The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) () Regulations 2011

Scoping Opinion of South Council for a proposed development at Straid, by

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Description of the development

3. Planning Policy Context

4. Consideration of alternatives

5. Cumulative effects

6. Nature conservation designations

7. Short-term impacts

8. Forestry

9. Traffic and transportation

10. Noise

11. Consultation responses

12. Conclusions

Appendix 1 – Comments received by consultation authorities

1. Introduction

South Ayrshire Council has received a request under Regulation 14(1) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impacts Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 („The Regulations‟) for a scoping opinion in respect of a proposed development at Straid, by Lendalfoot. The purpose of this scoping opinion is to provide the applicant with details of what the planning authority considers to be the main issues and therefore the issues upon which the environmental statement should focus.

As part of the process of preparing this scoping opinion the planning authority has consulted with a range of agencies (both statutory and non-statutory). Each of the consultees has provided a response relating to their own particular remit. The responses of each of the consultation authorities are set out within Appendix 1. Please note that the responses submitted by the consultation authorities form part of the scoping opinion and should therefore be read in full.

As is evidenced by the range of consultees, there are a number of issues associated with this proposal which require to be addressed within the environmental statement. This cover note summarises what the Council considers to be the issues upon which there will be likely significant effects, and therefore those upon which the environmental statement should focus.

2. Description of the development

The subject of this scoping opinion is unusual in that the development is already in existence and has been operational since 1987. The proposal is for an extension to a previous planning consent which would allow the site to operate as a landfill site for an additional ten years. The proposal constitutes „EIA development‟ under the terms of the Regulations due to the fact that the site has a licence to accept „hazardous waste‟. This makes the proposal a „schedule 1 development‟ under the Regulations, triggering an automatic requirement for a full EIA.

The site is located approximately 1km to the north of the small settlement of Lendalfoot, to the east of the A77. The site extends to approximately 9 hectares and comprises of 5 phases. The first three phases have been filled to consented levels and capped. The restoration works relating to these phases has been completed and they are now covered in grassland. The remaining two phases still have capacity to accept landfill and it is these two phases which will be utilised during the proposed ten year extension.

3. Planning policy context

The site is located within the rural diversification area as identified within the Local Plan (SALP) and incorporates an area of a SSSI (Pinbain Burn to Cairn Hill) and a wildlife site (Water of Lendal to Byne Hill). The relevant policies within the SALP are therefore applicable. It should be noted that the emerging South Ayrshire Local Development Plan (SALDP) has recently been the subject of an examination by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) and is therefore a material consideration in the determination of all planning applications.

However, as stated, the circumstances surrounding this proposal are unusual in that the landfill site is operational. The extended timescale would essentially allow the voids left within the remainder of the site to be filled and for restoration commitments (set out within a previous planning permission), to be met.

4. Consideration of alternatives

Schedule 4, paragraph 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 requires that all environmental statements should include information on the main alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the selected option, with reference to the environmental effects. The environmental statement should therefore contain details of considered alternative approaches and why the selected course of action is the most appropriate. It is envisaged that this would be a brief exercise in this instance.

5. Landscape implications

As stated, an extension to the timescale for the operation of this site would allow for the restoration commitments to be met. The landscape implications of extending the timescale for the operation of the site would therefore likely to be advantageous in the long term.

6. Cumulative effects

The Council has a live planning application for the erection of a wind farm development on an adjacent area of land. The environmental statement should explore any potential cumulative effects with this proposal.

7. Aviation

There are no aviation concerns associated with this proposal.

8. Nature Conservation Designations

As noted, there are several natural heritage designations which could be affected by the proposed extended timescale. These include: the Lendalfoot Hills Complex SAC, the Ailsa Craig SPA, the Pinbain Burn to Cairn Hill SSSI and the Water of Lendal to Byne Hill wildlife site. Detailed matters relating to nature conservation and the steps which should be taken are set out within SNH‟s consultation response (see Appendix 1).

I have particular concerns about potential impacts upon the qualifying interests of the Ailsa Craig Special Protection Area, located approximately 9 miles to the north west of the landfill site. This site is of European significance and there are very specific tests for assessing potential impacts upon the qualifying interests of these sites. The environmental statement should recognise this and fully assess impacts upon the breeding population of lesser black-backed gulls and herring gulls on the Ailsa Craig (see SNH scoping response – Appendix 1).

The environmental statement should clarify what the treatment programme mentioned within paragraph 2.10.1 of the Scoping Report entails. The planning authority (as the competent authority) will have to formulate a view on our obligations as set out within Council Directive 92/43/EEC (the „Habitats Directive‟) and The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) (the „Habitat Regulations‟), following the submission of the environmental statement. It would be beneficial if the environmental statement contained all of the necessary information in order for the planning authority to formulate this view, including detailed information on potential impacts upon the integrity of Natura 2000 sites.

I note that the Pinbain Burn to Cairn Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest is located within the boundary of the landfill site. The scoping report suggests that there will be no direct impacts upon this site. I suggest that the reasons behind this conclusion are fully set out within the environmental statement given the level of statutory protection afforded to these designations (please see SNH scoping response – Appendix 1).

Paragraph 6.5.5 of the scoping report refers to survey work which was undertaken in respect of a proposed wind energy development on a nearby site. The potential environmental implications of a landfill site are considerably different to those of a wind farm proposal. I would therefore suggest that in order to come to such conclusions, survey work has to be undertaken within the context of the proposed development (or in this case, the proposed extended timescale for the existing development).

9. Soils

Much of the damage caused to the soil has already taken place through the consenting of the development some years ago. Extending the timescale for the operation of the site may provide an opportunity to improve soil quality within the area through the completion of a restoration programme. There are no significant concerns in this regard in terms of the issues to be covered within the environmental report.

10. Short-term Impacts

The environmental statement should assess impacts upon the surrounding area in terms of any potential for, inter alia, road congestion, noise, vibration and pollution.

Details of any impacts upon water quality should be included within the environmental statement. Any private water supplies should be protected during and after the operation of the site.

11. Forestry

There are no forestry concerns associated with this proposal.

12. Built and cultural heritage resources

There are two scheduled monuments and two listed buildings located within 1.5km of the site. Due to the topography of the area and the fact that the landfill site has been operational there are no significant concerns in this regard.

13. Tourism/ Recreation and Public Access Resources

There are no significant concerns in this regard.

14. Access issues

The environmental statement should contain details of the access arrangements during the operational life of the site. This process should be used in order to identify any adverse impacts upon the surrounding environment, including the potential for congestion on the surrounding road network, and any subsequent mitigation measures which could be employed in order to avoid or reduce any potentially adverse effects. Please see the consultation response of the Ayrshire Roads Alliance for more information (Appendix 1).

15. Traffic and transportation

The ES should assess the impact of vehicular activity associated with the operation of the site upon the public road network in terms of the effects on traffic management, road safety, road layout and road condition.

The ES should contain details of the routes considered for the delivery of materials and impacts upon the road network. The ES should address access issues, particularly those impacting upon the trunk road network, potential stress points at junctions and approach roads.

16. Noise

The environmental statement should explore potential impacts upon sensitive receptors in terms of noise and vibration during the proposed operational life of the site. The applicant may wish to give consideration to undertaking a noise impact assessment as part of the environmental statement.

17. Consultation responses

A consultation exercise has been conducted with all of the relevant consultees. All of the responses received are included as an appendix to this document. The issues raised within each of these responses should be carefully considered and addressed within the environmental statement. Responses from the following organisations and services were received:

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency South Ayrshire Council Environmental Health Ayrshire Roads Alliance Scottish Natural Heritage Scottish Water

West of Scotland Archaeology Service Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Historic Scotland Transport Scotland

18. Conclusions

The content of this scoping opinion makes it clear that there are a number of issues which can be scoped out of the assessment process. The main concerns relate to potential implications for natural heritage designations and their qualifying interests, particularly those of European significance which are afforded a statutory level of protection. The consultation responses of both SNH and RSPB (Appendix 1) are of particular relevance in this regard.

However, as highlighted within this document, there are also a number of other environmental issues relevant to this proposal and the environmental statement presents an opportunity to fully address these issues.

Appendix 1 – Comments received by consultation authorities

Statutory consultee’s comments

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts Scoping consultation Request for Scoping Opinion Straid Landfill

Thank you for consulting SEPA on the scoping opinion for the above development proposal by way of your letter which we received on 06 May 2014. We would welcome further dialogue with the applicant at an early stage to discuss any of the issues raised in this letter. We would welcome the opportunity to comment on the draft ES. Please note that we can process files only of a maximum size of 25MB and therefore, when the ES is submitted, it should be divided into appropriately sized and named sections.

Scoping Report

Given that the proposed change is for an extension of time only with no operational changes, SEPA is broadly satisfied with the Scoping Report issued by Albion Environmental (April 2014). In addition to the issues covered in the scoping report we would recommend that the ES also considers the environmental impact of the discharge of the treated leachate to the Forth of Clyde

Regulatory advice for the applicant

Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on our website at www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx. If you are unable to find the advice you need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the operations team in your local SEPA office at:

31 Miller Road Ayr KA7 2AX

If you have any queries relating to this letter, please contact me by telephone on 01698 839337 or e- mail at [email protected].

South Ayrshire Council Environmental Health

Environmental Health has no objections to the above proposal and would advise that methodologies outlined in the Scoping Report which will form the basis for the Environmental Assessment will cover concerns within the remit of Environmental Health.

For the applicants information, under the assessment of Air Quality, Dust and Odour, page29 the Council no longer operate an automatic air quality monitor at Carrick Academy, due to low emission results for Nitrogen Dioxide and Particulate Matter. The monitoring station has been relocated at the corner of Taylor Street and York Street, Ayr, (Ayr Harbour site) the results of which can be viewed at: http://www.south-ayrshire.gov.uk/documents/air%20quality%20progress%20report%202013.pdf

Ayrshire Roads Alliance

I have read the Scoping Statement, and given that the proposal is for the continuation of use of an existing, established facility, I have no major concerns from a Traffic and Transportation perspective. I would however request that the following be incorporated within the Traffic and Transportation chapter of the EIA:

Further information on vehicle trips generated by the development – I note that the approximate number of vehicles per day is given, but I would request that this be broken down into vehicle

types, along with clarification as to if there peak periods of traffic generation and or if trips are uniformly spread over the hours of operation; and Confirmation on the routing of development trips on the local/ trunk road network within the SAC boundary – ideally this should be supplemented by a drawing/ figure at an appropriate scale;

The report suggests that if anything the volume of landfill traffic is likely to decrease, therefore I will be satisfied if the above clarifications are incorporated within the EIA.

Scottish Natural Heritage

We advise that there is currently insufficient information to determine whether the proposal is likely to significantly affect the breeding population of lesser black-back and herring gull on the Ailsa Craig Special Protection Area (SPA). Careful consideration of this issue would be required as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). In order to determine the likely significant effect of this proposal, we recommend that the following additional information be obtained:

The applicant should set out how they propose to reduce the number of gulls foraging from the landfill site. This should include the development of a gull management plan with non-lethal measures (e.g. intensive scaring and covering of waste with inert material) to deter foraging birds.

The scoping report mentioned a treatment programme to minimise nuisance and hazards arising from birds using the landfill site but does not include any detail on the proposed methods. It should be noted that the lethal control of lesser black-back and herring gull under general licence requires the user to report to Scottish Natural Heritage the actions carried out. Furthermore, due to the proximity of Ailsa Craig SPA, the lethal control of gulls would require a Habitats Regulations Assessment to ensure such actions would not adversely affect the breeding gull population.

We also provide additional advice regarding other natural heritage interests, which are included below.

Protected sites

The scoping report lists all designated sites within 5 km of the landfill site and states that the proposal does not include any designated land. It should be noted that the landfill site actually includes one hectare of the Pinbain Burn to Cairn Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is designated for grassland, serpentine heath and upland habitats. Although we agree the proposal is unlikely to significantly affect this site, we recommend the EIA clearly states how extending the operational life of the landfill would affect the SSSI within the proposal area, and provide details of the likely significance of these effects. We also recommend that Ailsa Craig SPA is included on the list of designated sites within the report that could be affected by the proposal.

Protected species

The scoping report refers to previous ecological surveys carried out for a nearby wind farm proposal but does not include whether the applicant plans to undertake new surveys as part of the current EIA. The existing surveys (for the wind farm proposal) show that otters are present close to the landfill site. Surveys for mobile species like otter can only be considered valid for 12 to 18 months. Therefore we recommend a new otter survey is carried out to inform the current EIA. Furthermore, otters are European Protected Species (EPS) and the EIA should include proposed mitigation measures for the protection of any otters found to be present.

We recommend the developer refers to, but not be limited to, the following sources of SNH guidance and information to ensure they undertake a robust EIA: http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/advice-for-planners-and- developers/protected/protected-animals/

Please do not hesitate to contact me for further information or questions that you may have.

Scottish Water

Following review of the materials provided we can confirm that there are no SW water abstraction sources, which are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas under the Water Framework Directive, within the site boundary or vicinity that could be affected by the proposed development.

There are no SW infrastructure assets in the immediate vicinity, or within the boundaries of, the proposed site.

West of Scotland Archaeology Service

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Straid Landfill - Request for a Scoping Opinion

I refer to the above request for a scoping opinion, which was sent to the West of Scotland Archaeology Service on the 6th of May. I have compared the Scoping Statement prepared in relation to the proposal by Albion Environmental against information contained in the Historic Environment Record (HER), and would like to make the following comments.

As you will be aware, the proposal under consideration is to extend the operational life of the existing landfill at Straid Farm for a further 10 years, to July 2023. Whilst the proposal would extend the period for which the landfill would remain in use, it is not proposed to increase the capacity or footprint of the site from that which is currently consented, and there is also no intention to amend the types of wastes which the site can accept, which means that there will be no alterations to the current operations of the Landfill. That being the case, I would consider that the proposal is unlikely to have any additional impact on the archaeology or cultural heritage of the area, beyond that resulting from the previously-consented use of the site. I would therefore generally agree with the assessment set out in sections 6.9.1 – 6.9.3 of the scoping statement that no archaeological mitigation measures would be required in relation to the proposal to extend the period for which the landfill remains in use. I would stress, however, that this assessment is based solely on the specific details of the current proposal; future applications in this area, whether for expansion to the landfill or for other types of development, would need to be assessed on their own merit.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

The scoping report makes clear that this application is for an extension to timescales only, with no extension to operational area, void capacity or change to waste type. We agree that there is a benefit to granting the application as a means to reach the consented restoration contours, which have not been achieved as a result within the consented period.

However, the scoping report does not make clear why areas in Phase 2 and 3 remain unrestored, given the fact that Phase 4 is being operated and Phase 5 has been excavated ready for use. If there are sound operational reasons for this, they have not been provided and it seems unlikely that the operator could not foresee the shortfall in material until 2013. The result is that restoration liability does not appear to have been minimised within the existing consented operations as much as it should have been.

Environmental Impacts

We are content that the majority of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed development will be controlled by the conditions of the PPC permit. However we note that the licence does not deal in detail with management of the site to minimise its attractiveness to gulls.

Potential Impacts on Ailsa Craig SPA

We are disappointed with the way that the application has assessed the impact on Ailsa Craig SPA.

Section 3.1.4 describes Ailsa Craig as a Nature Reserve, failing to properly recognise its status as a Special Protection Area (SPA) or the features for which it is designated (its internationally significant population of breeding and other seabirds). The report does not mention the fact that the Reserve is managed by RSPB Scotland.

Section 6.5.2 does not include Ailsa Craig SPA and SSSI on the list of designated sites of relevance to the EIA and does not recognise the functional link between the landfill site and Ailsa Craig that exists because herring gull and lesser black-backed gulls (which are qualifying species of the Ailsa Craig SPA) feed at the landfill site.

The statement that “conclusions from this Scoping Report demonstrate that it is clear that as the main ecological receptors of protected and priority species are far from the site boundaries of the Landfill and impacts on protected and priority species are not expected due to the activities of the Landfill” further demonstrates that the applicant has not understood the potential impact of their activities in relation to the SPA.

In particular, we are concerned by the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed extension to the landfill operation and the proposed Straid windfarm. RSPB Scotland submitted an objection to this application 27 July 2013 because of the survey work undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the windfarm did not fully comply with SNH guidelines, resulting in uncertainty as to the potential implications on SPA populations. Until analysis of further survey work is complete it will not be possible to issue a robust consent in terms of meeting the requirements of the Habitat Regulations.

As this proposal could (in combination) have a significant effect on the Ailsa Craig SPA, and is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of the site, it is subject to the requirements of Article 6 of EC Directive 92/43 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the „Habitats Directive‟) and The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) („the Habitat Regulations‟), which implement the Directive in the UK. In particular, Regulation 48 requires that the local planning authority, as a competent authority, must make an “…appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives” before deciding to give any consent.

Gull management

We are particularly disappointed that the applicant has not recognised the relationship between the two developments and has not included any information on gull management or ensured that the consultants working on the windfarm and landfill applications have jointly considered how these two proposals could interact.

The extended life of the landfill would increase the potential for impacts to the Ailsa Craig gull populations as a result of lethal control and increased collision impact, should the windfarm be consented. The application will need to include an assessment of these impacts.

In order to reduce the potential impacts on the Ailsa Craig gull population, we request that mitigation measures be put in place to minimise the attractiveness of the site to gulls and that the use of lethal control is minimised. These measures should be formalised through an agreed management plan for both the windfarm and landfill site that is binding on both operators (should consent for both be granted). We therefore recommend this is the subject of a s75 obligation for the site.

Historic Scotland

This letter covers our comments for our statutory historic environment remit, including scheduled monuments and their setting, category A-listed buildings and their setting, gardens and designed landscapes (GDL) and historic battlefields included in their respective Inventories.

Information and advice on the historic environment issues, covering the above types of assets as well as unscheduled archaeology, should also be sought from the relevant Council‟s archaeological services. The Council‟s conservation advisors will be able to provide information and advice on likely impacts on category B and C(S) listed buildings and conservation areas.

Proposed Development

We understand that the proposal is for an extension of the operational life of Straid Farm Landfill for a further 10 years to July 2023. The proposal would involve continued engineering, filling and restoring the final phases of the engineered landfill. Whilst the proposal would extend the operational life of the Landfill, it is not proposed to increase the capacity of the site from that which is currently consented.

Historic Environment Issues

It is noted in the scoping report that there are some cultural heritage sites nearby the application boundary, namely:

Carleton Mains enclosure 280 SE, a scheduled monument located approximately 1.5km southwest Carlton Motte, a scheduled monument approximately 1.8km southwest Dinvin Motte, a scheduled monument located approximately 4.8km northwest

We consider that no additional impact assessments will be required for the above sites or any other sites within our remit as the proposal is unlikely to significantly affect their current setting.

I hope this response is of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me on 0131 668 8729 if you wish to discuss any aspects of the advice provided.

Transport Scotland

With reference to recent correspondence on the above development, we write to inform you of our involvement as Term Consultants to Transport Scotland – Trunk Road and Bus Operations Directorate (TS-TRBOD) in relation to the provision of advice on issues affecting the trunk road network.

We have been passed the Environmental Statement (ES) Scoping Report prepared by Albion Environmental on behalf of Straid Farm Limited in support of the above development. Having reviewed the information provided, we would make the following comments on behalf of Transport Scotland.

This response relates only to the Environmental Impact Assessment and Transport Scotland will respond separately to the planning application for this development if formally consulted.

Development Proposals

We understand from the information submitted that the proposed development consists of consolidating extant planning permissions for the continuation of landfill operations for a further 10 years to July 2023. The proposal will involve continued engineering, filling and restoring the final phases of the engineered landfill with a capacity to receive approximately 240,000m3 of residual waste over the 10 year lifetime of the facility.

It is noted that Straid Farm Limited has no intention to amend the types of wastes which the site can accept and there will be no alternations to the current operation of the landfill site.

The landfill site covers an area of approximately 9 hectares and is situated near Lendalfoot approximately 10km south of . The site is accessed from the north by turning left off the main carriageway of the A77(T) Ayr to road at the entrance to the village of Lendalfoot. It is noted that the A77(T) is the nearest trunk road to the site approximately 200m to the west of the site entrance.

Access Strategy and Environmental Impacts

It is noted that access to the proposed extension will be via the existing site access off the unclassified road to the A77(T). As access is gained via the local road network, Transport Scotland has no specific comments to make on the actual access point itself.

It is noted that there is no proposal to alter or increase the number of vehicles arriving at the landfill site. It is likely that as recycling activities increase due to the implementation and enforcement of the recycling requirements contained within the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012, the quantity of waste being sent to landfill will continue to decline.

The landfill site currently deals with a waste throughput of up to circa 35,000 tonnes per year which will reduce as a result of further recycling. Based on an average vehicle load weight of 8 tonnes per vehicle (NB: waste currently arrives in a mix of local collection vehicles and bulk vehicles) this equates to 17 vehicle movements per day (34 two-way movements) which is considered to be negligible in terms of traffic and associated environmental impacts.

We can confirm that Transport Scotland do not require any further information with regard to the environmental impacts associated with development generated traffic.

Noise and Air Quality

Given that no changes are expected to baseline traffic conditions, Transport Scotland are satisfied that no further assessment of Noise or Air Quality is required in relation to the trunk road network and its adjacent receptors.

I trust that the above is satisfactory but should you wish to discuss the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at our Office.