set out below Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details The following 21 parties have raised objections to the original proposals as follows, • Simon & Heather Chapple (redacted e-mail address) • Robert Wilson (redacted e-mail address) • Peter Ross, Gar Bothan, Stronmilchan, PA33 1AS • Molly Drysdale, Gar Bothan, Stronmilchan, PA33 1AS • Helen Gray, (redacted e-mail address) • Martin O’keeffe Blarghour By Dalmally
Page 5
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Isobel Bird, (redacted e-mail address) • Elspeth MacKinnon, Hillcrest, Balephetrish, Isle of Tiree • David Bird (redacted e-mail address) • Janet Buchanan, Innishail Cottage Ardbrecknish • John Brown (redacted e-mail address) • Andrew Hill, Keepers Cottage, Eredine, Dalmally • Graeme Mackechnie, Dalmally Golf Club Captain, Old Sawmill Dalmally • Dr Gareth Young , (redacted e-mail address) • Pamela Gibson Allt Bhan Cottage, Portsonachan • Ishbel Livingstone, Craigmore, Stronmillichan • Alastair McLaren, Craig Farm Dalmally • Tracy Boyles (sectretary) Portsonschan Village Hall • Lucy Sumison ( Regional Manager NFU Scotland), Ingleson, Newbridge • Catriona O’Keefe, Blairgour Farm, by Dalmally • Buglife Scotland – Unit 4, Beta Centre Stirling • RSPB -South Scotland Regional Office These objectors raised the following main issues in respect of the initial scheme. • Adverse impacts caused by increased flooding risk associated with water discharge rates from proposal on land, property and businesses. • Adverse Impact on farmland from flooding • Potential additional erosion through changes in water levels • Adverse impacts on Loch Awe and Strath of Orchy from operation of scheme • Potential adverse impact on amenity pursuits on Loch Awe • Potential adverse impacts upon wildlife, habitat, ornithology and riparian habitat • Adverse impact on Biodiversity through loss of trees, nesting areas for birds around lochside. • Operating parameters and controls have not been provided in a satisfactory manner • No risk analysis of dam failure provided • Local roads and bridges would be undermined and damaged due to likely flooding associated with development. • Passing placed required if B840 if it is to be to be used by workers • There is a lack of overall control with existing schemes all operating independently. • Inadequate invertebrate surveys of aquatic macroinvertebrates in Loch Awe and Lochan Airigh • Inappropriate assessment of aquatic macroinvertebrates for Loch Awe, Lochan Airigh and Loch Fyne • Adverse impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates in Loch Awe, Lochan Airligh and associated watercourses • Insufficient mitigation for aquatic invertebrates • Inadequate assessment of impacts on terrestrial invertebrates • Impacts on priority peatland habitats and insufficient mitigation • The scheme will lead to an overall loss of biodiversity and should be refused. The Scottish Government have recognised the nature emergency and have committed to halt biodiversity loss and be nature positive by 2030. It is unclear how these commitments will be achieved if developments are permitted without adequate assessment and that will result in the loss of invertebrate diversity and abundance with no/inadequate mitigation proposed. • Impact on birds and protected species. 11 representations in support of the original proposals have been submitted from
Page 6
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Tristan Care: Shared Voice. • Caroline Mcvean: Shared Voice • Stuart McQeen: Shared Voice • Andrew Primrose: Shared Voice • Linda Morris: Shared Voice • Timothy Davies: Shared Voice • Heather Anderson: Shared Voice • Harley Tedham: Shared Voice • Laurent Agostinelli: Shared Voice • Charles McDonald: Shared Voice • Tracy Lindsay: Shared Voice Matters raised in support of application • Proposals would be a good thing for A&B and a pipe should be built from Scotland to Southeast England. • Proposals would lower emissions for the future • The proposal is common sense and will produce energy as efficiently as possible • Like Cruachan this will be a brilliant system using proven technology which will work very well in the long term • This type of development is the way to go • As this is renewable it will eventually work out cheaper than other sources • Green Energy should be supported and Argyll and Bute has more than enough capacity and space. • This type of new development doesn’t have a massive effect on the environment In respect of the revised proposals as of 04.09.25 no further objections or representations from third parties were identified on the ECU website. Note: please note that the matters raised in the letters of representation above have been summarised and that the full letters of representations are available on the Energy Consents Units website at the link previously provided in this report. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: Environmental Impact Assessment Report ☒Yes ☐No Original EIAR submission 1. Introduction 2. Project and Site Description 3. Evolution of Design and Site 4. Approach to EIA 5. Landscape & Visual 6. Terrestrial Ecology 7. Aquatic Ecology 8. Marine Ecology 9. Ornithology 10. Geology& Ground Conditions : :
Page 7
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 11. Water Environment 12. Water Resources 13. Cultural Heritage 14. Access, Traffic & Transport 15. Noice & Vibration 16. Socio-Economic, Recreation and Tourism 17. Climate 18. Marine Physical Environment and Tourism 19. Shipping & Navigation 20. Commercial Fisheries 21. Summary of Effects and Conclusions FEI Report (June 2025) evaluating the revised proposals. Section 1 – Introduction and Design Update Summary Section 2 – Summary of main consultation feedback and design update. Section 3 – Design review for the Headpond Section 4 – Update Environmental Impact Assessment Appendix A – Revised Layout Appendix B – Revised oLEMP Figures Appendix C – Revised Visualisation Appendix D – Terrestrial Ecology / Geology and Soils Appendix E – Draft Outline Peat Management Plan Appendix F–Preliminary Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment Appendix G – Outline Peatland Restoration Plan Appendix H– Water Resource and Flood Risk Appendix I – Framework Construction Traffic Management Plan Appendix J–Summary EIA Residual Effects with FEI Changes Appendix K– Updated EIAR Figures The applicants also responded to the objections/concerns of the following parties to the original proposals by means of separate submissions reflecting the changes made to address the stated concerns. These are contained on the ECU website: • Glenorchy & Innishail CC • South Loch Awe-Side Community Council • NatureScot • Argyll and Bute Council • Scottish Forestry • SEPA (i) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No: If required – this will be undertaken by the ECU as the Determining Authority in this case (ii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No
Page 8
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (iii) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☐Yes ☒No N/A ☐Yes ☒No N/A (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development ☒Yes ☐No All relevant reports are encompassed within the EIAR, FEI and S36 submissions. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. Members are asked to note that this application has been submitted to the Scottish Government under Section 36 (S36) of the Electricity Act 1989. As part of the S36 application process, the applicant is also seeking that the Scottish Ministers issue a Direction under Section 57 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that deemed planning permission be granted for the proposal. In such instances, the statutory plan (NPF4 and LDP2) are not the starting point for consideration of applications, as Sections 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which establish the primacy of LDP policy in decision-making, are not engaged in the deemed consent process associated with Electricity Act 1989 applications. Nonetheless both NPF 4 and LDP 2, remain important material considerations informing the Council’s response to the proposal. Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act does require both the applicant and the decision-maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the prospective developer shall have regard to:
Page 9
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects. Similarly, it obliges the Scottish Ministers in their capacity as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at (a) and the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty at (b). Consideration of the proposal against NPF 4 Policies, and the adopted Argyll & Bute LDP2 Feb 2024, will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent which the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties and in respect of the deemed planning permission issued to accompany any grant of consent under the Electricity Act 1989. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 10 – Coastal Development NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 26 – Business and Industry NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism NPF4 Policy 32 – Aquaculture Annex B – National Statements of Need 2. Pumped Storage Hydro 3. Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure 4. Circular Economy Materials Management Facilities Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas
Page 10
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 22 – Economic Development Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Policy 24 – Existing Tourism Uses Policy 28 – Supporting Sustainable Aquatic and Coastal Development Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Connected Places Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Policy 41 – Off Site Highway Improvements Policy 42 – Safeguarding Piers and Harbours Sustainable Communities Policy 48 – Developer Contributions Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 56 – Land Erosion Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 80 – Geodiversity
Page 11
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Local Development Plan 2 Schedules (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Planning Advice Notes & Web-based Renewables Guidance • Renewable energy and climate change policy framework • Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 • The Future of Energy in Scotland: Scottish Energy Strategy, Scottish Government (December 2017) and position Update dated 16.3.21 • Scotland’s Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan and Ministerial statement (Dated 10.1.23) • The Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) • Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, Landscape Institute, and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, (2013) • Views of statutory and other consultees; • Planning history of the site • Legitimate and material public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters • ABC Landscape Studies • ABC Economic Development Action Plan • ABC Housing Emergency Statement National Energy Policy Framework as a material planning consideration Energy Policy Framework Statutory and policy requirements at UK and Scottish level to mitigate climate change, increase renewable energy generation and support necessary energy infrastructure upgrade to the grid are informed by higher level international agreements, primarily the Paris Agreement (2015) which commits United Nations signatory countries to take action to cut carbon emissions and emphasises the aim of restricting temperature rises to below 2°C above preindustrial levels. At the UK level, a range of policy documents set out the UK Governments binding commitments to cut carbon emissions through the deployment of renewable energy, including the UK Government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution (2020), Energy White Paper (2020), Carbon Plan (2011), the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (2011) (updated 2012 and 2013) and the British Energy Security Strategy. The publication of Scotland’s Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan and the accompanying Ministerial statement (Dated 10.1.23) further reinforces the importance of achieving net zero and addressing the Climate Emergency. The national policy position contains a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development; coupled with support for the delivery of renewable energy generation capacity, including energy storage projects such as pump hydro proposals at a range of scales. Support for such schemes feeds into policy consideration and guidance at all levels, in recognition of the wide range of benefits they offer in both storing renewably generated electricity and provided a base load and quick input energy source at peak energy usage times. NPF 4 identifies pump storage hydro schemes (PSH) as key assets to achieve these
Page 12
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL objectives and recognises that increasing the capacity of PSH can complement ambitions for more renewable energy capacity. Officers accept and ask members to note that there is robust high level Energy/Climate Change policy support for the current proposals. This is considered to be a substantive material consideration in favour of the proposals. NPF 4 and LDP 2 Policy Framework This stated high level policy support which is a material planning consideration in this instance does not undermine the need for the proposals to address the other policy objectives of NPF4 and LDP 2 which, although supporting the proposals, requires issues such as landscape impacts, flooding impacts, biodiversity/protected Species impacts, socio economic impacts, and “peat /carbon storage impacts to be considered in a balanced judgement on compliance with the overall objectives of NPF4 and related LDP 2 Planning Policies. Members are also requested to have regard to the specific advice contained within NPF4 at Page 07 in relation of Pump Hydro Storage Schemes which are identified as one of the six priority development types which support the delivery of sustainable places. NPF 4 states that; Pumped Hydro Storage extends hydro-electricity capacity to support the transition away from fossil fuels, whilst also providing employment opportunities in rural areas. Argyll & Bute Council is keen to ensure that Argyll & Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, reinforced by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development, and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects. This proposal has been assessed primarily against the two lead Statutory Development Plan policies relating to renewable energy, Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2. Other policies are referred to where relevant. (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No S36 Application. (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No
Page 13
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Local Landscape Area. (North Argyll) • SEPA Flood Area (Loch Awe levels) • Peat and Peat Habitat • European Protected Species Impacts (Marine and Terrestrial). (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Unclassified Land / Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☒Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☐N/A Peat Depth Classification: Refer to EIAR and FEI details Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better-quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☒Yes Refer to EIAR and FEI submissions. (Note: Loss of small area of ancient woodland associated with tail pond construction on land adjacent to banks of Loch Awe). ☐No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☒Yes. Some details of proposed replanting provided to compensate for ancient woodland loss, but additional details to be secured by condition still required. ☐No ☐N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application (tick all relevant boxes) ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy (tick all relevant boxes) ☐Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☒Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A
Page 14
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The reduction in scale of the proposals in terms of headpond land take, scale of construction operations, and reduced water discharge rates to Loch Awe has reduced the potential impacts of the proposals on; (i) Biodiversity and Protected Species (Marine and Terrestrial) (ii) Peat and Peatland Habitat (iii) Water levels fluctuations of Loch Awe and potential flooding National and local policy support for pump hydro proposals carries significant weight which favours the approval of this application. In this instance it is considered that the benefits of the scheme in addressing the climate emergency outweigh any residual impacts as set out in more detail in this report and accompanying EIAR and FEI submissions. It is therefore recommended that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as set out in this report and other statutory consultee responses (and in particular those of NatureScot and SEPA) that no objection be raised to the proposals and the current “holding objection” lodged with the ECU be withdrawn. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No There are acknowledged impacts associated with the proposals, relating to; • Loss of a small area of ancient woodland (tailpond area) • Landscape Impacts Temporary and Permanent • Impacts upon European Protected Species • Impacts on peatland and associated habitat That NPF 4 seeks to address both the climate and biodiversity emergency is noted and has been weighed in the balance of forming this recommendation. Having regard to these matters it is considered by Officers that the benefits in providing additional significant pump hydro storage energy capacity outweighs the impacts of the proposals in this instance on the basis that additional mitigation measures can be secured through the imposition of appropriate conditions. Therefore, the development is considered, as a matter of planning judgement, to comply with the overall objectives of NPF 4 and LDP 2 as set out in this report, and it is therefore recommended by Officers that no objection be raised to the amended proposals and that the current “holding objection” be withdrawn. Author of Report: David Moore Date: 04.09.2025 Reviewing Officer: Peter Bain Date: 05.09.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 15
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO S36 CONSULTATION NUMBER: 24/01324/S36 PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME 1.1 In Scotland, any proposal to construct, extend, or operate an onshore electricity generating station, in this case, a pump storage hydro, with a capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW), requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under section 36 of the Electricity Act. Such applications are processed on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Energy Consents Unit (“ECU”) Scottish Government - Energy Consents. Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (“TCP(S)A”) also allows the Scottish Ministers, on granting consent under section 36, to direct that planning permission for that development shall be deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction. 1.2 The consultation bodies to be consulted by the Scottish Ministers on Section 36 applications are the relevant planning authority, NatureScot, SEPA, Transport Scotland and HES and any other relevant public bodies with specific environmental responsibilities or local and regional competencies who the Scottish Ministers consider are likely to have an interest. The Council’s role in this process is therefore one of a consultee along with various other consultation bodies. It is open to the Council to either support or object to the proposal, and to recommend conditions it would wish to see imposed in the event that authorisation is given by Scottish Ministers. 1.3 In the event of an objection being raised by the Council, the Scottish Ministers are obliged to convene a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they are minded to approve the proposal. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Such an Inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter(s) appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. In the event that consent is given, either where there has been no objection from the Council, or where objections have been overruled following PLI, the Council as Planning Authority would become responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, and for the ongoing monitoring and enforcement of such conditions contained in any issued “deemed planning consent”. Any decision notice would have a Part 1” List of conditions for the ECU to discharge and a “Part 2” deemed planning permission where the Planning Authority (often in consultation with other statutory consultees) will be required to consider and discharge the conditions. 1.4 This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other internal consultations undertaken by the Council, and 3rd party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government following publicity of the application by them. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Scottish Government on behalf of the Council before a final decision is taken on the matter. 2. Settlement Strategy 2.1. The site is located in an area designated as remote Countryside within LDP 2 and the overall red line boundary comprises an area of 3,054 hectares. The application is to
Page 16
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL construct and operate a Pump Storage Hydro scheme and associated development which is commonly referenced as the Balliemeanoch development. The Development will have approximately 900 MW installed electrical generation capacity. 2.2. At para 3.5 LDP 2 confirms that ; The plan seeks to promote a more flexible approach to development in those areas identified in the proposals maps as Countryside Areas. These are areas, where suitably scaled new development which in the opinion of the Council as Planning Authority is able to meet the sustainable development criteria outlined in Policy 02 (A) below will normally be permitted. In those Countryside Areas where there are nature conservation or landscape designations in place proposals for development will have to demonstrate that they are compatible with the designation interests. Outwith the Countryside Areas or Settlement Areas identified on the proposals maps new development will only be supported for those specific types of development identified in Policy 02 (B) covering Remote Countryside, or Policy 02 (C) if in the Helensburgh and Lomond Green Belt. 2.3. The site is just within a designated Remote Countryside. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with the terms of this policy under Part B as a “recognised countryside activity” and also by association and function to “renewable energy related development” which are acceptable uses in Remote Countryside Areas. 2.4. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with LDP 2 Policies 02 and 30. 3. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 3.1. The application site is extensive at some 3,054 (Ha) not only due to the scale of the headpond to be formed , but also as there are tailpond inlets/outlets, a new marine jetty and revised internal and external access arrangements from Inveraray to the main site where the head pond and power generating turbines and hall will be located. The marine jetty will be semi-permanent with the “piles” being retained following delivery of the larger plant in order to allow for any future similar deliveries required throughout the operating life of the proposals. 3.2. The main development is located approximately 4.4 km to the south of the village of Portsonachan and 9 km northwest of Inveraray, The main development site is generally characterised by upland moorland plateau grazing land with conifer woodland. 3.3. The tailpond inlet / outlet is located on Loch Awe, south of Balliemeanoch. and extends approximately 80 m into Loch Awe. The existing ground slopes to the southeast at a gradient of approximately 14 % to the existing farmer’s track, where it levels out and slopes steadily upwards to the proposed headpond location in the east. The Balliemeanoch farmhouse is located approximately 400 m away from the proposed inlet / outlet location. 3.4. The main elements of the proposed development are set out below: 3.5. Above Ground • Headpond - comprises the upper reservoir and Embankments retaining the water in the headpond. The headpond is located within the south of the main Development Site at Lochan Airigh centred on NGR NN 04594 16411. An inlet / outlet structure
Page 17
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL will predominantly sit within the Embankment where the waterway exits the Headpond and will house mechanical equipment; • Tailpond - comprises the lower reservoir and in the case of the Development, will be the existing body of Loch Awe. The tailpond will include two lower gate houses located approximately 90 m southeast of the inlet / outlet structure screens. A water- tight, temporary cofferdam structure will be constructed for the tailpond works. The area within the cofferdam will be pumped dry to facilitate the construction of the tailpond inlet / outlet structure; • Temporary and permanent construction compounds required at various locations across the development site for equipment and material storage, tunnel access, a site office, and welfare facilities; • Newly formed access to the Development Site from the public transport network; • Access tracks - both temporary and permanent, for movement around the Development Site. • Temporary realignment of a 1.5 km section of the B840 to allow for construction of the tailpond inlet /outlet structure; • Sections of existing informal walking routes within the development site boundary will be temporarily diverted during construction. The applicant has confirmed that these routes will be fully reinstated on completion of construction; • A Switching Station consisting of two secure electrical compounds in which electrical equipment will be housed. In addition, a number of parking spaces and permanent welfare facilities will be provided; • A temporary construction Marine Facility with jetty will be constructed within Loch Fyne. This will be used for delivery of abnormal indivisible loads (“AILs”) of materials and equipment during construction, removed post construction and reassembled during operation for maintenance when required. The support piles for the pier would remain in place following construction, and the deck would be reassembled as needed for maintenance purposes during operation. The pier will be approximately 180 m in length from the shoreline and 10 m wide. 3.6. Below Ground • Waterways consisting of a high-pressure tunnel to the Power Cavern Complex and a low-pressure tunnel between the Power Cavern Complex and tailpond inlet / outlet structure, a spillway for draining excess water from the headpond, also containing a scour pipe for scouring and draining in an emergency, and surge shafts as in-built safety features; • Power cavern, incorporating the powerhouse (containing reversible pump turbines), transformer gallery (containing the transformers) and a main inlet valve (“MIV”) hall; and, • Tunnels for access, construction and power which will also be used in operation. 3.7. Separate to the current Section 36 Application, the applicants have clarified that there will also be a grid connection for the Development required. The grid connection does
Page 18
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL not form part of this Section 36 Application and will be subject to its own separate S37 application for consent by the Scottish Ministers. The Planning Authority will be consulted in relation to these future proposals. The Development will connect into the grid at the approved Creag Dhubh substation (REF:22/00782/PP, currently under construction) via the proposed Switching Station within the Development. 4. Landscape Character 4.1. As the proposal have been amended and the scale reduced, the applicants as part of the FEI submissions have submitted a revised LVIA evaluation. The following main alterations to the scheme have been made in respect of potential landscape impacts • Embankment 1 reduced in height from 95 m to 63 m (above existing ground level). • Embankment 2 has reduced in height from 13 m to 9 m • Borrow pit (for dam construction material) reduced from 10,678,050 m3 to 2,432,660 m3 • Reduced head pond scale requires reduced peat excavation from 642,450 m3 to 140,560 m3 • New Floating Access Tracks : The total length of floating access tracks has increased by approximately 60m from the original s36 submission, to a total length of 3,867 m (+2 %). This is due to the relocation of PC09 • Temp Construction Access Tracks: The total length of temporary construction access tracks has reduced by 2,715m to a total length of 2,683 m (- 50.23%). This is largely due to the re-classification of the proposed access track to the north of the headpond area from temporary to permanent. (Overall the total length of tracks (permanent and temporary) is broadly similar to the previous scheme.) • PC09 has been relocated to align with the re-evaluated headpond Embankment 1. • PC17 has been relocated to align with changes to the below ground infrastructure (Table 3-3) following re-evaluation of the headpond. PC17 is the location of the Gate Shaft. (the finished elevation is consistent with the original s36 application.) • PC18 has been relocated to align with changes to the below ground infrastructure (Table 3-3) following re-evaluation of the headpond. PC17 is the location at which the Surge Shaft will sit at surface level (The finished elevation is consistent with the original s36 application). • PC19 has been relocated to align with changes to the below ground infrastructure (Table 3-3) following re-evaluation of the headpond. PC19 is the location of the Ventilation Shaft will sit at surface level (The finished elevation is consistent with the original s36 application). Details of the below ground infrastructure changes are set out at Table 3-3 of the FEI (Page 7) These do not require to be re-evaluated under the LVIA. 4.2. The applicants submit in the FEI that; “Within the S36 application, only one significant visual effect remained; from Dalavich (viewpoint 4) at operation year 15. However, due to the design changes, specifically the reduction in embankment height and alteration in location of the embankment, it is considered that the effects from this viewpoint would reduce to minor adverse at operation year 1 and 15, resulting in no significant adverse effects on landscape or visual receptors at operation year 15 arising from the Development. This is due to the reduced horizontal extent of Embankment 1 in the background of the view. The Embankment would no longer break the skyline, which would remove any effects on the undulating nature of the skyline and would be less noticeable as it would be set
Page 19
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL against the higher land form beyond rather than the sky. The revised visualisations for Viewpoint 4 can be found within Appendix D of the FEI submissions”. 4.3. Although some ridge line alterations are likely to be visible from open water, a short section of the A85, and from higher ground surrounding the site, the changes which will occur are not considered by officers significant. Although there will be some interruption of existing ridgelines caused by the main headpond wall, this will be of a scale which will not have any significant adverse landscape impacts. It is considered that the main above ground features associated with the construction of the development, subject to control over colouring and materials, together with landscaping and soft engineering solutions, will be capable of being successfully assimilated into the receiving landscape without causing unacceptable visual impact. 4.4. In respect of the proposed permanent compounds and access tracks, these are not widely visible from the surrounding landscape except in more distant views from high points. It is considered that these will be able to assimilate into the wider landscape and have no significant adverse impacts. 4.5. The partially retained jetty piles within Loch Fyne which will be permanent features are not considered to have any significant landscape impacts. These are also further considered in respect of Cultural Heritage at a later stage in this report. 4.6. Officers therefore consider that in terms of potential Landscape and Visual impacts associated with the proposals there will be no significant adverse impacts on the designated North Argyll Local Landscape Area (LLA) and the proposals, as amended, are considered, to be in accordance with the requirements of LDP 2 Policies 30 and 71 and NPF 4 Policies 4 and 11. 5. Flooding and Water Levels in Loch Awe 5.1 There has been detailed discussion between SEPA and the applicants over the potential impact of the proposed development on the water levels of Loch Awe and a considerable number of objections to the original scheme were received from statutory consultees, other commercial operations in the area, and also third parties on this matter. Many of these objections centred around the potential impact of the discharges from the proposed Balliemeanoch scheme, causing a potential increase in the levels of Loch Awe which would increase flood risk. The applicants have amended the scheme and submit in the FEI that: Detailed hydraulic modelling demonstrates that the revised Development would not increase flood risk to properties around Loch Awe, or downstream of Awe Barrage. In fact, during several historical flood events, the Development would provide slight reductions in peak water levels. The modelled results show that the proposed scheme does not have a detrimental impact on flood risk, and in most cases would have resulted in reduced peak flood levels. This is because during flood events the Development would stop generating and so is not actively adding water, and may only extract water, but also because the operation of the Development creates different starting water levels before flood events occur. The Development, therefore, does not exacerbate existing flood impacts, and may provide a slight flood reduction benefit for some events. As such the proposal complies with Policy 22 of NPF4…. The residual effects (pre-construction, construction, and operation) are unaffected by the proposed reduction in Headpond size and associated infrastructure changes. Although the changes identified may have some beneficial effect, the overall conclusions of the chapter in the EIAR still apply. Further details are included in Appendix H.
Page 20
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 5.2 Members will note that SEPA lodged objection to the original scheme due to the proposals being considered to have an unacceptable impact on the water levels within Loch Awe with potential flooding consequences. This objection was re-stated by consultation response dated 14.08.25. However, following further consideration of the submissions in the FEI, an updated consultation response dated 03.09.25 has been received. SEPA have now withdrawn their objection in respect of potential flooding matters subject the imposition of appropriate controls and conditions over the discharge of water from the development into Loch Awe. In respect of these matters they state; We remove our objection to this application on the basis of flood risk subject to the modification in Section 1.11 being made to the proposal. If this is not made, then please consider this representation as a holding objection. We can remove our objection to this application on flood risk grounds provided the hands-off high level (stop generation) is amended from 37.20m AOD to 36.57m AOD (December to March) and 37.06m AOD (April to November), and information is provided to the satisfaction of the determining authority to demonstrate this modification has been made to the proposals and will be adhered to for the operating life of the development. However, as previously highlighted, to ensure the operation of the scheme does not result in an increase in frequency or magnitude of flood events will require consideration of the interactions between the different operators, and therefore the agreement of a water balancing/operating regime with SSER and DRAX, who operate the other hydro schemes on Loch Awe. We understand from the meeting that this aspect of the proposal cannot be achieved as part of the Section 36 consent but would welcome confirmation from the determining authority on how the agreement of interactions between the different operators may be achieved/addressed to ensure there is no increase in flood risk. (Officer Note: the retained SEPA objection in respect of Peat will be addressed within Section 8 of this report). 5.3 The evaluation of both the individual potential discharge from Balliemeanoch, together with other existing operations (i.e. Cruachan) which can impact the water levels in Loch Awe are complex technical matters which planning officers are not qualified to provide authoritative advice on. In this instance the necessary professional expertise to evaluate such matters rests with SEPA as the Statutory Consultee on flooding matters for such proposals. 5.4 Although SEPA have now withdrawn their flooding objection, Officers note that there remains an element of clarity still required as to how the discharge controls required to safeguard local interests from unacceptable flood risk will actually be delivered. Of particular note in their consultation response is that: We understand from the meeting that this aspect of the proposal cannot be achieved as part of the Section 36 consent but would welcome confirmation from the determining authority on how the agreement of interactions between the different operators may be achieved/addressed to ensure there is no increase in flood risk. 5.5 Ensuring competent and effective controls on this matter is the responsibility of the Determining Authority to address and not the Planning Authority. That there is an agreed maximum discharge rate and volume to the Loch from this scheme which would address these flooding concerns is a matter of substantive weight.
Page 21
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 5.6 Officer therefore defer to the expert views of SEPA on this matter but clarify that they agree with the views of SEPA that the proposal should not be granted S36 consent until the Determining Authority has resolved this matter to the satisfaction of SEPA and the Planning Authority in a legally and procedurally competent manner. 5.7 Officers also request that Members note that the previous objection by MOWI to the changes in water levels proposed by the original scheme, which they contended would adversely impact upon their operations, has been withdrawn by response dated 19.08.25 and they are now content with the proposals as set out below ; Accordingly, and subject to the above modifications to the scheme, the risk of adverse effects to our operations has significantly reduced and I can confirm that MOWI is content to withdraw our objection to the granting of consent for the scheme. We remain concerned, as a matter of principle for the potential for adverse effects on watercourses (water quality) through polluting surface water run off during construction activity, especially watercourses that drain into Loch Awe. However, we are content that this risk can be adequately controlled by robust and effective pollution prevention and construction management conditions attached to the granting of any consent 5.8. The Councils Flooding and drainage advisor has examined the development in respect of the site construction and localised flooding and how this could impact the site and has raised no objections subject to a condition to ensure any water crossings are constructed in a manner to avoid localised flooding. 5.9 Officers consider that comments of SEPA on flooding and appropriate levels and controls for Loch Awe maximum water levels are a substantive planning consideration as they have the necessary expertise to evaluate the complex issues involved which affect the water levels and the consideration of flooding matters related to the Loch. 5.10 Officers recommend that the Planning Authority should defer to, and accept the views of SEPA, on this particular technical issue. It is therefore considered that subject to the requirements of SEPA, as set out in their response dated 03.09.25 are met, that the Planning Authority takes the view that NPF 4 Policies 11 and 22 and LDP 2 Policies 30 and 55 can be properly addressed by the Determining Authority in considering whether to approve the application. 6. Natural Environment Ecology, Ornithology and Biodiversity (Terrestrial) 6.1. The submitted EIAR and FEI indicates that there are a number of European Protected Species which will be impacted as a result of the construction and operations proposed development, and also therefore will be impact on peat habitat and ancient woodland as a biodiversity resource. 6.2. NatureScot raised objection to the original proposals on the potential adverse impact on Peat Habitat. However, they have now withdrawn their previous objections to the scheme following the amendments and the FEI submissions by the applicant. NatureScot confirm by response dated 28.08.25 that: The FEI, and subsequent discussion with the applicant, provide sufficient information on the effects of the proposal on priority peatland habitats and a detailed commitment to restore an extent of peatland habitat that will compensate for habitats lost and disturbed as a result of the proposal. We can confirm that NatureScot withdraws its outright objection, dated 04 February 2025, with respect to priority peatland
Page 22
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL habitat subject to the following appropriate measures being appropriately secured by condition and/ or legal agreement. - A fully developed and detailed peatland restoration plan containing sufficient on-site and off-site restoration; - A fully developed biodiversity enhancement plan; and - The production of a robust Deer Management Plan. Our revised position is however conditional upon the above measures, as set out in the applicant’s Additional Information: Appendix G - Outline Peatland Restoration Plan, and associated documents, being secured through appropriate conditions and/ or legal agreement bound to any consent. For the avoidance of doubt, if these measures cannot be appropriately secured our position would remain that of outright objection. 6.3. The Councils Biodiversity advisor in her original response was of the view that the original, and larger, proposals failed to provide robust and comprehensive protected species surveys, and would unacceptably impact on European Protected Species and also Ancient Woodland as a biodiversity resource of great importance. 6.4. Further discussions in respect of the amended and reduced scheme has clarified that subject to the imposition of appropriate suspensive conditions the Councils Biodiversity Officer is content that no objection should be raised to the proposals in respect of such matter. This confirmed in her updated response of 04.09.25. 6.5. On this basis, Officers propose pre-commencement conditions are imposed in respect of the following matters; • The provision of updated surveys for European Protected Species (terrestrial and ornithological • The provision of necessary detailed Species Protection Plans to include best practice mitigation. (to also include any necessary approved Licenses from NatureScot) • Pre-works surveys for Protected Species (terrestrial and ornithological) at the appropriate time of year by a suitably qualified ecologist • Submission of a Peat Management Plan for both on site /off site restoration works in accordance with NatureScot revised comments and suggested condition. • Submission of a Biodiversity Net Gain/Enhancement Plan linked to both onsite and offsite works. This to include clarification of all of habitat and woodland compensatory works to achieve biodiversity enhancement associated with the implementation of the overall scheme. • A Deer Management Plan • A Bird Protection Plan • Invasive non-native species removal plan • Tree Protection Plan and felling strategy to protect all retained trees and their root systems
Page 23
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Management Plan to secure the retention of high biodiversity features whether in situ or on site, such as deadwood (standing and fallen) • Details of Enhancement planting of native trees appropriate to the locality of the area and locally sourced 6.6. Although all impacts on the natural environment cannot be avoided on a development of this scale, it is considered that subject to the imposition of these pre-construction conditions that the development is considered acceptable when the benefits of the scheme are factored into the balance of the judgement. 6.7. In that there will be no unacceptable impacts on these matters the proposals are considered to be in accordance with NPF 4 Policies 1, 3, 6 and 11, The proposals are also considered to be in accordance with the requirements of LDP 2 Policies 30, 73, 77, 78 and 79. 7. Marine Environment and Marine Ecology. 7.1. Members will note previous objections to the original scheme, from a number of consultees and third parties were substantially based upon the alteration of projected water levels within Loch Awe associated with the operation of the proposal and cumulative operational uses of the Loch relating to its levels being unacceptable. These objections were from statutory consultees, other commercial operators reliant on the Loch and also from residents who had concerns over potential flooding of land, properties and roads associated with the proposed operational parameters of the original scheme and the resultant maximum water levels. 7.2. It was also contended in these objections by Argyll Fisheries Trust that the fluctuation in the water levels then proposed would result in an effect on migratory fish species in Loch Awe and River Awe, including Atlantic salmon, brown/sea trout, European eel, and lamprey species, and in the context of the origional EIAR, this was accepted by the applicants to be Significant in the EIAR. 7.3. To address matters, the scheme has been amended to reduce the impact of the operation of the development on the water levels in Loch Awe and the associated Marine environment. Full details of these alterations, and resultant alterations to the potential alterations to Loch Awe water levels can be found within the FEI documentation. Members will note there has been a substantial amount of discussion and exchanges between the applicants and SEPA on these technical matters. 7.4. The appellants contend in respect of the amended proposals subject to FEI that given that the magnitude of the changes in water level on Loch Awe are being reduced by two-thirds, and that negligible changes in flows are expected from Loch Awe into the River Awe, the resulting moderate adverse effect on migratory fish species in Loch Awe and River Awe is considered as being mitigated to a minor adverse effect and is Not Significant. 7.5. Given that the range of water fluctuation has been reduced officers consider that the proposals should be considered acceptable and no objection raised in respect of these matters.
Page 24
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 7.6. The Councils Marine Officer by response dated 04.09.25 has requested that updated surveys are provided related to potential ecological impacts associated with the construction of the Jetty in Loch Fyne, and also that a management and mitigation plan in respect of potential construction noise and vibration impacts on sea mammals be required by condition. These have been added to the list of recommended suspensive conditions in accordance with her requirements. In her response dated 04.09.25 she clarifies that: Marine Ecology Upper Loch Fyne and Loch Goil Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area (NC MPA) In terms of the Marine Facility, which consists of a pier structure and further to the Marine Officer’s Scoping Opinion comments on 29.07.22 (Ref: 22/01453/SCOPE), I note that the Applicant has not conducted a valid Subtidal Benthic Survey as was discussed under section 8.3 – Methodology of the Scoping Report. Given that the survey was conducted in December 2021 and that surveys of this nature are valid for up to two years, it is the Officer’s opinion that the proposal is capable of affecting the protected features of Upper Loch Fyne and Loch Goil NC MPA, in particular immediately adjacent to the proposed pier structure. The reasoning behind this is that over time there can be changes within the benthos and its associated communities. I therefore recommend a pre-commencement subtidal benthic survey/study be conducted to confirm the abundances of the PMFs of which include kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment, burrowed mud (including the mud burrowing amphipod (Maera loveni) and Nephrops norvegicus (Norway lobster), fireworks anemone (Pachycerianthus multiplicatus) and tall seapen (Funiculina quadrangularis) before development commences. Marine mammals It is the Marine Officer’s opinion that grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) have not been considered by the Applicant within the EIA, with no strong evidence provided for why this species was not included within the assessment. It is recommended that a pre- commencement condition will include an appropriate survey for the species. In addition, a pre-commencement condition will include appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented for all marine mammal species during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Marine Facility. Mitigation will include a Marine Mammal Monitoring Management/Sighting Plan with Marine Mammal Observers, and a ‘Soft Start’ approach in place over the construction period. The Applicant will log daily cetacean and basking shark sightings and prepare a report during the construction period. Biosecurity As a pre-commencement condition, it is the Marine Officer’s opinion that comments received from NatureScot on 04 February 2025 (Ref: CDM176304) under Annex C - Biosecurity: that all biosecurity considerations are extended to incorporate Loch Fyne. 7.7. The proposals are therefore considered, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to be in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policies 3 and 11 and LDP 2 Policies 30 and 73. 8. Impact on Peat and Blanket Bog Habitat.
Page 25
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 8.1 The original application EIAR concluded that the loss of blanket bog (approximately 37 ha of which is considered to be degraded, and 50 ha of which is considered to be intact) would result in a Permanent Adverse effect of Regional Significance. 8.2 The revised design of the Development, means that the permanent loss of blanket bog from direct impacts will be reduced to approximately 47.7 ha and the temporary loss of blanket bog from direct impacts will be 10.5 ha. The total area of blanket bog loss predicted in the EIAR, for comparison, was approximately 87 ha. Due to the reduction in size of the Headpond, the area of land available for enhancement of bog/heath under the existing Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (oLEMP) would increase to approximately 538 ha (or approximately 5.3 km2). 8.3 Revised Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (oLEMP) figures can be found within the FEI at Appendix B and the Outline Peatland Restoration Plan in Appendix G. The applicant accepts by submission that to compensate for the loss of 58.2 ha of blanket bog, approximately 582 ha will need to be enhanced (to achieve a ratio of 1:10 for loss: enhanced). Further, to then achieve an overall net gain, and comply with NPF4 objectives, an additional 5.82 ha of blanket bog enhancement will be required (equating to 10% of the area to be lost). In total therefore, an area of approximately 587.82 ha (5.87 km2 requires to be identified for restoration/enhancement). While some of that can be delivered on the Development Site within the oLEMP area, it may be necessary to identify off-site locations to meet the total area required. 8.5 The applicant has by submission therefore committed to developing, post-submission, and as a suspensive condition of consent, a detailed Peatland Restoration Plan which achieves a total area of 590 ha of peatland restoration/enhancement. This would follow NatureScot Peatland ACTION guidance and would not rely on cessation of burning (noting the Peatland ACTION guidance and NatureScot comments on the oLEMP). The detailed Peatland Restoration Plan would be submitted to NatureScot for approval prior to commencement of construction activities for the Development. Such restoration would also involve improved habitat restoration and biodiversity benefits. 8.6 Officers note that on this basis NatureScot have withdrawn their previous objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. However, SEPA in their response dated 03.09.24 have maintained their holding objection in respect of peat matters and impacts stating that: As previously advised, we require to be provided with an updated layout overlain on GWDTE and peat depth maps so that we can review the changes to the proposal. The change of plan with respect to excavated peat means that the forthcoming PMP will require considerable revision, we require to see a draft version before we would consider removing our holding objection. 8.7 The approach proposed by NatureScot requiring clarification of the details of the peat management plan prior to the commencement of development by condition is in the opinion of officers the correct approach in this instance. From submissions it seems likely that some off -site land may well be required to achieve the peat restoration 10:1 ratios required. Addressing these matters by means of suspensive condition is a well- established approach in respect of applications. Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions requiring submission of a detailed peat management plan prior to the commencement of development the proposals are considered to be in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policies 11 and 22 and LDP 2 Policies 30 and 79.
Page 26
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 9. Impact on Woodland/Access to Countryside 9.1. There is no woodland within the main area of the Development Site, with woodland pockets restricted to those located along proposed access tracks and a small area near the Tailpond inlet / outlet. These woodlands include plantation woodland along the existing, to be upgraded, access track off the A819 at the north; along the proposed new and upgraded existing tracks proposed to the west of Inveraray; and along the upgraded access to the north of Inveraray Castle, and as noted near the inlet / outlet on Loch Awe. 9.2. Section 6.7.7 of Chapter 6: Terrestrial Ecology of the EIAR concluded that construction of the Development could result in the unavoidable loss of a maximum of 0.42 ha of ancient semi-natural woodland, in the area of the proposed tailpond, adjacent to Loch Awe. All other possible impacts on ancient woodland, including from water level variations in Loch Awe, were assessed as having Negligible effect on this ecological feature. The revised design of the Development subject to FEI evaluation will not change the potential area of ancient woodland that will be lost to construction activities, as this impact will occur at the tailpond, where there is no change to the design. 9.3. To seek to mitigate for the loss of ancient semi-natural woodland, the Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (oLEMP) submitted with the original s36 application included the following commitments: • Extensive ecologically-appropriate planting of woodland to expand native woodland beside Loch Awe and nearby, in places also providing visual screening of Tailpond infrastructure; • Rehabilitation of the caravan zone near the Tailpond by a) removal of caravans, non-native plants, ruderal vegetation and hard-standing; b) planting of appropriate native trees (as standards rather than saplings) to suit and expand the existing thin strip of ancient woodland here; and c) translocation of turves (including deep soil) of ancient woodland ground flora from the Tailpond area to this rehabilitation zone, to replace existing soil/vegetation where currently degraded, under existing trees or planted standards; and • For retained ancient semi-natural woodland close to works and at possible risk of incursion by works activity, an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) will supervise appropriate demarcation and signposting to exclude plant, vehicles, materials or personnel, and will monitor the exclusion zones to ensure compliance and to take action in the event of non-compliance. This will be additional to standard tree protection measures already included as embedded mitigation. Following the implementation of mitigation measures summarised above and described in the oLEMP, it was concluded that there would be a residual Permanent Adverse effect of Local Significance, which in the context of the EIAR for the Development was considered to be Not Significant. 9.4. An assessment of the cumulative effects of the Development with other developments was carried out by the applicant as described in Section 6.8.1 of Chapter 6: Terrestrial Ecology. No schemes were identified by the applicant at the time of submitting the EIAR. However, in subsequent discussions, Argyll and Bute Council officers advised that the S37 Creag Dubh to Dalmally 275 kV overhead line project, located in the same Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ) as the Development would potentially result in the loss of ancient semi-natural woodland.
Page 27
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 9.5. The EIAR for Creag Dubh to Dalmally was therefore reviewed by the applicant as part of the FEI. The consented S37 project will (in the worst-case) result in a loss of approximately 11.65 ha of ancient semi-natural woodland. The cumulative loss of the Development and the Creag Dubh to Dalmally 275 kV project would therefore equate to approximately 12.07 ha (with both projects committed to planting of native woodland). In the context of the area around Loch Awe only, and not in the wider NHZ, the cumulative loss of ancient seminatural woodland would be approximately 1.8% of the immediate woodland area. This figure would be substantially lower for the whole NHZ. The applicants contend by submission that the cumulative losses of ancient semi-natural woodland would therefore be significant at a Local level only, and would not be considered Regionally significant. Officers are in agreement with this evaluation. 9.6. No objection to the proposals has been provided by Scottish Forestry or NatureScot on these matters. Subject to appropriate conditions ensuring compensatory planting, (and as requested by Scottish Forestry in their response dated 28.06.25) is secured by condition, the proposals are considered on balance to be considered acceptable in respect of the small loss of ancient woodland associated with these particular proposals when the benefits of the scheme in addressing the climate emergency and proposed mitigation actions are factored in. 9.7. It is noted in the submissions that some path diversions may be required. This matter can be addressed through the submission of an access plan as part of the required Construction Environmental Management Plan to ensure the safety of third party users of the countryside affected by the construction works. 9.8. Given the above, the proposals are considered to be in accordance with the objectives of NPF 4 Policies 6 and 11 and LDP 2 Policies 30 and 78. 10. Heritage and Cultural Assets 10.1. Officers are of the opinion that no significant adverse impacts will occur or Heritage or Cultural Assets as a result of the application proposals. In their consultation response HES evaluate the potential impacts of the proposals on heritage assets and conclude that there will be no significant adverse impacts upon Heritage and Cultural Assets and raise no objection to the proposals in respect of these matters. Officers are in agreement with these conclusions. 10.2. In this instance the intention to retain the jetty pile columns on a permanent basis has been considered from both a Landscape impact and also in respect of any potential conservation and heritage interest impacts by officers. Details of the structure to be left and photomontages illustrating this are contained within the EIAR. Having regard to the scale/appearance and location of these structures officers are of the opinion that no unacceptable impacts will occur to cultural or heritage interests, and in particular the setting and character of the important settlement of Inveraray which contains both listed buildings and is an important conservation area, as well as an important hub for local tourist activity and businesses. 10.3. Officers note that HES in evaluating cultural and heritage impacts also consider that the proposals will not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the Conservation Village of Inveraray or any heritage assets therein. 10.4. Given the above the proposals are considered to be in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policies 11, 15, and 16 and LDP 2 Policies 15, 16, 17 and 30.
Page 28
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 11. Piers and Harbours. 11.1. The application proposal involves the construction of a jetty into Loch Fyne to be used to utilise water transport to bring in large equipment such as turbines before transporting them to the site via both the public road and upgraded forest haul roads. 11.2. The Northern Lighthouse Board has responded as follows in respect of navigation safety: Northern Lighthouse Board note the commitment from the applicant to installing navigational lighting and marking on the temporary marine facility, and in the waters adjacent to it, during the construction phase of the project. NLB also note that following completion of the construction phase of the project, the deck of the marine facility is to be removed, with the piles remaining in place. The requirement for the lighting and marking of these obstructions will be considered by NLB. 11.3. In respect of landscape impacts, it would be preferable for all elements to be removed , but on balance, the rationale for the proposed approach in future proofing any additional large plant/machinery deliveries and minimising any future construction works required is understood and the approach is considered to be on balance acceptable. However, details of any lighting proposed should in the opinion of Officers be subject to a condition to ensure that this is minimised and reflects the rural and sensitive setting the jetty piles will be located in. 11.4. It is therefore considered that the proposals are in accordance with LDP 2 Policies 28 and 30 and NPF4 Policies 10 and 11. 12. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters. 12.1. Traffic and Transport matters are addressed within the EIAR at Chapter 14 and also within the FEI at 4.10. A Framework Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been provided that sets out the B840 will not be used by any Development construction traffic. This applies to car and light goods vehicle traffic, as well as heavy goods vehicle traffic. (The Framework CTMP is attached within Appendix I of the FEI documentation). 12.2. The applicants recognise in submissions that the road geometry and character of the B840, and especially the settlements of Ford and Cladich, do not support any use by Development construction traffic. No Development site access will be provided or permitted from the B840 so there is no rationale for construction traffic to use the B840. 12.3. The applicants confirm that the future finalised CTMP will provide comprehensive signage at both the B816 and B819 clearly prohibiting construction traffic from using the B840. In addition, monitoring and enforcement measures will be put in place for the development construction programme. To ensure all construction traffic follows the approved A819 site access route, and appropriate enforcement measures will ensure the CTMP is adhered to by all construction traffic. 12.4. All Lower Control Works construction traffic will route via the A819 site access, and travel through the site to reach the Lower Control Works. This access regime will also include all construction traffic associated with temporarily diverting the route of the B840 in the environs of Balliemeanoch Farm during construction of the Lower
Page 29
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Control Works. The settlements of Ford and Cladich on the B840 are not suitable for the routing of any construction traffic and the CTMP will deliver routing, monitoring and enforcement measures to ensure no Balliemeanoch construction traffic uses the B840. 12.5. The applicant submits that: EIAR at Volume 2: Chapter 14: Access, Traffic and Transport at Table 14.8 shows the Development construction traffic would temporarily increase A819 traffic by circa 37%-38%. Bearing in mind 2023 traffic surveys showed the A819 is carrying less than 1,800 vehicles per day, there is unlikely to be any requirement or justification for road improvements to the A819 to increase vehicle capacity in order to address capacity issues created by the Development construction traffic. It may be that any Section 96 Agreement required by Argyll and Bute Council relating to the condition of the A819 before, during and at the end of the Development construction would cover road improvements in response to any road damage attributable to the Development construction traffic. 12.6. The EIAR Volume 5: Appendices, Appendix 14.1 Transport Assessment Report contains construction vehicle Swept-Path Analyses (SPA) for abnormal indivisible loads (AIL) travelling from the temporary pier proposed on Loch Fyne up the A819 to the site access. The applicant further clarifies that; For the largest AIL the SPA shows that the 86.8m long transport vehicle will be able to keep its wheels on the A819 carriageway with only limited oversail of bodywork or load beyond the edge of the vehicle carriageway. This means no load bearing carriageway widening would be required to the A819 route used by AIL. Axle loads and ground block loading should be limited to circa 16T per axle and 3.5T per square-metre respectively on public road carriageways. As such, carriageway or road structure failures should not be an issue for a road designed to A-road standards. 12.7. The SPA undertaken by the applicant indicates there is one left-hand bend on the A819 where potential oversail (bodywork and load) may require very limited improvement to a high verge / embankment on the inside of the bend. An online land registry search indicates this area is either part of the public road corridor or within the ownership of Argyll Estates. Also, at the improvements to accommodate AIL turning left from the A819 into the site access. 12.8. Officers are content that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions roads and transportation matters can be properly addressed. It is therefore proposed that the Scottish Ministers are recommended to impose conditions relating to the following matters • Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (to include cumulative evaluation of other consented major application projects utilising the same road network within the same anticipated construction timescale) • Construction Traffic Management Plans (CTMP’s) related to all elements of the development including access safety measures to the public road and internal forest tracks to be used. • Abnormal Loads Swept Path Analysis Plan • Regular Monitoring of road condition and provision of a bond or other appropriate financial mechanism (Section 69 of Roads Act) to secure funds any necessary
Page 30
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL improvement/repairs/maintenance works to the Public Road caused by traffic associated with the proposal. 12.9. Subject to the imposition of these conditions the proposals are considered to be in accordance with NPF 4 Policy 11 and LDP 2 Policies 30, 35,36,37 and 41, 13. Other Key Policy Matters 13.1. Workers Housing Strategy 13.2. The applicants confirm by submission that at its peak the development will require circa 1000 workers. Some of these may be local contractors, however it is unlikely that a development of this scale will be resourced wholly through the use of only local and normally resident workers. It is noted and welcomed that pre-application discussions with Officers has resulted in the submission of draft Workers Housing Strategy with the S36 application 13.3. Officers are content that the steps to provide a workers housing strategy can be addressed through the imposition of a suspensive condition (as it has been on the approved SSEN projects). This is to ensure that the influx of workers associated with the construction of the project do not have an adverse impact on the operation of the local housing market and worsen the declared housing emergency situation in the local area. 13.4. NPF Policies 11(c) and 25: Socio Economic Benefits and Supply Chain Submissions 13.5. The applicants have provided commentary on Socio-Economic, recreation and tourism matters at Part 16 of the main EIAR Report. The amendments to the design of the scheme related to the FEI submission has not superseded this element of the EIAR. They submit that; The Development is likely to have a beneficial effect on the local economy during the seven year construction phase, as a result of job creation and local expenditure by the developer and contractors, alongside supply chain benefits. During the construction phase, workers involved in the project would use local services and spend in local restaurants and shops which would be especially beneficial outside of the high tourist season. Local businesses are predicted to have Medium sensitivity and will be impacted for up to seven years which would be a Medium magnitude of change. The significance of effect on the local economy is assessed to be Moderate Beneficial and is therefore considered to be Significant. The job market is considered to have a medium sensitivity to change, being regionally important, but robust due to existing employment numbers. The applicant anticipates that up to 1000 personnel will be employed on site during the seven year construction phase at its peak. The average number of personnel working on the Development Site will be an average of 600 to 800 workers on-site, although reduced numbers will be required during the mobilisation period and as the project nears completion. The relatively small local population will result in a need to attract workers from outside of the study area and local job market; however, it is considered that the construction of the Development will create local jobs, which will have a beneficial effect on the local job market. Additional benefits will arise as the Applicant is committed to establishing a training programme which will be available for all individuals employed on site and will help to upskill the local workforce. As the number of local jobs available during construction is unknown at this stage, the
Page 31
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL limited local population and the duration will be temporary, therefore the magnitude of change of job creation is considered to be Low. The significance of effect on the local job market is therefore likely to be Minor Beneficial, which is Not Significant 13.6. Officers consider that such matters are capable of being addressed through the imposition of a condition which will require a strategy to be produced to demonstrate mechanisms/steps to maximise the use of, and benefit to, local businesses. In addition this strategy should set out steps/actions to Maximise Socio-Economic benefits and require the applicants to address provision of training opportunities for local people and/or input into courses such as those being run at Kilmory by UHI (or other alternative and appropriate provider as may be agreed). This will widen training and legacy opportunities for the community in accordance with NPF 4 objectives on these matters. 13.7. In respect of potential impacts on tourism facilities and accommodation the applicants submit at section 16.6.3.2 of the EIAR main report that An outline Housing Strategy has been drafted as part of the s36 application (Appendix 16.2 Housing Strategy (Volume 5: Appendices)), setting out how will be accommodated without having an adverse impact on visitor accommodation capacity, and in turn the wider tourism sector. Local properties and accommodation will therefore remain available for tourists. As such, both the magnitude of change and sensitivity of tourist services in the area are considered to be Low. 13.8. Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to address both maximising socio-economic benefits and requiring approval of a workers housing strategy the proposals are considered to be capable of adequately addressing policies 11(c) and 25 of NPF 4 satisfactorily. 13.9. Archaeological Matters 13.10. Although no consultation response has been received from WoSAS at time of writing It is considered that Archaeological interests can be safeguarded in this instance through the use of an appropriate suspensive condition to ensure that an Archaeological scheme of investigation is agreed in advance of development starting with WoSAS. This is the approach that has previously been recommended by WoSAS in respect of both the substation and S37 projects in the general area on similar landscape areas. 13.11. Subject to the imposition of such an appropriate condition the development is considered to be in accordance with NPF 4 Policy 7 and LDP Policy 21 13.12. Noise and Disturbance 13.13. The main potential noise impacts are considered to be associated with construction activities and not with the operation of the scheme itself. Environmental protection officers have raised no objections to the proposals and recommended no conditions in respect of noise and disturbance. However, it is considered that restrictions on hours of construction and vehicle movements, and commitment to best practice in respect of noise mitigation should form part of the requirements of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), particularly in respect any works in proximity to sensitive receptors. The tail pond formation works would appear to have the greatest potential impact on sensitive receptors directly related to construction works and therefore the CEMP should ensure that these matters are properly
Page 32
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL addressed, particularly given the lengthy anticipated construction programme of the overall scheme. Recommended Conditions The Planning Authority recommends that the following matters are addressed by the imposition of appropriate and competent suspensive conditions. (to be discharged in consultation with the identified external consultees). Environmental Protection and Ecology • Appointment of an Independent overall Project Monitoring Officer at the expense of the applicant to monitor compliance of the overall project with the terms and limitations of the consent and report such matters on a monthly basis to the Planning Authority. • Appointment of independent Ecological Clerk of Works at the expense of the applicant to monitor all works to provide a monthly report to the Planning Authority in respect of compliance to the terms of the permission. • Biodiversity Net Gain (with NatureScot) • Peat Management and Restoration Plan (with NatureScot and SEPA) • Compensatory Tree Planting Plan (with Scottish Forestry) • Updated Protected Species Surveys (Terrestrial) • Required Protected Species Management Plans (to include details any necessary NatureScot License requirements) • A Deer Management Plan (NatureScot) • A Bird Protection Plan • Invasive non-native species removal plan • Tree Protection Plan and Felling Strategy in respect of ancient woodland to protect all retained trees and their root systems and minimise works to trees utilising best practice. To include a Management Plan to secure the retention of high biodiversity features within Ancient Woodland whether in situ or on site, such as deadwood (standing and fallen) • Details of Enhancement planting of native trees appropriate to the locality of the area and locally sourced. • A pre-commencement subtidal benthic survey/study together with proposed mitigation measures to minimise any potential impacts. • A pre-commencement survey undertaken for the grey seals and provision of a management plan to include as required, appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented for all marine mammal species during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Marine Facility.
Page 33
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • All biosecurity considerations as set out in the comments received from NatureScot on 04 February 2025 (Ref: CDM176304) are extended to incorporate Loch Fyne. • Lighting Strategy related to all above ground works to minimise impact on remote countryside at both construction and operational phases and where appropriate in accordance with protected species mitigation requirements (e.g. Bats). • Construction Environmental Management Plan (to include Access Strategy Plan and Construction Noise/Vibration Evaluation and mitigation proposals, including proposed hours of working.) • Full details of all above ground Plant/ Buildings/Structures to include materials to be used and colour finishes. • Full details of all permanent site compound areas including materials to be used and colour finishes • Full details of all permanent access tracks including material to be used and colour finishes • Should any Borrow Pit be proposed outside the headpond excavation area. Full site restoration details , including details of a bond or appropriate financial mechanism (to be independently reviewed at the cost to the applicant) shall be submitted to the planning authority in advance of any formation or extraction activities for its approval. Maximising Socio-Economic Benefits, the cyclical economy and Housing Emergency • Socio Economic Benefits Strategy (to include specific actions to be taken to achieve NPF 4 Policy 11c and Policy 25 objectives). • Workers Housing Strategy Cultural and Historic • Archaeology (with WoSAS) • Lighting strategy for temporary jetty and permanently retained jetty piles.(with Northern Lighthouse Board) Roads and Transportation • Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA) (to include cumulative evaluation of other consented major application projects utilising the same road network within the same anticipated construction timescale (with Transport Scotland), • Construction Traffic Management Plans (TMP’s) related to all elements of the permission (with Appropriate Roads Authority and Planning Authority) • Abnormal Loads Analysis/Plan (with appropriate Roads Authority and Planning Authority) • Monitoring of road conditions and provision of a bond or other appropriate financial mechanism to secure any necessary repairs/maintenance works to the Public Road caused by construction traffic associated with the proposal. (with appropriate Roads Authority)
Page 34
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 13.14. In addition to the above, Argyll and Bute Council recommend that all conditions recommended by other consultees, not addressed above, should be included in any S36 Consent.