SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 7 MARCH 2012

OUTER HEBRIDES LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Report by Director of Development

PURPOSE OF REPORT: To report the outcome of consultation on the Outer Hebrides Proposed Local Development Plan and seek approval to submit the Plan to Scottish Minsters requesting Examination of the unresolved issues.

COMPETENCE

1.1 There are no legal, financial, equality issues or other constraints to the recommendations being implemented.

SUMMARY

2.1 Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan – Proposed Plan was published for consultation in September 2011. Forty nine individuals, agencies and companies made comment on the Proposed Plan (Appendix 1).

2.2 Responses to the submissions have been prepared. Where these constitute minor or ‘non-notifiable’ modifications these have generally been accepted (Appendix 2). Representations requesting more substantive modifications to the Plan have been grouped and addressed under twenty two topic headings. These unresolved representations are set out in the format of Schedules (Appendix 3).

2.3 The Proposed Plan will be submitted to Scottish Minister’s who will appoint a Reporter to carry out an Examination of the unresolved matters and make recommendations as to any modifications to the Plan deemed necessary.

2.4 It is recognised that in some instances the Plan might be improved if an amendment suggested through submission were to be accepted. Such instances are indicated in the schedules and the possible modifications to the plan that might result from these are set out in Appendix 4.

RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 It is recommended that the Comhairle: a) agree the responses to the comments received during consultation, detailed in Appendices 2, 3 and 4; and b) authorise the Director of Development to submit the Proposed Plan to Scottish Ministers seeking Examination of the unresolved issues.

Contact Officer: Diane McPherson tel 01870 604990 Appendices: 1. List of representees 2. List of minor (non-notifiable) modifications 3. Schedules 4 addressing substantive issues 4. Modifications requested that are acceptable to the Comhairle Background Papers: Sustainable Development Committee Report dated August 2011

BACKGROUND

4.1 The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan Main Issues Report (MIR) was published in February 2010. The MIR set out the significant new issues that have arisen since the production of the existing Development Plan and identified proposal sites for such uses as housing and business. The purpose of the MIR is to stimulate discussion and encourage engagement in the Plan process from as early a stage as possible in line with recent planning regulations.

4.2 Further extensive consultation has taken place throughout the process of preparing the Outer Hebrides Proposed Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan). The August 2011 Report to the Comhairle’s Sustainable Development Committee details the consultation that took place prior to publication of the Proposed Plan.

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

5.1 The Proposed Plan was published in September 2011 and formal consultation ran until November. Responses on the Proposed Plan have been received from forty nine individuals, companies and organisations, listed in Appendix 1.

5.2 Since the formal consultation closed, work has focussed on preparing responses to the representations. As consultation is now an integral part of the preparation process, the Proposed Plan as published forms the Comhairle settled view in terms of how land should be developed over the next 5 – 10 years. Therefore responses to representations received at this stage will largely defend and justify the Plan as it stands and provide reasons why it should not be changed.

5.3 Comments received fall into three categories . Supporting statements . Minor suggested amendments to the Plan (non-notifiable modifications) . Comments seeking substantive modification to the Plan

5.4 All statements supporting the Plan are noted and welcomed. Where appropriate all proposed amendments deemed to be minor are accepted. These are listed in Appendix 2 with the consequential text amendment. The remaining unresolved matters have been grouped under twenty two topic headings. These will be dealt with at Examination by a Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers.

5.5 As required by planning regulations, a ‘Schedule 4’ has been prepared for each of the topic matters for Examination. Each Schedule 4 sets out: . The name (with reference number) of each representee commenting on the specific issue . A summary of all the comments submitted in relation to that topic . A list of the modifications to the Plan sought by representees . The Comhairle’s response to the matters raised.

5.6 A copy of the full draft Schedule 4s is attached at Appendix 3.

5.7 Although the Comhairle’s position, as set out in the Proposed Plan is generally being defended, it is recognised that in some instances the Plan might be improved if an amendment suggested through submission were to be accepted. While it is for the Reporter to recommend modifications to the Plan, the Comhairle has the opportunity to indicate when they might be prepared to accept a modification. The draft Schedule 4s include commentary on the occasions that the Comhairle is content to accept a change to the Plan. Appendix 4 sets out the possible modifications to the Plan that might arise if the Reporter accepts the Comhairle’s views.

NEXT STEPS

6.1 The Proposed Plan along with the outstanding unresolved matters will be submitted to Scottish Ministers with a request to appoint a Reporter to carry out an Examination of the Plan and where necessary recommend modifications. It is anticipated the Plan and all required supporting documents will be submitted in April.

6.2 Once a Reporter is appointed by Scottish Ministers it is expected that the Examination Report with any recommendations will be available within six months. A further report to the Comhairle will be presented once the Reporter‘s recommendations have been received.

6.3 The anticipated timescale for taking the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan through to adoption is set out in the Development Plan Scheme Third Review which is the topic of a concurrent Report.

APPENDIX 1 LIST OF REPRESENTEES 001 R Hunter 002 Norman MacLean 003 Office of the Traffic Commissioner 004 M Nicolson 005 Lochboisdale Amenity Trust 006 Michael Merritt 007 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 008 Sportscotland 009 The Theatres Trust 010 Mr & Mrs Bagshaw 011 Western Isles NHS Board 012 George N MacLeod 013 Stornoway Port Authority 014 E Shaw 015 Bhaltos Community Trust 016 Elisabeth L Dunne 017 Norman MacLean 018 Amanda MacKenzie 019 Harris Development Ltd 020 Wing Commander James E Toms 021 Christina Ann MacDonald 022 Tighean Innse Gall 023 Land Use Consultants for Eisgein Estate 024 Scottish Natural Heritage 025 M Robertson 026 Alison Laurie 027 Scottish Government 028 Angus Macdonald 029 Anton Michel 030 Uist Builders (Construction) Group Ltd 031 Crofters Commission 032 Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust & Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board 033 Scottish Wildlife Trust 034 Jones Lang LaSalle (Scotland) Ltd for SSE Ltd 035 Highlands & Islands Enterprise 036 Scottish Water 037 Highlands & Islands Airports Ltd 038 Breaclet Grazings Committee 039 Susan and Tom McLaughlin 040 Tong Community Council 041 The Scottish Salmon Producers Company 042 South Harris Community Council 043 National Trust for Scotland 044 Jehovah's Witnesses 045 Barra Watersports Club 046 K Dawson 047 Forestry Commission Scotland 048 Marine Harvest Scotland 049 The Scottish Salmon Company

APPENDIX 2

NON-NOTIFIABLE MODIFICATIONS

A local authority can accept minor (or non-notifiable) modifications to the Proposed Plan. These are amendments that do not affect the direction of any policy of proposal in the Plan and are not subject to Examination by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. The table below details the proposed non-notifiable modifications.

Rep Policy/page reference Requested modification Ref 027 Development Strategy Amend the development strategy map to include B (Rural Map Settlements) and C (Out-with Settlements). 027 Introduction and Amend last paragraph as follows…The Plan is consistent with Context (Page 4) the National Planning Framework 2, Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), and Scottish Government Land Use Strategy and where relevant takes account of other national policy and legislation such as the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009…

027 Introduction and Correction: Designing Places (2001) Context (Page 4) 013 Introduction and Amend second paragraph as follows…The main sea-links from Context, Context (Page the islands are between Stornoway to Ullapool, Tarbert and 6) Lochmaddy to Uig (Skye), and Lochboisdale and Castlebay to Oban and there are direct air links via Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness. These are complemented by important air and sea inter-island links… 007 Policy 2 Assessment of Delete bullet points c) and d) from policy 2 Now duplication as Development (Page 14) separate policies cover these matters.

013 Policy 2 Assessment of Under paragraph (e) of Policy 2 include "relevant Harbour Development (Page 14) Authorities and Marine Protected Areas" in the list of ones that might give notification of zones.

027 Policy 3 Zero and Low Note that the 2007 Building Standards have since been Carbon Buildings (Page replaced by 2010 Standards - carry over the target of reduced 15) CO2 emissions to the 2010 Regulations. 036 Policy 6 Water and Amendment text to reflect Scottish Water current position in Waste Water relation to investment. Supporting Text (Page 21) 007 Policy 6 Water and Amend title of SEPA Position Statement 06-08 to SEPA’s Waste Water Refs Waste Water Position Statement and include reference to (Page 21) SEPA’s LUPS GU19 Planning Advice on Waste water Drainage.

036 Policy 7 Flooding Amend first sentence on page 21 to read Good quality Supporting Text (Page infrastructure is important not only to serve new development 21) but also to protect the environment. The Comhairle will support Scottish Water in pursuing investment in areas of limited capacity to ensure sufficient capacity for development potential within the Plan period. In an area where capacity is currently deemed limited, prospective developers should liaise with Scottish Water as early as possible in their planning process to ensure adequate supporting documentation is compiled to assist with any subsequent investment projects and phasing of connections. Where appropriate, developers will be required to make a contribution to ensure adequate network capacity is in place.

Rep Policy/page reference Requested modification Ref 036 Policy 7 Flooding Include reference to Surface Water Management Plans. Supporting Text (Page 21)

007 Policy 8 Waste Include reference to SEPA LUPS Guidance Note 6 Guidance Management Refs on input to development management consultations in relation (Page 24) to Zero Waste Plan issues.

007 Policy 8 Waste Amend reference to SEPA’s A Simple Guide to Site Waste Management Refs Management Plans to “Netregs A Simple Guide to Site Waste (Page 24) Management Plans” 007 Policy 9 Water Include reference to SEPA LUPS GU7 Guidance on the Water Environment Refs Framework Directive including River Basin Planning (Page 26) 007 Policy 10 Soil Recommend that the list of references include SEPA Resources Refs (Page Regulatory Position Statement – Development on peat. 28)

007 Policy 19 Energy Include references to SEPA LUPS GU4 Planning Guidance on Resources References Windfarm Developments, SEPA LUPS GU18 Planning (Page 40) Guidance on Hydropower Developments and SEPA, SNH, FCS and Scottish Renewables Good Practice During Windfarm Construction.

007 Policy 20 Small and Include references to SEPA LUPS GU4 Planning Guidance on Micro Renewables Refs Windfarm Developments, SEPA LUPS GU18 Planning (Page 42) Guidance on Hydropower Developments and SEPA, SNH, FCS and Scottish Renewables Good Practice During Windfarm Construction.

007 Policy 22 Fish Farming Include reference to SEPA LUPS GU17 Marine development and Marine Planning and marine aquaculture planning guidance. Refs (Page 46)

033 Policy 29 Trees & Add following text to first paragraph to introduce these two Woodland Supporting points as additional benefits to be gained from new/additional Text (Page 58) planting ”…. and even small areas of woodland can bring a range of socio/economic benefits including increased biodiversity, carbon sequestration as part mitigation of climate change, and possibly a contribution to localised biomass production. Trees can also help to slow water flow which can be of particular significance in flood-prone catchments.”

007 Section 5 Development Add text for allocation Prop H1f to read A flood risk assessment Proposals Prop H1f for this site concluded that no development should be located Melbost Junction, below 4.29m AOD. Lewis (Page 67) and Proposal Site Maps Copy text for allocation Prop H1f in the Proposal Site Maps booklet Prop H1f booklet

Section 5 Development Correction: Amend boundary of Prop H1s Garrynamonie to Proposals Prop H1s correspond to 2008 approved planning application for this site Garrynamonie, South

Uist and Proposal Site Maps booklet

Rep Policy/page reference Requested modification Ref (Page 67)

008 Section 5 Development Amend text to refer to long distance trail Proposals Prop Prop INF2 Hebridean Way (Page 73) 009 Appendix 4 Glossary Clarify elements of 'community facilities' in the Glossary (Page 83) 013 Appendix 4 Glossary For ease of reference it is suggested that acronyms used in the (Page 83) plan are included in the glossary - in addition to when first defined.

Requested non-notifiable modification not acceptable to the Comhairle

Rep Policy/page Requested modification ref reference

027 Development Amend the development strategy map to show the remote areas at a Strategy Map smaller scale.

An online version of the LDP is available on the Comhairle’s website. It is possible to view the maps at various scales through this system therefore the Comhairle does not consider it necessary to produce hard copies of the Development Strategy map at any additional scale.

034 Vision and Include references to the Scottish Government Economic Strategy 2011 Objectives, and the Scottish Government 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in National Aims Scotland (Page 7)

024 Policy 1 Insert 'Wildness in Scotland’s Countryside’ (2003). Development Strategy (Page There is no References section in this Policy – not appropriate within text. 11)

APPENDIX 3

SCHEDULE 4s RELATING TO UNRESOLVED MATTERS FOR EXAMINATION

CONTENTS

Issue 001 Plan Context, Objectives and Appendices Issue 002 Development Strategy Issue 003 Assessment of Development Issue 004 Siting and Design Issue 005 Landscape Issue 006 Water and Waste water Issue 007 Flooding Issue 008 Waste Management Issue 009 Water Environment Issue 010 Soil Resources Issue 011 Housing (sites/allocations) Issue 012 Economic Development Issue 013 Stornoway Issue 014 Energy Resources Issue 015 Fish Farming and Marine Planning Issue 016 Coastal Development Issue 017 Countryside Access Issue 018 Transport Issue 019 Natural Heritage and Biodiversity Issue 020 Historic Environment Issue 021 Development Site Proposal maps Issue 022 Miscellaneous

Issue 001 PLAN CONTEXT, OBJECTIVES AND APPENDICES

Introduction and Context page 4 - 6 Reporter: Development plan Vision and Objectives page 7 reference: Appendices pages 75 – 87 Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Stornoway Port Authority (013) Crofting Commission (031) Jones Lang Lasalle for SSE (034) National Trust for Scotland (043) Provision of the Introduction and Context; Vision and Objectives; and the development plan to Appendices provides a framework within which the plan has which the issue been developed relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Stornoway Port Authority (013) suggests minor text changes primarily to reflect marine as well as land interests.

Crofters Commission (031) proposed amendments to Appendix 1 to include additional advice re the siting of new properties on crofts in relation to inbye land and the need to protect inbye land from development.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) wishes to see specific Government National Planning documents (Scottish Government Economic Strategy 2011 and the Scottish Government 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland) noted in the Vision and Objectives section.

National Trust for Scotland (043) proposed changes in to Objective 3 of the Plan to ‘protect’ aspects of the built and cultural heritage and to widen landscape to include seascapes.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Stornoway Port Authority (013) proposes text changes in the Introduction, the Context and the Vision and Objectives chapters.

The Scottish Government (027) suggests including reference to the Scottish Government Land Use Strategy.

Crofters Commission (031) suggest that a new bullet point be added after point 5 of the Guidance in Appendix 1: “Siting of new builds on the better quality land should avoid land suited to tillage and cropping, ensuring it is retained and the impact on the remainder of the croft reduced both with regard to the choice of the site for development and also the impact of the associated access”.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) wishes to see specific Government National Planning documents (Scottish Government Economic Strategy 2011 and the Scottish Government 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland) noted in the Visions and Objectives section.

National Trust for Scotland (043) proposed changes in text to ‘protect’ aspects of the built and cultural heritage and to widen landscape to include seascapes. The National Trust suggests strengthening the vision to say “our outstanding natural, built and cultural heritage is valued and protected”, and suggest including reference to land/seascapes in the third Objective of the Vision.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Introduction and Context (013) Stornoway Port Authority notes that the first paragraph (page 4) of the Introduction refers to land use planning omitting to make any reference to marine aspects. In general terms planning control extends only to low water mark at the coastline. Although there are limited aspects of planning control in the marine environment e.g. fish farm development out to the 3 mile limit, the ability to plan and influence the marine environment is limited to the immediate coastline. Plan Policies 22 Fish Farming and Marine Planning and 23 Coastal Development and Erosion, provide further context on planning in the marine and coastal environment. The Comhairle considers that the current statement is appropriate and no change is required.

Vision and Objectives (page 8) (034) (043) Jones Lang LaSalle identifies that there are a number of Government policy and advisory documents (all energy related and specifically related to their client) not referred to in section 2 Vision and Objectives. It is recognised that there is a plethora of Government policy and advisory documents which are not referred to in this section however those listed are the references from which the policy approach is drawn are most relevant to the determination of planning applications. References to appropriate policy and advice documents provide the context and background for each section of the Plan. It is not considered necessary to exhaustively quote policy documents at the beginning of the Plan other than those appropriate to the Plan. Therefore the Comhairle does not consider it necessary to amend the Plan.

The National Trust for Scotland proposes that the words ‘and protected.’ be added at the end of third Objective (page 8) which starts ‘An attractive place enjoyed….’. The insertion of the word ‘protected’ could imply some form of statutory or formal designation which may not always be the case. The proposed addition is, therefore, considered to be potentially misleading.

The National Trust for Scotland further proposes that the islands’ land/seascapes be specifically referred to in the third Objective as part of the defining character of the islands’. The word ‘seascapes’ is ambiguous; if the writer is referring to sea areas beyond the low water mark the Comhairle has only limited planning powers. If, however, the writer is referring to the coastline itself the Comhairle considers that this is adequately covered by the existing all-embracing statement and is implicit in “natural heritage”. The Comhairle considers that the current statement is appropriate and no change is required.

Appendix 1 (page 75 - 81) (031) Crofters Commission recommends that the General Guidance of Appendix 1 be amended to show the need to better protect in-bye croftland and protect access to the rest of the croft. Appendix 1 is reproduced from the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment published by Scottish Natural Heritage and it would be inappropriate to alter this in any

way. The matters raised here are addressed in detail under Issues 003 Assessment of Development; 004 Siting and Design and 011 Housing.

Note: Similar matters are also discussed in Issues 005 Landscape and 016 Coastal Development

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 002 DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Policy 1 Development Strategy Development plan policy wording and supporting text (Pages 9 Reporter: reference: – 13) The Development Strategy Map Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Stornoway Port Authority (013); Land Use Consultants for Eisgein Estate (023); Scottish Natural Heritage (024); Crofters Commission (031); Jones Lang LaSalle for SSE (034) Provision of the The Local Development Plan Development Strategy which development plan to sets out the Comhairle’s fundamental approach to the which the issue development of land and location of development within the relates: Outer Hebrides. Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Stornoway Port Authority (013) states the phrase "mainland gateways to the Outer Hebrides" is misleading - surely these gateways are on the mainland? (013)

Land Use Consultants (023) objects to inclusion of south shore of Loch Sealg as 'isolated coastline' as there is a consented wind farm (Muaitheabhal) across the loch to the north *.

Scottish Natural Heritage (024) suggests an additional sentence could be added to the first paragraph of the Remote Areas section on page 13 as follows - “New development proposals should be sited and designed so that they do not contrast to the wildness qualities of an area".

Crofters Commission (031) encourages the inclusion of specific comment to discourage the use of the better quality croftland and, as an alternative, to encourage development onto the poorer areas that are difficult to till and crop.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) states that SSE has a concern regarding the policy requirements for development proposals within 'Outwith Settlement' areas. Policy Criterion A requires a clearly justified and demonstrated need for the development at a specific location. For areas outwith settlements, it is recommended that electricity and gas infrastructure as well as renewable energy, transmission and distribution infrastructure development should be specifically recognised. It is often the case that, whilst these development types can be considered to have specific locational requirements, justifying these developments on the basis of requiring a specific location, i.e. a particular parcel of land, may in some circumstances not be possible.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) recommends that in terms of wind energy proposals within the 'Remote Area', instead of absolutely requiring such development proposals to adhere to the Large Scale Wind Energy development Supplementary Guidance, it would be more appropriate to require such development proposals to have regard to this guidance. (034)

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) In terms of the policy requiring development to demonstrate a

specific location or need within the Remote Areas, the same observations as above apply, in that it would be more appropriate for such a location or need to be demonstrated as being within the remote areas as a whole rather than being site specific. (034) *this matter was raised against Policy 23 (Issue 16) however it is considered more appropriate to respond to it within the framework of the Development Strategy.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

It is assumed that Stornoway Port Authority (013) would wish to see an amendment to the reference to mainland gateways

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) wishes the policy to state "a clearly justified and demonstrated need for the proposed development within the outwith settlement area".

Land Use Consultants (023) requests the removal of the south shore of Loch Sealg from isolated coastline.

Scottish Natural Heritage (024) seeks addition of a new sentence referring to Remote Areas "New development proposals should be sited and designed so that they do not contrast to the wildness qualities of an area".

Crofters Commission (031) suggests the inclusion of specific comment to discourage the use of the better quality croftland and, as an alternative, to encourage development onto the poorer areas that are difficult to till and crop.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) seeks an amendment to the wording for Remote Areas from requiring proposals to adhere to the Large Scale Wind Energy Development Supplementary Guidance, to have regard to this guidance.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) wishes the policy to state "a clearly justified and demonstrated need for the proposed development within Remote Areas".

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Stornoway Port Authority (013) The Local Development Plan refers to areas of the Outer Hebrides. Within this context it is considered reasonable to refer to the points of entry to the islands from the mainland as ’mainland gateways’. This clearly distinguishes these locations from those that have transport connections within the Outer Hebrides for instance where Leverburgh and Berneray are the connecting points between Harris and North Uist.

Crofters Commission (031) The matter of how the Plan should address better quality croftland is discussed in detail under Issues 003 Assessment of Development; 004 Siting and Design and 011 Housing.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) The intention of the Outwith Settlement Areas section of the development strategy is to seek to ensure the open landscape and dispersed nature of development outwith settlements is not threatened. The policy recognises that some types of uses have specific needs to locate within these areas and as such seeks the developer to provide justification for a proposed development at the specified location. Such uses may not be acceptable throughout the whole of these classified areas so the requirement is for justification to be provided to support a planning application at the specific location. The Comhairle considers this to be less demanding on the developer than more onerous therefore does not accept the suggested amendment.

Land Use Consultants (023); Scottish Natural Heritage (024); Jones Lang LaSalle (034) Land Use Consultants requested that the south shore of Loch Sealg is removed from ‘isolated coast’ on the basis that there is a consented wind farm on the north shore of the Loch Sealg. Isolated Coast forms part of the Remote Areas classification. The area along the shore of Loch Sealg is identified as isolated coast in the current Western Isles Structure Plan (page 31 supporting text; Policy RM6 and the Key Diagram) and forms an integral part of the current Development Plan locational strategy. No circumstances had arisen that pointed to a need for review as part of the monitoring process (Monitoring Statement page 8). Had it been relevant it would have been one of the factors taken into account in considering the wind farm application. The consent referred to does not include the south shore therefore this is not accepted as a justifiable reason for amending the extent of the ‘isolated coastline’ at Loch Sealg. (023) Policy 1 relating to ‘Remote Areas’ sets a list of criteria to determine the suitability or otherwise of development within such areas. Where development can be justified against the criteria, it is further required that attention is to be given to minimising the impact of the …. open and rural character of the landscape and its qualities of remoteness; …. both by the developer in designing the proposal and the Comhairle in assessing it. A range of factors informed the identification of Remote Areas. It includes isolated coastline; distance from settlements; relative evidence of recent development; abandoned villages often previously accessed by sea and areas of wildland character. With the exception of isolated coastline which is identified on the Development Strategy map and identified in the current Development Plan (Structure Plan Policy DM6) these factors are not individually identified on the map. Work is still on-going by Scottish Natural Heritage in partnership with a range of agencies to formally identify areas of wilderness. In the meantime criteria f) in the Remote Areas section requires that there would be “no unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape character (including any wild land attributes)…..”. The suggested text does not add anything to the policy as it stands therefore the Comhairle considers there is no need to amend the policy in response to this point. (024) While the policy approach for the Remote Areas generally restricts and discourages development, it does recognise that such areas serve to offer opportunities for development of natural resources particularly wind energy and fish farming related development. In line with Scottish Government’s requirement to keep Development Plans as succinct as possible the mechanism of Supplementary Guidance has been employed to deal with such development proposals. Once the Local Development Plan is adopted, it is intended that Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development and for Marine Fish Farming will be adopted as statutory. Therefore adherence to these Supplementary Guidance is considered to be essential for the assessment of such proposals. (034) The intention of the Remote Areas section of the development strategy is to restrict development in areas that are largely undeveloped and to ensure open landscape is not threatened. The policy recognises that natural resources are an important element of Remote Areas and that it will be necessary to consider how harvesting of these resources can take place. Therefore the developer is required to provide justification for the proposed development. Such uses may not be acceptable throughout the whole of these classified areas so the requirement is for justification to be provided to support a planning application at the specific location. The Comhairle considers this to be less demanding on the developer therefore does not accept the suggested amendment. (034) The Comhairle considers the policy as currently set out is appropriate and no change to Policy 2 Development Strategy is required. Reporter’s conclusions and Reporter’s recommendations

Issue 003 ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

Development plan Policy 2 Assessment of Development policy Reporter: reference: wording (page 14) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Crofters Commission (031) Jones Lang LaSalle on behalf of SSE (034) National Trust for Scotland (043) Provision of the Policy 2 provides the base criteria for the assessment of development plan to development proposals which the issue relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Crofters Commission (031) wishes consideration to be given to the impact of development of crofts and emphasises the need to be vigilant of the cumulative effect development may have on the integrity of a croft where serial development occurs, both with regard to the choice of the house site itself and also the impact of the associated access.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) states that Part A to the policy requires development proposals to not significantly adversely affect bio-diversity and ecological interests. As the policy is worded, it would find any significant adverse effect unacceptable and development which would result in significant adverse effects could therefore not be found to be in accordance with the policy. It is the writer's opinion that not all significant adverse effects should be found to be unacceptable in both policy and decision making terms. Taking renewable energy development is an example, SPP requires renewable energy development proposals to be supported where development is environmentally acceptable. It is the writer's opinion that developments can be found to be environmentally acceptable if they result in limited significant effects. Such policy changes would allow the decision maker to weigh the benefits of a project as well as the environmental effects in the planning balance.

National Trust for Scotland (043) feels the Plan does not go far enough and should be extended to include not only biodiversity and ecological interests but also the islands’ cultural heritage and land/seascapes.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

It is assumed that Crofters Commission (031) seeks a strengthening of the policy to address the impacts of development on crofts; the cumulative effect development may have on the integrity of a croft; and the impact of the associated access.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) requests an amendment to criteria A of the policy to read "will not result in unacceptable significant adverse effects on bio-diversity and ecological interest ...." and an amendment to criteria E of the policy to read "....incrementally and cumulatively to ensure no unacceptable significant detrimental effects arise."

It is assumed that National Trust for Scotland (043) is seeking additional text in the policy to state that developers will be required to demonstrate that development proposals will not significantly adversely impact the islands’ cultural heritage and land/seascapes.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Crofters Commission (031) The Crofters Commission has raised a number of issues relating to development affecting croft land (ref Issues 001; 002; 003; 004; 005; 011; 016). Croft land was identified as one of the main issues through the Main Issues Report and the Comhairle’s preferred option for dealing with the issue set out. (Core Document extract - Main Issues Report page 10). During the consultation process discussions were held with Crofters Commission, Grazings Committees and community landowners in this respect, and the policies and proposals in the Proposed Plan respond to the actions set out in the preferred option. Plan Policy 2 Assessment of Development is the fundamental policy for considering the impact of development on land. Through this policy cumulative impact of development is one of the factors against which proposed development will be assessed. Policy 2 is backed up by a range of other policies. Policy 1 Development Strategy recognises the role crofting plays in shaping many of the islands’ settlement pattern and characteristics and seeks to ensure new development does not erode these characteristics but rather sustains housing and employment in the more rural areas. Policy 4 Siting and Design specifically addresses choice and location of the proposed site, surrounding landform and settlement pattern, plot layout and seeks to avoid over-development of a plot. It is contended that the Plan adequately addresses the points discussed above consequently no amendment to the Plan is deemed necessary in this regard.

Development is also required to adhere to the Standards for Car Parking and Roads Layout Supplementary Guidance which addresses matters of access (Standards for Car Parking and Roads Layout Supplementary Guidance Policy 4 and Policy 5 page 2 extract). Under the Development Management Regulation that came into force on 1 October 2011 (after publication of the Proposed Plan) it is for the Planning Authority to consult the Crofters Commission where the development may have an adverse effect on the continued use of land for crofting. The Comhairle takes ‘adverse effect’ to refer specifically where: the croft becomes landlocked by impeding access to it; or the proposal is to site non-croft development and buildings on in-bye land, or; over-development. It is considered that issues around inappropriate use of inbye land could possibly be addressed through Pol 1 Rural settlements criteria d); and over-development is dealt with in Policy 4 Siting and Design. Seeking to avoid development that would result in land-locked areas and impede the future use of the land for crofting purposes or restrict future development potential could be dealt with assessing against Policy 4 Siting and Design (neighbour amenity criteria g). Should the Reporter be minded to recommend a modification, the Comhairle would not object to the inclusion of the following text in Policy 4 Siting and Design: “the proposal should not create additional constraints in relation to any future development potential of adjacent land or future use of the land for crofting purposes. The Comhairle will take the Crofters Commission’s advice on such matters as they relate to crofting interests”. Note: This matter also relates to Issues 004 Siting and Design and 011 Housing

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 129) defines the legislative requirements regarding the duty to further the conservation of biodiversity. Jones Lang LaSalle contends that while some effects may be significantly adverse, they could be found to be environmentally acceptable. This is not accepted in relation to biodiversity. Where a

proposal was deemed to have a significant adverse effect, the development would be EIA development and fall within the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Regulations) 2011 whereby an Environmental Statement would require to be submitted. The Environmental Statement would identify mitigation measures that could bring any adverse effect within tolerable limits. It is not accepted therefore that the policy criteria would necessarily point to a refusal. The development would also be assessed against the requirements of Policy 28 Natural Heritage. Consequently the Comhairle considers that no amendment to the Plan is deemed necessary. Note: Similar points are raised and considered under Issues 014 Energy Resources; 015 Fish Farming and Marine Planning; 019 Natural Heritage and Biodiversity.

National Trust for Scotland (043) The purpose of the Development Plan is to address land use matters and how development is managed in terms of the built and natural environment. Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 110) states that the historic environment is a key part of Scotland’s cultural heritage. The Proposed Plan contains a range of policies for the historic environment i.e. the land use elements of cultural heritage. Policies 30 to 34 provide the Comhairle’s approach to development that impact on the world heritage site; listed buildings; thatched buildings; conservation areas and archaeology. This is sufficient to meet the requirement of Scottish Planning Policy consequently no amendment to the Plan is deemed necessary. Landscape is the subject of a separate policy (Policy 5) therefore there is no need to duplicate this in Policy 2. Scottish Planning Policy does not require that regard is given to ‘seascapes’ as a separate consideration to ‘landscape’ in land use planning. At a local level, there has not been sufficient ‘seascape character assessment’ work undertaken to provide comprehensive baseline data for the assessment of general applications. However, for specific applications (e.g. large scale wind energy developments) seascape assessment work may be requested as part of the planning process. Note: A similar issue is raised and considered in Issues 001 Plan Context and Objectives; 005 Landscape; 014 Energy Resources. In respect of the above matters the Comhairle considers that Policy 2 as currently set out is appropriate and no change is required.

However the Reporter may be minded to recommend modifications to Policy 2 Assessment of Development as discussed in Issue 019 in relation in biodiversity and Issue 020 in relation to buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 004 SITING & DESIGN

Development plan Reporter: Policy 4 – Siting & Design pages 16-18 reference:

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Scottish Government (027) Crofters Commission (031) Jones Lang Lasalle for SSE (034) Provision of the Policy 4:Siting and Design which provide the criteria for siting development plan to and design matters against which development proposals will which the issue be assessed relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Scottish Government (027) suggests that perhaps a more explicit reference to the Outer Hebrides Design Guide could be made in the Policy itself.

Crofters Commission (031) states that the quality of neighbouring croft or agricultural land is not addressed in the policy. Furthermore, references to the number of houses on a croft, and distances between houses and access are to be addressed through paragraph (e). The representee considers that this may open the way for the siting of several houses on the inbye land of one croft. Crofters Commission also wishes the siting of development on crofts should also pay high regard to the retention of the access to the remainder of the croft thereby ensuring that it does not result in difficulties should the developed site and the croftland be separated.

Jones Lang Lasalle (034) maintains that the policy reads as having been drafted primarily for the assessment of usual forms of built development such as housing, offices, schools, farm buildings etc. However, the policy could potentially apply to renewable energy, transmission and distribution infrastructure. If this is the case, some of the policy criterion are concerning with respect to the obligations incumbent upon transmission and distribution licence holders and also with regard to the ability to integrate and relate wind turbines to the landscape.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Scottish Government (027) seeks a more explicit reference to the Outer Hebrides Design Guide in Policy 4 Siting & Design

Crofters Commission (031) seeks additional text to emphasise the need to protect the better croft land and encourages the inclusion of specific comment to discourage use of better quality croftland and encourage development onto the poorer areas that are difficult to till and crop. Crofters Commission further requires siting to have regard to protection of access to the undeveloped balance of a croft.

Jones Lang Lasalle (034) states that in order to provide an appropriate policy framework for transmission and distribution infrastructure and renewable energy the policy would benefit from recognising that the policy would have limited relevance to such forms of development. Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Scottish Government (027) The Design Guide has been prepared as advice to landowners and prospective house builders. It has not been adopted as formal policy nor has it been given status as Supplementary Guidance. The Comhairle considers that it would be inappropriate, therefore, to make specific reference to it in the Plan policy or in Supplementary Guidance. The noting in the References section of the policy description is considered appropriate and the Comhairle considers that no further change is required.

Crofters Commission (031) Identifying areas of ‘good quality croft land’ in order to direct development away from such areas was an issue discussed at MIR stage specifically with the Crofters Commission. During consultation, a pilot project was suggested to work with Grazings committees to identity the most important areas that they would wish to see protected against development, however resources in the Commission were not available to support such a project. Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 97) refers to ‘Prime Quality Agricultural Land’ as defined by the Macaulay Land Use Classification. There is no alternative mechanism that would define better quality croftland and it is has been established that the Macaulay Land Use Classification is not necessarily what crofters consider to be good quality croft land. It is considered that there are sufficient criteria in the policy to ensure good layout and prevent overdevelopment. Encouraging development away from inbye land may not accord with the Development Strategy (Policy 1) as a whole which looks primarily to encourage development either within or close to existing settlements. Therefore in this regard the Comhairle would be unwilling to accept any amendment to the Plan.

Under the Development Management Regulation that came into force on 1 October 2011 (after publication of the Proposed Plan) it is for the Planning Authority to consult the Crofters Commission where the development may have an adverse effect on the continued use of land for crofting. The Comhairle takes ‘adverse effect’ to refer specifically where: the croft becomes landlocked by impeding access to it; or the proposal is to site non-croft development and buildings on in-bye land, or; over-development. It is considered that issues around inappropriate use of inbye land could possibly be addressed through Pol 1 Rural settlements criteria d); and over-development is dealt with in Policy 4 Siting and Design. The impact of development on crofts in relation to cumulative impact, overdevelopment and access to adjacent crofts is also discussed and responded to under Issue 003 Assessment of Development. In considering access matters in Issue 003, it was suggested that should the Reporter be minded to recommend a modification, the Comhairle would not object to the inclusion of the following text in Policy 4 Siting and Design: “the proposal should not create additional constraints in relation to any future development potential of adjacent land or future use of the land for crofting purposes. The Comhairle will take the Crofters Commission’s advice on such matters as they relate to crofting interests”. Note: This matter relates to Issues 003 Assessment of Development and 011 Housing. Similar issues are also raised and discussed under Issues 001; 002; 005; and 016.

Jones Lang Lasalle (034) While it is accepted that the policy is of particular relevance for the assessment of proposals such as housing, offices or schools the Comhairle would not agree that the policy has no role in assessing proposals for transmission and distribution infrastructure or renewable energy. The policy can be applied where appropriate. Therefore the Comhairle considers that Policy 4 Siting and Design as currently set out is appropriate and no change to the Plan is required.

Issue 005 LANDSCAPE

Development plan Policy 5: Landscape policy wording and Reporter: reference: supporting text (Pages 19 & 20) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Stornoway Port Authority (013); Scottish Natural Heritage (024); Crofters Commission (031). Provision of the Landscape policy and related context. development plan to which the issue relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Stornoway Port Authority (013) asks that consideration is given to adding a reference to ‘seascapes’ in Policy 5.

Scottish Natural Heritage (024) states that: • Paragraph 2 of the context (pg 19) is purely descriptive about National Scenic Areas (NSAs) and that in order to add some implication to this the following additional text is added: “NSAs are designated for their outstanding scenery and represent some of Scotland’s finest landscapes. As a consequence they are particularly sensitive to landscape change”. • Scottish Natural Heritage also considers that paragraph 3 of the context (page 19) would benefit from some contextual information on landscape character and suggest the following text to be added to the beginning of the paragraph: “Landscape character describes the recognisable and consistent recurrence of landscape characteristics that makes a place distinctive”. • Additionally it is suggested that further (or replacement) text is included in paragraph 3 of the context (pg 19) to highlight the specific key characteristics that development should respond to, as follows: “Within the Outer Hebrides key characteristics that tend to be typically important for a development to respond to are the distinctive pattern and edge of settlements; the characteristic scale and form of buildings; the landform; the openness; land cover; the sense of wildness qualities, and the nature and pattern of water, including burns, lochs, the coasts and the islands”. • Scottish Natural Heritage also notes that earlier draft text that they commented on in relation to an aspiration to consider more locally valued landscape does not now appear. • It is further suggested that reference could be added to cumulative impact in Policy 5. • Finally, Scottish Natural Heritage states that the end of Policy 5 refers to wild land areas and cross-references to Policy 1, and that this cross-reference might be stronger if the first sentence of this final paragraph ended "and will be assessed accordingly".

The Crofters Commission (031) states that they agree with Policy 5, subject to the need to protect the better croft land, both with regard to the choice of the house site itself and also the impact of the associated access.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Addition of ‘Seascapes’ as a Policy Criterion (013) Consider adding ‘seascapes’ as a criterion that development proposals should relate to.

Additional Text in Policy Context (024) Include additional descriptive text in the policy context (pg 19) with regard to NSAs; landscape character; and key landscape characteristics that development proposals should respond to.

Policy Guidance for Local Landscape Designations (024 - assumed) Reconsider removal of policy guidance on locally valued landscape types as present in an earlier key agency consultation draft.

Cumulative Impacts Reference (024) Include reference to cumulative impact in policy.

Additional Text to Wildland Reference (024) Include additional text at the end of policy 5 to strengthen wild land reference.

Protection of Better Quality Crofting Land (031 - assumed) Include a requirement to protect the landscapes of better quality crofting land through appropriate siting and design of development.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Addition of ‘Seascapes’ as a Policy Criterion (013) Scottish Planning Policy does not require that regard is given to ‘seascapes’ as a separate consideration to ‘landscape’ in land use planning. At a local level, there has not been sufficient ‘seascape character assessment’ work undertaken to provide comprehensive baseline data for the assessment of general applications. However, for specific applications (e.g. large scale wind energy developments) seascape assessment work may be requested as part of the planning process. The Comhairle acknowledges that our coastal resources have environmental, cultural and economic value and the Local Development Plan identifies coastal areas that are unlikely to be suitable for development in its ‘remote area’ classification in Policy 1 Development Strategy. This includes areas of isolated coastline and uninhabited islands. Further policy guidance on coastal areas is also provided in: Policy 23 Coastal Development and Erosion; and Policy 28 Natural Heritage. The Comhairle considers that Policy 5 as currently set out is appropriate and no change is required. Note: A similar issue is also raised and considered in Issues 001, 003, and 014.

Additional Text in Policy Context (024) The Comhairle endeavoured to keep the proposed Plan succinct and devoid of overly descriptive or repetitive text. In this case, it is felt that the additional text proposed by Scottish Natural Heritage is either superfluous or is already covered in detail in Appendix 1, which Policy 5 signposts to. The Comhairle considers that Policy 5 Landscape as currently set out is appropriate and no change to the Plan is required.

Policy Guidance for Local Landscape Designations (024) There are currently no local landscape designations in the Outer Hebrides. Inclusion of policy guidance for ‘locally valued landscape types’ was considered at later stages of the LDP preparation process during consultation with Key Agencies (specifically Scottish Natural Heritage), but this was after the Main Issues Report stage. After consideration it

was felt that the development of such policy would involve detailed consultation work to identify appropriate sites and this was outwith the timescale and consultation framework of the current Plan. The feasibility of developing local landscape designations can be explored further during review of the Plan. The Comhairle considers that Policy 5 Landscape as currently set out is appropriate and no change to the Plan is required.

Cumulative Impacts Reference (024) The Comhairle has endeavoured to keep the proposed Plan succinct and devoid of overly descriptive or repetitive text. The Plan is a set of interrelated policies and proposals for development will be assessed against the whole Plan. Policy 2 ‘Assessment of Development’ states that “all development will be assessed for its impacts individually, incrementally and cumulatively to ensure no significant detrimental effects arise” and it was considered unnecessary to repeat this in Policy 5 Landscape. The Comhairle considers that Policy 5 Landscape as currently set out is appropriate and no change to the Plan is required.

Additional Text to Wildland Reference (024) The additional text proposed by Scottish Natural Heritage (‘will be assessed accordingly’) to the wild land reference in paragraph 3 of Policy 5 is felt to be unnecessary as its inference is self explanatory. Landscapes with the special quality of ‘wild land character’ currently fall within the Remote Area classification of Policy 1 Development Strategy and criteria for assessment of proposals is set out in that policy. The Comhairle considers that Policy 5 Landscape as currently set out is appropriate and no change to the Plan is required.

Protection of Better Quality Crofting Land (031) The Proposed Plan adequately considers the siting and design of development in the rural landscape in other policies, i.e. Policy 1: Development Strategy Rural Settlements) states that development proposals will be assessed against “ a) a siting and design appropriate to the rural character, distinctiveness and settlement pattern of the local areas in line with Siting and Design Policy 4 and Landscape Policy 5…(and)….d) new development does not erode the character which forms the distinctiveness of the rural settlement”. Additionally Policy 5 signposts to Appendix 1 (Landscape Character Assessment Summary) which highlights the key characteristics of landscape character types, including ‘crofting’, that development should respond to with regard to siting and design. This matter is dealt with in detail under Issues 003 Assessment of Development and 004 Siting and Design. The Comhairle considers that no change to Policy 5 Landscape is required.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 006 WATER AND WASTEWATER

Development plan Policy 6 Water and Waste Water policy Reporter: reference: wording (page 21) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007)

Provision of the Policy 6 sets out the various requirements for development in development plan to relation to water and waste water which the issue relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) Policy and supporting guidance on provision of waste water drainage in settlements requires developments of 25 houses or more to connect to the public sewer. It would be useful to highlight this to developers at an early stage through the development plan policy.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) previously recommended the inclusion of text referring to proposed private sewerage arrangements.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) recommends that the first sentence on the second paragraph is amended to read: Sewerage – New buildings in areas with public sewerages systems and developments of 25 houses or more will be required…

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) recommends replacement of the first sentence of the third paragraph to read: Proposed private sewerage arrangements will only be permitted where they can be implemented without adverse impact on the natural environment. All private waste water systems should discharge to land rather than water where ground conditions are appropriate….

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) Due to the geography dispersed nature of settlements, crofting land tenure system and the lack of major house builders in the Outer Hebrides, the pattern of development is on a much smaller scale than that found in many other areas. Much development of housing occurs as individual house plots. Where sites have been allocated for housing through the development plan, their capacity tends to average less than 10 units. Reference to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency Policy and guidance on water and waste water drainage is included in the list of References that precede Policy 6 (SEPA Position Statement 06-08). For allocations in excess of 25 units it is intended to prepare a planning brief as part of Supplementary Guidance and this requirement can be highlighted in the individual briefs for each larger scale site. However if the Reporter considers it necessary to include specific reference to this requirement in Policy 6 Water and Waste Water and is minded to recommend a modification, the Comhairle would be willing to accept the text suggested.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) The wording proposed by Scottish Environment Protection Agency adds little, if anything, to the policy approach in the Proposed Plan. The Plan is a set of inter-related policies all of which will be taken into account in determining the appropriateness of development proposals. Policy 6 as it stands requires discharge to land as opposed to water and sets out the requirements for any exceptional circumstances. Criterion a) and b) of Policy 2 provide safeguards for biodiversity and ecological interests and against damage from pollution. Policy 9 provides safeguards to avoid adverse impacts on the water environment. Consequently the proposed amended text would be duplication of other areas of the Plan. In this regard the Comhairle considers no further amendment to Policy 6 Water and Waste Water is necessary.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 007 FLOODING

Policy 7 policy wording (Pages 21 – 22) Reporter: Development plan reference: Development Proposals Prop H1j & Prop H1k Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) Scottish Government (027)

Provision of the Policy 7 sets out the various requirements for development development plan to that may be at risk from flooding. which the issue relates: Development Proposal sites Prop H1j & Prop H1k - sites suitable for housing that contribute to meeting the housing land supply. Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) objects to the wording of Policy 7 as it stands as it does not fully accord with the avoidance policy principles set out in Paragraph 43 of Scottish Planning Policy. They would prefer either

. the wording of an earlier draft of the Plan i.e. “that areas at risk of flooding should be avoided except in exceptional circumstances, and any mitigation measures should be appropriate and sustainable.” or

. that the statement “Developers should avoid areas susceptible to flooding.” is included at the end of the first sentence of Policy 7.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) objects to housing allocations at Allt na Broige North and South (Development Proposals H1j and H1k) due to a lack of information regarding flood risk.

Scottish Government (027) considers that Policy 7 is not clear on when a flood risk assessment will be required for proposals in areas of medium risk.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) seeks either that the policy wording is amended to read: “that areas at risk of flooding should be avoided except in exceptional circumstances, and any mitigation measures should be appropriate and sustainable.”; or the addition of text in the first sentence “Developers should avoid areas susceptible to flooding”.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) seeks removal of housing sites Prop H1j and Prop H1k from the Plan.

Scottish Government (027) seeks inclusion of text to clarify the policy approach to flood risk in areas of medium risk.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Policy 7 Flooding (007, 007) The Comhairle considers that Policy 7 as it stands meets the principles of Scottish Planning Policy in that it clearly sets out the requirements for proposals within areas at risk of flooding in line with the Risk Framework. It is accepted that the policy does not explicitly discourage development within such areas. Should the Reporter deem it necessary for the policy wording to be explicit and is minded to recommend a modification, the Comhairle would have no objection to the inclusion of text “Developers should avoid areas susceptible to flooding” as suggested by Scottish Environment Protection Agency. (007)

Criteria b) of Policy 7 sets out the requirements for proposals in areas of medium or high flood risk. Medium and high flood risk areas are shown on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency Indicative Flood Risk Maps which are available to the public while more detailed information can be provided by the planning authority. The definition of low, medium and high risk areas is set out in the preamble to Policy 7 Flooding therefore in this regard the Comhairle does not consider any amendment is necessary. (027)

Housing Allocations at Allt na Broige, North & South Props H1j and H1k (007) An initial Flood Risk Assessment carried out for the site at Allt na Broige, North, was deemed inadequate by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and advice was provided as to the necessary additional work. Further flood risk assessment work has been carried in respect of both sites at Allt na Broige. The findings are presented as supporting evidence to assist the Reporter in considering what action, if any, might be recommended.

Scenario A – limited areas of the sites can be developed The findings show that, as a result of the likely risk from flooding, development on these sites should be limited to specific parts of the land and mitigation measure put in place to alleviate any risk. The undevelopable areas should be utilised for the purposes of car parking and open / amenity space. The sites fall within the Stornoway Housing Market Area (HMA). As there is a sufficient supply of housing sites identified in the Proposed Plan to meet demand in the Stornoway HMA, a reduction in the capacity of these sites to xx units, will have no detrimental effect on the ability to meet the requirements of the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment. If the Reporter is minded to recommend that the text of Proposals H1j and H1k is amended to read “………”, the Comhairle will have no objection. OR Scenario B –no development should take place on the sites The findings show that the likely risk from flooding is such that no mitigation measures could adequately alleviate the risk consequently these sites are not suitable for housing development. The sites fall within the Stornoway Housing Market Area (HMA). If these sites cannot be developed there will be a reduction of 13 units supply. As there is a generous supply of housing sites identified in the Proposed Plan in the Stornoway HMA to meet anticipated demand, the removal of these sites will have no detrimental effect on the ability to meet the requirements of the HNDA. If the Reporter is minded to recommend removal of allocations H1j and H1k the Comhairle will have no objection.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 008 WASTE MANAGEMENT

Development plan Reporter: Policy 8 policy wording (page 25) reference: Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007)

Provision of the Policy 8 identifies the primarily sites for the treatment of waste development plan to and sets out the Comhairle’s approach to the management of which the issue waste and the requirements for waste management in new relates: development Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) states that paragraph 1 of Policy 8 seems to infer that the existing sites are safeguarded and that to meet the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy it should be made explicit by re-wording the first sentence of Policy 8.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) suggests the first sentence of the policy is reworded to read “The primary waste management and recycling sites which will be safeguarded to meet the current needs...... ". .

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) The Comhairle considers that the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy are implicit in the wording of Policy 8 however if the Reporter is minded to recommend a modification in line with the wording suggested, the Comhairle will have no objection.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 009 WATER ENVIRONMENT

Development plan Reporter: Policy 9 policy wording (page 27) reference: Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007); Stornoway Port Authority (013); Jones Lang LaSalle for SSE (034); Provision of the Policy 9 sets out the various requirements for development to development plan to protect and improve the water environment which the issue relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) recommends that the word ‘engineering’ is removed from the second sentence of Policy 9 to allow it to be broader and relate to all activities or proposals within or adjacent to the water environment which could impact upon water quality, water quantity, morphology or the ecosystem it supports.

Stornoway Port Authority (013) states that in the last paragraph, if the development relates to quays, piers, jetties etc., the buffer zone would presumably not apply and questions whether this should be specified.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) states that the way the policy currently reads is that all development proposals require to meet all policy criterion. However, there may be development (unspecified by the representee) adjacent to or within water courses that do not have the ability to contribute to the objectives and targets within the Scotland River Basin Management Plan for example.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) seeks Policy 9 to be broader than just engineering works.

It is assumed that Stornoway Port Authority (013) seeks clarity in the policy that the buffer zone would not apply if the development relates to quays, piers, jetties etc.)

It is assumed that Jones Lang LaSalle (034) seeks clarity in the policy that criterion will only be applied when applicable to the specific development proposal.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) The policy is designed to avoid adverse impact on the water environment in relation to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) as is set out in the preamble to the policy. The approach taken in this policy meets the objectives of the WFD and clearly sets out the steps developers will be expected to take should potential adverse effects on the water environment be likely to arise as a result of the proposed development. The Comhairle considers that the policy is adequate to address the types of development proposals coming forward within the Outer Hebrides. Protection is

afforded by the requirement for a development buffer for proposed developments alongside water bodies. This is also a stated requirement for specific Proposal sites within the Plan where, although located beside water bodies, there is no need to be directly adjacent to the water. Should additional information be deemed necessary for a specific proposal this can be requested at the time of application. In this regard the Comhairle does not consider any modification to Policy 9 Water Environment is required.

Stornoway Port Authority (013) It is taken as read that development relating to quays, piers, jetties etc by their nature would be exempt from the requirement for a development buffer. However if the Reporter is minded to recommend a modification to specify this in Policy 9 Water Environment, the Comhairle will have no objection.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) The Scotland River Basin Management Plan 2009 - 15 states the importance of Scotland’s water (supporting document page 2 extract). It recognises that while there are fewer environmental problems than in other areas of the UK, it is important to ensure that situation is maintained and improved (supporting document page 10 extract). Scottish Ministers have identified local authorities as one of the bodies who have a role to play in ensuring the objectives can be met and expect these bodies to use their functions to contribute to achieving the desired improvements (supporting document page 17 extract). Development Plans have a key role to play in this respect. Policy 9 criterion relates to proposed developments that have potential to adversely impact the water environment. In such cases the developer will be required to provide evidence that all the criterion can be met for the proposal to be acceptable, including how the proposal will contribute to the Scotland River Basin Management Plan regardless of the type of development. Given the role the Comhairle has in delivering the Scotland River Basin Management Plan, it is considered a reasonable approach that where a development proposal could have a detrimental effect on the water environment the developer should be required to demonstrate how the proposal contributes to the objective of river basin management. In this regard, the Comhairle considers Policy 9 Water Environment as currently set out is appropriate and no change to the Plan is required.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 010 SOIL RESOURCES

Policy 10 Soil Resources Reporter: Development plan policy and supporting text (Page 28) reference:

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Scottish Wildlife Trust (033); Jones Lang LaSalle for SSE (034) Provision of the Policy 10 provides the Comhairle’s approach to development development plan to where disturbance of soils or peat may occur. which the issue relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Scottish Wildlife Trust (033) states that developments (e.g. wind farm proposals) on deep peat (> 1 m) should be avoided when at all possible.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) states that on the basis that the main policy objectives are set out in the policy text criteria A and B are considered to be overly restrictive and inappropriate. If the objective of the policy is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then it would be more appropriate for the policy to require developers to submit a carbon balance assessment with development proposals setting out the CO2 anticipated to be released from peat and soil disturbance and that which could be saved as a result of the development being implemented.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Scottish Wildlife Trust (033) seeks that Policy 10 includes a definition of what constitutes deep peat

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) seeks an amendment to the policy wording to require developers to submit a carbon balance assessment with development proposals setting out the CO2 anticipated to be released from peat and soil disturbance and that which could be saved as a result of the development being implemented

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Scottish Wildlife Trust (033) The footnote to Policy 10 defines deep peat as “2m or more”. The Comhairle considers this to be an appropriate threshold, given the extensive areas of peat that occur throughout the Outer Hebrides. The policy provides a higher level of protection for areas of undisturbed deep peat. In such instances, the developer is required to provide appropriate justification for development within such an area. Even where development is deemed acceptable, a peat depth survey is required before development will be permitted and a peat management plan may also be required. The Comhairle considers there is no need for modification of Policy 10.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) The text preceding the policy provides the contextual background to the factors that have informed the policy direction, drawing specifically on Scottish Planning Policy and the advice of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Reduction in the release of

carbon by minimising soil disturbance is one of the aims of the policy however the policy also recognises the importance of areas of undisturbed deep peat for nature conservation. The criteria within the policy recognises that the benefits of some types of development may outweigh these factors and as such set the parameters within which development in areas of undisturbed deep peat may or may not be acceptable. While some developers may consider that a carbon balance assessment would be the most appropriate way to meet the requirements of the policy criteria and may wish to submit such an assessment, the Comhairle is of the opinion that while such an assessment may be appropriate for large scale and major development on peat it would not be a proportionate request for all scales of development. As carbon balancing is only one of a range of factors that would be taken into account in determining an application, the Comhairle does not consider any change to Policy 10 is necessary.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 011 HOUSING

Policy 13: Housing (page 31); Housing Reporter: Development Proposals (page 67 & 68); Development plan reference: Proposal Site Maps - Housing 1; Proposal Site Maps - Housing 2. Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): N Maclean (002 & 017); M Nicolson (004); M Merritt (006); Mr and Mrs Bagshaw (010); E Shaw (014); E Dunne (016); A Mackenzie (018); Harris Development Ltd (019); J Toms (020); C A Macdonald (021); Hebridean Housing Partnership (022); M Robertson (025); Scottish Government (027); A Macdonald (028); UBC Group Ltd (030); Crofters Commission (031); F Maciver (038); S & T Maclaughlan (039) South Harris Community Council (042). Provision of the The general housing policy for the Plan and individual housing development plan to site allocations and related maps. which the issue relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): N Maclean (002 & 017) objects to inclusion of the proposal site at Labost Lane (Prop H2d) on the grounds that they as the owners have not been consulted and do not wish it to be included. M Nicolson (004) poses a list of questions regarding the Balallan-Pairc Junction (Prop H1m) proposal site, specifically: consideration of the local demand, alternative sites; concern for design and tenure of proposed development. M Merrit (006) objects to the inclusion of the proposal site at Goathill Farm (Prop H2e) on the grounds of: over development of a semi rural site; loss of good agricultural land; generation of traffic and noise; visual intrusion and lack of demand due to diminishing population levels.

Mr and Mrs Bagshaw (010) object to inclusion of the proposal site at Labost Lane (Prop H2d) on the grounds that: the owner has not been consulted; part of the site is low-lying and within the flood plain; it may be a habitat for corncrake and otter; part of the site lies below the level of the public sewer; it may be contaminated land; major works would be required to upgrade access to the site thus destroying the character of the area and historic features; loss of agricultural/croft land; local school at capacity; upgrading of services would be required, and; it would cause damage to amenity of existing residents. E Shaw (014) expresses concern that the proposal site at Back (Prop H2b) contains drainage for various dwellings; a freshwater system for adjacent Old Schoolhouse, and the main access to this building is across the site. E Dunne (016) objects to the inclusion of the proposal site at Goathill Farm on grounds that it is prime green-field land and there are other more suitable sites available within Stornoway. A Mackenzie (018) expresses concerns about potential constraints on the proposal site at Back Former Community Workshop (Prop H2b) arising from the existence of cables and sewers across the site. Harris Development Ltd (019) expresses their concern that no agency-led housing developments in Harris appear in the Plan and that there is a disproportionate concentration of housing allocations in the Stornoway Housing Market Area. They add that the Housing 1 allocations confirm that 85% of all Outer Hebrides housing is concentrated in the Stornoway Housing Market area alone and that this is entirely disproportionate to the overall requirement for housing throughout the Outer Hebrides. Housing waiting list figures and population levels are quoted as an example of the underrepresented requirement for additional housing in rural areas (with particular reference to Harris and Lewis). Harris Development Ltd stress that the continued lack of investment in rural areas at the expense of the disproportionate expansion of Stornoway will cause continued depopulation and long term harm to the future sustainability of these communities. J Toms (020) objects to the inclusion of the proposal site at Goathill Farm (Prop H2e) on the grounds that; it is one of the few limited 'green belt' sites around Stornoway; it is used by migrating birds; no actual demand for housing within Stornoway; impact on current fragile housing market, and; access issues. CA Macdonald (021) objects to the inclusion of the proposal site at Labost Lane (Prop H2d) on the grounds that it: is close to the sea; has problems with rising water, and; there is potential of further flooding on surrounding houses. Hebridean Housing Partnership (022) seeks inclusion of additional housing proposal sites. Maps attached to original representation. M Robertson (025) states that housing proposal sites should be located close to existing schools. Scottish Government (027) invites the Reporters, once the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment is signed off as robust and credible, to satisfy themselves that the Proposed Plan identifies a generous supply of housing land sufficient to meet all housing need and demand at least up to year 10 beyond the anticipated year of adoption of the plan, including sufficient flexibility and choice of sites, and; the Plan should clearly show the contribution to meeting all need and demand expected from both allocated and windfall sites up to year 10. They also state that for clarity, it would be helpful to have the overall housing supply target figures set out in a table in the main body of the LDP. They also state the Plan does not clearly express the anticipated time-scale for the development of H2 sites and that the Plan should be clear on how and when proposals on H2 sites should be brought forward to provide clarity on when development of these sites will be considered acceptable. A Macdonald (028) states that the proposal site at Bernera (Prop H1a) is in the wrong

location and should be near the Old Free Kirk Manse in Breacleit, not the actual church. They also question whether the Comhairle have considered purchasing the Old Free Kirk and converting it into two houses. UBC Group Ltd (030) have a number of comments on the Housing proposal sites in their ownership: firstly, for the Dormitory (North West) proposal site (Prop H1i) they state that the boundaries shown do not accord with those requested by themselves at the Main Issues Report stage; secondly, they request the inclusion of two additional sites as previously requested; and thirdly, they are in agreement with the identification of proposal sites Rear of Anderson Rd Nurseries (Prop H1h) and Creagorry (Prop H1r). Maps attached to original representation. Crofters Commission (030) states that the planning regulation for new developments in the countryside needs to be flexible and not restrictive to sustain and enhance population in rural communities, and that the conflict between use of croftland for new houses and the growth of crofting townships remains. They state that this can be overcome by having in place policies that protect the better in bye croftland from development and encouraging developers to utilise the poorer land for building houses. F Maciver (038) states that the wrong proposal site has been identified in Bernera (Prop H1a) and that the site should be located on the common grazings as shown on their submitted site plan. Map attached to original representation. S and T Maclaughlan (039) object to the inclusion of the proposal site at Balivanich School Grounds (Prop H1q) on the grounds that development of the site would adversely affect: their views and privacy; a green-field site; threat of flood/storm damage; amenity of neighbouring properties, and; a children’s play area. They state there are other more suitable locations within Balivanich, and request a new tenancy agreement should the site be developed. South Harris Community Council (042) states that there is a need for an increase in the affordable housing stock within their area, particularly in or close to Leverburgh. The regeneration of Harris (and South Harris in particular) is dependent on there being a stock of affordable housing available. Under the current plan there is no proposal to address this issue, let alone concrete plans.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Removal of Housing Proposal Sites Removal of Prop H1a Bernera requested by: A Macdonald (028) and; F Maciver (038) for the following reasons: owners of land oppose development; and wrong location identified.

Removal of H1m Balallan Pairc Junction assumed to be requested by N Nicolson (004) for the following reasons: lack of local demand; site capacity potentially inadequate; and concerns over potential design and tenure.

Removal of Prop H1q Balivanich School Grounds requested by: S & T Maclaughlan (039) for the following reasons: visual and amenity impacts; green-field site; flood risk; proximity to existing housing; loss of play area (open space); and more suitable sites available locally.

Removal of Prop H2b Back Former Community Workshop assumed requested by: E Shaw (014) and; A Mackenzie (018) for the following reasons: water and waste water constraints; and access issues.

Removal of Prop H2d Labost Lane requested by: N Maclean (002 & 017); Mr & Mrs Bagshaw (010); and CA Macdonald (021) for the following reasons: owners of land oppose development; flood risk; corncrake / otter habitat; water and waste water

constraints; contaminated land; access issues; loss of agricultural land; school catchment already at capacity; amenity of existing neighbours; historical features on-site.

Removal of Prop H2e Goathill Farm requested by: M Merrit (006) (assumed); E Dunne (016), and; J Toms (020) for the following reasons: it is a greenfield site; over- development of site; loss of agricultural land; traffic, noise and visual impacts; habitat for migrating birds; access issues; development would be detrimental to local housing market; and lack of local demand.

Inclusion of New Housing Proposal Sites (022, 028, 030, 038) Hebridean Housing Partnership (022) have requested that the following sites be included as housing allocations in the Local Development Plan: 1. Cleascro Road, Leurbost, Lewis 2. Kintulavig, Harris 3. Adjacent Berneray School, Berneray 4. South Harris Site 1 5. South Harris Site 2 6. Aird Point, Lewis 7. Stenish, Stornoway 8. Tong Allotments, Lewis 9. Vatisker, Lewis

A Macdonald (028) and Breaclet Grazings Committee (038) have requested that the following site be included as a housing allocation in the Plan as the wrong site was previously identified in the proposed Plan (Prop H1a Bernera): 10. Bernera Old Free Church Manse Glebe

Further to the site above, Breaclet Grazings Committee (038) suggest that the Comhairle consider purchasing the following site for conversion into 2 flats, and, it is assumed, included in the Plan: 11. Bernera Old Free Church

UBC Group Ltd (030) has requested that the following sites be included as housing allocations in the Plan: 12. Bennadrove Gap Site - Stornoway 13. Claddach Kirkibost - North Uist Both these sites are remaining parcels of land from previous UBC Group Ltd housing development and are in UBC Group Ltd ownership; the company believes they represent natural infill and consolidation and an opportunity for further development.

Amendment of Housing Proposal Sites (030) Amendment to the boundary of Prop H1i Dormitory (North West) is requested by UBC Group Ltd as they state the site boundary does not correspond with their ownership boundary as previously requested. Additionally they would like a condition to be added requiring that any access to the site would be via Allt na Broige housing development to the south west.

Location and Distribution of Housing Proposal Sites (019, 025, 042) Harris Development Ltd (019) & South Harris Community Council (042) would like a redistribution of housing proposal sites throughout the islands to show a more proportionate balance between Stornoway and the rural areas (with particular but not exclusive consideration to South Harris) which better reflects demand as evidenced by population distribution and housing waiting lists

M Robertson (025) suggests relocating housing proposal sites to be near to existing schools

Satisfying the Housing Need and Demand Assessment Requirement (027) Scottish Government (027) looks for the scale, nature and distribution of the housing land supply identified in the Plan to be based on the Outer Hebrides Housing Need and Demand Assessment and compliant with Scottish Planning Policy

Scottish Government is requesting the main body of the Plan explains how and when Housing-2 proposal sites should be brought forward as well as a table outlining the overall housing supply target figures

Safeguarding the Better Inbye Croftland (031) The Crofters Commission (031) seeks that no housing proposals are sited on the better in-bye croftland; instead the Plan should encourage developers to utilise the poorer land for building.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Satisfying the Housing Need and Demand Assessment Requirement (027) The Housing Need and Demand Assessment for Outer Hebrides (Core Document) was signed off as robust and credible in December 2011. The Housing Need and Demand Assessment estimates a net annual affordable housing need of 60 units for the Rural Housing Market Area (HMA) and 300 for Stornoway HMA over the 10 year period and the scale, nature and distribution of the housing allocations identified in the Proposed Local Development Plan are based on the these figures. Sites for 61 units are identified in the Rural HMA and for 401 units in the Stornoway HMA for the 10 year period, excluding the housing element of a number of mixed-use sites. (Supporting Document: Housing topic paper provides a detailed analysis). The Comhairle accepts that in terms of identifying a ‘generous supply’ (Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 75) there is less flexibility in the Rural HMA allocations, where the Plan meets the estimated need figure but does not exceed it in the H1 and H2 sites. However, three of the Mixed Use sites in the Plan (Prop MU3; Prop MU4; Prop MU5) have a housing requirement and make a contribution to the housing land supply. Two of these sites are in the Rural HMA (Prop MU4 former Lochmaddy Hospital and Prop MU5 Lochboisdale Harbour Regeneration). The capacity of each site is a conservative estimate, being calculated at the mid point of the density levels as set out in Policy 13, allowing for possible development considerations and it is probable that a higher capacity could be achieved. Furthermore, much of the housing in rural settlements is delivered through individual house development which cannot reasonably be identified in the Plan. Therefore the Comhairle is confident that the Plan identifies sufficient sites to deliver the estimated need as demonstrated through the Housing Need and Demand Assessment. The Comhairle would also argue that while it is important to ensure a ‘generous supply’, with virtually no speculative market developers and depressed investment in affordable housing, the supply target in the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment possibly represents an aspirational goal rather than an achievable reality. The Comhairle believes the Plan’s approach to housing allocations will prove to be adequate as it reflects the particular set of circumstances which face the housing sector in the Outer Hebrides. However in approving the Outer Hebrides Local Housing Strategy (Core Document), the Comhairle decided that it wished to support a higher level of housing provision in rural areas to help support the sustainability of the rural areas. Consequently the objectives in the Local Housing Strategy (approved September 2011) are based on a 65/35% split of 180 units between the Stornoway and the Rural HMA over the five year period 2011- 2016. Consideration of the requests for inclusion of additional sites or removal of sites from the Plan (see sections below) is based on the need to accommodate this. Most of the sites brought forward through responses to consultation on the Proposed Plan have neither

been subject to detailed consideration of their effectiveness nor to consultation. The Reporter may consider that the better approach to allowing flexibility to deliver the Local Housing Strategy in the Rural HMA would be to recommend a modification to the second paragraph in Policy 13 Housing to read: “In addition to the identified sites, housing development may be permitted where: the development comprises redevelopment of land or premises, or; is a conversion of an existing property, or; is for use of derelict land or gap sites, or; is of small‐scale (not more than 3 dwellings) at an appropriate density, or; it is located within the Rural Housing Market Area”.

The likely programme for implementation of all development proposal sites is contained in the associated Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan Action Programme (Core Document). Policy 13 safeguards the Housing proposals H1 specifically for housing purposes to ensure the five year supply can be met. Housing proposals H2 sites are more flexible. Given the fragile nature of the Outer Hebrides housing markets and the high dependency on public sector investment to deliver affordable housing, it is likely that H2 sites would be considered acceptable at any stage if it could be demonstrated that the proposal was in accordance with the Plan and the site has good reasons to be preferred over an H1 site. However it is generally assumed that their implementation will be longer term, consequently they are programmed for Medium or Long term in the Action Programme.

The Comhairle has endeavoured to keep the Plan succinct, policy focused and devoid of descriptive text. As the information providing the background to the housing supply and demand calculations and the Plan’s contribution to meeting the needs of allocated and windfall sites is fairly complex to summarise in a policy document, a Housing Topic Paper (Supporting Document) has been prepared. The Housing Land Audit provides additional information on land supply (Supporting Document). Both documents will be available on the Comhairle’s web site.

Removal of Proposal Sites (002, 004, 006, 010, 014, 016, 017, 018, 019, 020, 021, 027, 028, 030, 038, 039, 042) Considerations for Multiple Sites: • Amenity (all representations): All planning applications will be assessed against their impact on amenity including privacy, light, noise, and access through Policy 4 siting and Design. Measures are in place in the planning process to consider mitigation to avoid adverse effects on amenity. • Natural and Cultural Heritage (010, 020): The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan has been subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Appraisal; all sites identified have been assessed and are considered compliant. In addition, all proposals will be considered against the requirements of the Plan as a whole, including Policy 28 Natural Environment and Policy 34 Archaeology to sufficiently address these issues. • Developer Requirements (010, 014, 018, 020, 021, 030, 039): The selection of the proposal sites has involved extensive consultation with Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Scottish Water and the Comhairle’s Technical Services Department. A number of specific conditions have already been added to the proposal sites (pg 68) with regard to flood risk, waste water infrastructure and development considerations. In addition, any proposals for these sites will be considered against the requirements of the Plan as a whole, including: Policy 2 Assessment of Development; Policy 6: Water and Waste Water; Policy 7: Flooding; Policy 13: Housing; Policy 25 Open Space, and the Standards for Car Parking and Roads Layout Supplementary Guidance. Therefore the Plan sufficiently addresses issues concerning flooding, water and waste water, open space, contaminated land, and access.

• Details of Development (004, 006, 010, 020, and 039): Details of specific development proposals are assessed at the planning application stage. Final housing capacity will be dependent on confirming details such as proposed phasing, programming, infrastructure and relevant development considerations including access, site extent and layout, social infrastructure and open space requirements. The required density levels are set out in Policy 11 Housing. There are sufficient criteria in Policy 4 Siting & Design to ensure good design and layout, and prevent overdevelopment. • Demand for Housing (004, 006, 010, 019, 020, 027, and 042): The scale, nature and distribution of the housing land supply identified in the Plan are based on the Housing Need and Demand Assessment and are considered compliant with Scottish Planning Policy. This is discussed further in ‘Satisfying the Housing Needs and Demand Requirement’. • Loss of Agricultural Land* and/or Green-field Site (006, 010, 016, 020, 031, 039): Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 97) refers to ‘Prime Quality Agricultural Land’ as defined by the Macaulay Land Use Classification and there is no policy on protecting other quality agricultural land. There is no prime quality agricultural land in the Outer Hebrides. There is no appropriate mechanism to define better quality croftland and it has been established that the Macaulay Land Use Classification is not necessarily what crofters consider to be good quality croft land. *Note: This matter relates to and is also discussed in Issues 003 Assessment of Development and 004 Siting and Design.

Prop H1a Bernera (028, 038) The Comhairle concedes that this site was identified in error. Bernera Old Free Church Manse Glebe (Site 10 as discussed below under Inclusion of New Housing Proposal Sites) is the correct site. Two representations have been received seeking the inclusion of the correct site, therefore if the Reporter is minded to recommend that Prop H1a Bernera is removed the Comhairle would not object. As discussed below, Bernera Old Free Church Manse Glebe could be added to compensate if the Reporter considers it appropriate.

Prop H1m Balallan-Pairc Junction (004) The Comhairle sent a ‘Freedom of Information’ response (Supporting Document) to N Nicolson (004) in reply to his original representation requesting further information. The Comhairle is satisfied that the information provided clearly demonstrates that the inclusion of this site in the Plan is justified and does not support the removal of this site from the Plan.

Prop H1q Balivanich School Grounds (039) In addition to the response provided above for ‘Consideration of Multiple Sites’, the Comhairle would add that the site is out-with the flood risk area and that no other suitable sites have been identified in the Balivanich area in the Local Development Plan process, mainly due to the extensive areas within Benbecula identified as at risk of flooding on the Indicative Flood Risk Maps (map attached as Supporting Document). The remaining reasons provided to support the objection are not matters that can be considered in planning terms. The Comhairle no longer owns or provides social rented houses following the establishment of Hebridean Housing Partnership (HHP) in 2006, and therefore has little control over tenancy agreements. The Comhairle is satisfied that the information provided above demonstrates that the inclusion of this site is justified and does not support removal of this site from the Plan.

Prop H2b Back Former Community Workshop (014, 018) The Comhairle is satisfied that the information provided in the ‘Consideration of Multiple Sites’ section demonstrates that the inclusion of this site is justified and does not support the removal of this site from the Plan. Specific issues concerning access to services and

neighbouring properties can be mitigated through the planning application process.

Prop H2d Labost Lane (002, 010, 017, 021): As stated in Rep 017, this site was originally put forward for housing development by the owner, and is included in the Western Isles Local Plan (Prop LP/HCL1). This was brought forward from the current Development Plan and included as a housing proposal site in the Main Issues Report. The owners were notified of its proposed inclusion in the Plan through the neighbour notification stage of the Proposed Plan. The Comhairle is satisfied that the information provided in the ‘Consideration of Multiple Sites’ section demonstrates that the inclusion of this site was justified however accepts that the owners of this site are against its inclusion, although this was not intimated during consultation on the Main Issues Report nor were any other objections to its inclusion received at that time. It is acknowledged that this places a significant constraint on development. The Comhairle would not object if the Reporter is minded to recommend the removal of this proposal site. The housing supply identified in the Stornoway Housing Market Area is sufficient to absorb this deficit and still meet the requirements of the Housing Need and Demand Assessment.

Prop H2e Goathill Farm (006, 016, 020) The Comhairle is satisfied that the information provided in the ‘Consideration of Multiple Sites’ section demonstrates that the inclusion of this site is justified and does not support the removal of this site from the Plan. The response in the section ‘Satisfying the Housing Need and Demand Assessment Requirement’ provides further information on the demand for housing in the Stornoway HMA area.

Inclusion of New Proposal Sites (022, 028, 030, 038) Maps of these sites are included in the original representations (except Aird Point) The Comhairle is satisfied that the scale, nature and distribution of the housing land supply identified in the Proposed Plan is sufficient to be compliant with the Housing Need and Demand Assessment and Scottish Planning Policy (paragraphs 70-76) although it may not meet the objectives of the Local Housing Strategy. This is discussed further in the section ‘Satisfying the Housing Need and Demand Assessment Requirement’. While there is limited scope to consider taking new sites into the Plan at this stage a response has been prepared for each site suggested.

1. Cleascro Road, Leurbost, Lewis (022) 3. Adjacent Berneray School, Berneray (022) 4. South Harris Site 1 (022) 5. South Harris Site 2 (022) 6. Aird Point, Lewis (022) 7. Stenish, Stornoway (022) 9. Vatisker, Lewis (022) Sites 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 have been put forward by Hebridean Housing Partnership at a late stage subsequent to publication of the Proposed Plan in response to consultation. No consideration of the developability of the sites has been carried out therefore the Comhairle considers there is no justification for their inclusion in the Plan at this stage.

2. Kintulavig, Harris (022) This is a Hebridean Housing Partnership owned site which was previously considered for a seven unit housing development before the development was put on hold. The site was included as a housing allocation in the Main Issues Report but removed from the Proposed Plan as it seemed unlikely to progress within the timeframe of the Local Development Plan. Hebridean Housing Partnership have since renewed interest in developing the site and submitted a representation requesting its inclusion in response to the Proposed Plan consultation. The Reporter may take the view that there is merit in reinstating the site as an H1 proposal allocation while noting that although the site was

consulted upon at the Main Issues Report stage, formal neighbour notification has not been carried out.

8. Tong Allotments, Lewis (022) This site has a current planning permission for 4 units (09/00439/PPD, decision notice and site map supporting Document); it is understood the developers intend to develop this site in the near future. The Reporter may take the view that there is merit in including this site as an H1 proposal site and, as the site has planning consent, neighbour notification has been carried out under the Development Management Regulations.

10. Bernera Old Free Church Manse Glebe (028, 038) The Comhairle accepts that the site in Bernera Prop H1a Bernera has been incorrectly identified and representations have been received to remove this allocation and substitute it with land they have identified at Bernera Old Free Church Manse Glebe. The Reporter may be minded to recommend inclusion of the site at Bernera Old Free Church Manse Glebe, in compensation for Prop H1a.

11. Bernera Old Free Church (028) Should a developer come forward with a proposal for conversion of this building, the scope of Policy 13 Housing is sufficient to assess and determine such a proposal. Therefore identification of this site as a Proposal in the Plan is unnecessary.

12. Bennadrove Gap Site - Stornoway (030) Following their Main Issues Report submission, UBC Group Ltd submitted an email (copy included in representation) requesting that the gap site at Bennadrove be included in the Plan for residential infill development. The Comhairle considered that sufficient land had been identified for housing allocations in the vicinity of this site (3 sites within 400m of the site totalling 5.88 ha and approximately 95 units) to meet the housing requirement for the Stornoway Housing Market Area. As this is a gap site, an application for development would be considered against Policy 13 Housing which states: “In addition to the identified sites, housing development may be permitted where: ….or: is for use of derelict land or gap sites, or:………” Therefore identification of this site as a Proposal in the Plan is unnecessary.

13. Claddach Kirkibost - North Uist (030) In their response to the Main Issues Report (22 April 2010, copy included in representation) UBC Group Ltd requested that additional land between options A and B at Westford Inn (Claddach Kirkibost) be added to the proposal site; as they believed it would comprise natural infill development. This was reiterated in their representation to the proposed Plan. In 2010/11 Option B site was developed by UBC into a 6 house development (10/00641/PPD decision notice attached). Option A however has been removed from the Housing Land Audit and is not being considered for the Local Development Plan as Scottish Water and SEPA have indicated that the bay area of Claddach Kirkibost is at capacity for drainage. The present private drainage arrangements would be compromised if further development took place without additional capacity being provided. In discussion with Scottish Environment Protection Agency concerns were raised that two systems in such close proximity to each other could lead to a cumulative impact on the surrounding area. For this reason, the Comhairle did not consider this site to be ‘effective’ or capable of becoming effective within the timescales of the Local Development Plan, as required by Scottish Planning Policy (paragraphs 70-76). Therefore the Comhairle does not support the inclusion of this site. A significant number of Main Issue Report representations were received for this site (attached Supporting Document).

Amend Boundary of Proposal Site (030) Prop H1i Dormitory (North West) In their response to the Main Issues Report (22 April 2010 - copy included in representation) UBC Group Ltd requested that the Dormitory housing site at Marybank (in their ownership) be amended to extend the site into the north/north east in line with their ownership boundary; and increase the indicative capacity from 55 to 82 units. They also proposed that this site would be best accessed via Bennadrove Road as part of a natural extension from HHP’s neighbouring Allt Na Broige housing development. In their representation to the Proposed Plan on Prop H1i Dormitory (North West), they reiterated these points. The Comhairle does not support the proposed amendment to the boundary of Prop H1i Dormitory for the following reasons: firstly, the Comhairle has identified sufficient land to ensure a generous supply of appropriate and effective sites to meet the housing requirement for the Stornoway Housing Market Area and it is unnecessary to identify additional land at this time; secondly the estimated capacity for this site has already been increased from 55 to 82 units since the Main Issues Report. This represents a conservative calculation that does not fully meet the maximum density requirement of Policy 13 Housing (‘outwith core’ = 30 units per ha) which would equate to 148 units. In fact the capacity estimated for the site in the Comhairle’s supply figures is much closer to the minimum density of 74 units for this site; thirdly, as UBC Group Ltd’s note in their Main Issues Report representation, pressure for development of this site is minimal, they state that “…no scheme for housing on the site has been forthcoming during the period of the local plan…”. The identification of this site for 82 units is already an ambitious target and this capacity is unlikely to be reached within 10 years of the Plan being adopted; fourthly, the extended area of land is within view of the hill known as Cnoc Nan Uan, on which the Lewis War Memorial (category B listed building) sits. It is considered that development of the proposed extension would impact the setting of this listed landmark. The Comhairle maintains that there is already sufficient land identified in the Stornoway Housing Market Area. Therefore there is no necessity to make further provision. Both the current Western Isles Local Plan and its predecessor the Broadbay Local Plan, contained policy to protection the setting the War Memorial (Policy LP/STY 8 Setting of the War Memorial). In developing policies for the Local Development Plan it was considered that a broad policy approach for listed buildings would be sufficient protection for the setting of such important buildings. However given the current interest in developing the area requested by UBC Group Ltd and the potential impact of development on the setting of the war memorial, the Reporter may be minded to recommend a modification to Policy 31 Listed Buildings to re-instate specific protection for the area of land around the Lewis War memorial as provided in the Western Isles Local Plan Policy LP/STY 8 Setting of the War Memorial. Regarding UBC Group Ltd’s request that details concerning access to the Prop H1i site be added to the ‘additional conditions’ on page 68 of the Plan, the Comhairle takes the view that this is an issue that will be addressed in the planning brief supplementary guidance that will be prepared for this site (as indicated on page 70 of the Local Development Plan), or if required prior, through the assessment of a planning application. UBC Group Ltd’s representation on Prop H1i Dormitory (north-west) notes that they have submitted a separate representation on the adjacent Prop E2b Dormitory retail site (south east) to increase the site area. This would potentially impact the Prop H1i Dormitory site (north-west) boundary and housing capacity. This issue is being dealt with separately under Schedule 4 – Issue 012 Economic Development. While the Comhairle rejects the proposal addressed under Issue 012, the Reporter may be minded to take a different view and accept a change of the boundary to Prop E2b. In that instance, the Comhairle does not support any compensatory extension of Prop H1i into its north/ north east portion in light of the impact development would have on the setting of the Lewis War Memorial.

Location and Distribution of Housing Proposal Sites (019, 042) Although ‘population distribution’ and ‘housing waiting list figures’ may appear to be the most obvious indicators of demand for housing (019), in reality they cannot be used on their own as a proxy for ‘need’ as a far more complex assessment is required for it to be considered credible. The Comhairle has carried out a Housing Need and Demand Assessment (Housing Need and Demand Assessment 2011) for the Outer Hebrides which was appraised to be ‘robust and credible’ by the Scottish Government's Centre of Housing Market Analysis in December 2011, and this provides the evidence base for allocating land for housing in the Plan. The Comhairle is content that the housing allocations are based on the findings of the Housing Need and Demand Assessment as required by Scottish Planning Policy. In identifying sites for housing, every effort was made to ensure a fair and satisfactory distribution of sites (019, 042) but this was problematic for the following reasons: • Firstly, it was not possible for the Housing Need and Demand Assessment to define functioning localised Housing Market Areas (HMA) outside of Stornoway due to the dispersed nature and geography of the Outer Hebrides. Consequently only two HMA’s were used to estimate net annual housing need: Stornoway and Rural thus there was no mechanism to break down the housing need figure by individual communities (Supporting Document ‘Housing Topic Paper’). • Secondly, contrasting the low level of estimated housing need (6 units per year) with the dispersed settlement pattern of the Rural HMA meant that it was inherently difficult to ensure a proportionate spread of sites by geography. The Rural HMA comprises approximately 14,500 people (56% of total population) spread throughout 11 inhabited islands and over 300 settlements. • Thirdly, the estimated housing need for the Rural HMA was identified in the Housing Need and Demand Assessment as 17% of the total for the Outer Hebrides which meant that there would be an inherent bias towards the Stornoway HMA at 83%. It is worth noting there are more Housing 1 sites identified in the Rural HMA (10 sites) than in the Stornoway HMA (9 sites) but the capacity in rural sites tends to be lower due to land tenure (mainly crofts or common grazings) with higher capacity in the larger Stornoway HMA sites (land tenure mainly farms and private land). All housing proposal sites identified in the Plan are located within existing settlements. Due to the dispersed settlement pattern in the islands, school catchment boundaries cover large geographical areas. To only identify sites adjacent to existing schools would unfairly disadvantage remoter communities, and may be unachievable in terms of the availability of land (025). As stated in the section Satisfying the Housing Need and Demand Assessment Requirement the Comhairle’s approved Outer Hebrides Local Housing Strategy seeks to support a higher level of housing provision in rural areas than would not be met by the demand figure in the Housing Need and Demand Assessment. While the housing allocations in the Plan are based on the Housing Need and Demand Assessment figures, there is scope to provide flexibility in the Rural HMA to meet the objectives of the approved Local Housing Strategy as discussed previously. In this regard, the Reporter may be minded to recommend a modification to the second paragraph in Policy 13 Housing to read: “In addition to the identified sites, housing development may be permitted where: the development comprises redevelopment of land or premises, or; is a conversion of an existing property, or; is for use of derelict land or gap sites, or; is of small‐scale (not more than 3 dwellings) at an appropriate density, or; it is located within the Rural Housing Market Area”.

Safeguarding the Better Inbye Croftland (010, 030). Croftland was identified as a ‘main issue’ in the Local Development Plan process and the Comhairle’s preferred option for dealing with the issue was set out in the Main Issues Report 2010 (core document extract). During subsequent consultation, a pilot project was proposed to work with Grazings committees to identity the most important areas that they would wish to see protected; however resources in the Crofters Commission were not available to support such a project. Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 97) gives guidance only to prime quality agricultural land, as defined in the Macaulay Land Use Classification. There is no prime quality agricultural land in the Outer Hebrides and this is not necessarily what crofters consider to be good quality croft land. No alternative mechanism exists to define better quality croftland and in the absence of such it would be difficult to assess applications against this factor. Additionally, encouraging development away from good quality land to poorer areas may not accord with Policy 1 the Development Strategy, which looks primarily to encourage development either within or close to existing settlements. The Plan has a whole looks to ensure that best use is made of land and other policies within the Plan address a range of factors including location, design, siting of development (policies 1, 2 and 4), taking account of matters such as water environment (Policy 9), soils (Policy 10) and natural heritage features (policy 20). Consequently the Comhairle is of the view that this issue is adequately addressed in the Plan and does not consider any modification to the Plan is necessary in this regard. Note: this also relates to Issues: 003 Assessment of Development; 004 Siting and Design.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 012 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Policy 15 Economic Development (page 34) Reporter: Development Proposal Prop E1a Arnish (page 69) Development plan reference: Development Proposal Prop MU5 Lochboisdale (page 73) Development Proposal Prop E2b Dormitory Site (south east), Stornoway (page 70) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Lochboisdale Amenity Trust (005) Stornoway Port Authority (013) Harris Development Ltd (019) UBC Group Ltd (030) Provision of the The allocation of strategic development proposal sites to meet development plan to the economic development requirements for the Outer which the issue Hebrides for the Plan period relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Development Proposal Prop E1a Arnish, Lewis Stornoway Port Authority (013) suggests a text change to better clarify the uses that may be appropriate on Development Proposal site Prop E1a Arnish.

Development Proposal Prop E2b Dormitory Site (south east), Stornoway UBC Group Ltd (030) wishes the boundary of site Development Proposal Prop E2 to be amended and increased from 1.24ha to 3.5ha.

Development Proposal Prop MU4 Lochboisdale Harbour Regeneration Lochboisdale Amenity Trust (005) objects to the detailed configuration of the Lochboisdale Harbour development in relation to the effects of wind and tidal directions and the expectation that existing marine and fishing activities will move from the village.

Economic Development sites in Harris Harris Development Ltd (019) expressed concern about the lack of business premises in Harris to support business enterprise and seeks that the redeployment of Scalpay School helps the sustainability of Scalpay.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Stornoway Port Authority (013) suggests the following amendment to the second sentence in the first paragraph of Development Proposal Prop E1a Arnish: "...to utilise its facilities and/or require a deep water harbour".

UBC Group Ltd (030) wishes the boundary of Development Proposal site Prop E2 to be increased from 1.24 ha to 3.5 ha.

It is assumed that the Lochboisdale Amenity Trust (005) is objecting to the principle and layout of Development Proposal Prop MU4 Lochboisdale Harbour Regeneration.

It is assumed that Harris Development Ltd (019) wants provision of further economic development sites in Harris and wishes the current Scalpay School building to be relinquished to community control once it is available.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Development Proposal Prop E1a Arnish, Lewis (013) Stornoway Port Authority requests that the final sentence of Prop E1a Arnish, Lewis in the first paragraph be reworded to read "...that utilise its facilities and/or require a deep water harbour". This would better clarify the criteria for utilisation of the site. Therefore if the Reporter is minded to recommend this modification to Development Proposal Prop E1a Arnish the Comhairle would have no objection. Given the recent government decision to identity the Arnish site as an Enterprise Area for Low Carbon / Renewables it may also be wise to ensure that part of the land within the Arnish site is allocated and safeguarded specifically for this purpose. Since the Government announcement, the Comhairle has held discussions with Highlands and Islands Enterprise and collectively identified the preferred area to be safeguarded (attached Supporting Document). The site has already been subject to neighbour notification in line with the Development Planning Regulations and as the fundamental uses for which the site is allocated in the Plan will not differ, the Reporter may consider it appropriate to recommend a further modification to Development Proposal Prop E1a Arnish “to identify and safeguard an area within the site for Low Carbon / Renewables related development purposes” as indicated on the submitted map.

Development Proposal Prop E2b Dormitory Site (south east), Stornoway (030) UBC Group Ltd has requested that the boundary of Development Proposal site Prop E2 be increased from 1.24 ha to 3.5 ha. The site known as the Dormitory site is allocated for housing in the Western Isles Local Plan (Core document, page 40, Prop LP/HCL2). The Monitoring Report (Core document, page 12) found there had been no material progress on the site. In response to the Main Issues Report the site owners, UBC Group Ltd, submitted a representation seeking that consideration was given to allocating alternative uses on part of the site (letter dated 22 April 2010, re-submitted as an attachment to the current representation). At that time, UBC Group Ltd requested that the part of the site fronting the main Stornoway approach road from the south (A859) be identified for retail with housing being allocated to the remainder of the site. They argued, amongst other things, that there was a lack of appropriate sites of a suitable size for retail within Stornoway Town Centre; and that lack of progress with developing the site for housing and the anticipated slow down in the rate of house-building anticipated over the next five years justified identification of this area of the site for retail. Consideration of the site for retail concluded that: . there is no land available for future retail expansion within the designated Town Centre; . the wider Greater Stornoway settlement core as defined in the adopted Western Isles Local Plan area is constrained in its ability to accommodate further retail (supermarket) provision; . the front of the Dormitory site is located close to the Town Centre on one of the main public transport routes; . the area requested for retail is a brown field site currently used as a waste transfer site

In developing the policies for Stornoway a new Town Centre Development Area was introduced in Policy 18. The purpose of this zoning is to focus regeneration type activities within an identified area of Stornoway but wider than the tight designated Town Centre. Retail is not seen as primary activity within the Town Centre Development Area and there is limited scope to provide new unconstrained future supermarket provision. (Supporting document - Stornoway retail provision) For these reasons the principle of a retail use on part of the Dormitory site was accepted. However in determining what the optimum size for a retail outlet at that location should be, the Comhairle used as a baseline the footprint of one of the existing supermarket units including allowance for car parking and servicing. Following advice from SEPA the original southernmost boundary was subsequently amended to take account of the topography of the site and proximity of an adjacent constraining watercourse for which a development buffer has been applied. This is the area that is presented as Prop E2b Dormitory Site (south east) in the Proposed Plan. No retail catchment assessment has been undertaken for this site, however as set out in Policy 18 Stornoway Retail and Stornoway Town Centre Development Areas an assessment (including a retail impact assessment) may be required for a retail development proposal over 2,500 sq m. The area of the site allocated for retail in the Proposed Plan is considerably smaller than that put forward by UBC Group Ltd and the company has again requested that a larger area be allocated for retail. However no justification has been provided. The company has submitted a related representation concerning the adjacent Development Proposal site (Prop H1i Dormitory North West). This has been addressed through Issue 011 Housing. The Comhairle is of the opinion that the site allocated in Prop E2b is appropriate to meet the needs for retail demand for Stornoway and the wider catchment for the period of the Plan and that there is no justification to increase the site allocated. Therefore the Comhairle does not accept that the proposed site shown in Prop E2b Dormitory Site (south east) should be amended.

Development Proposal Prop MU4 Lochboisdale Harbour Regeneration (005) The proposed Lochboisdale Harbour Regeneration project has already been subject to community consultation and obtained consent for the first phases of development, through a Major Development application (ref 11/00243/PPDM) in October 2011, which would have been assessed against the current Development Plan policy. As a major development this would have been subject to pre-application discussion and community engagement. It is not appropriate for the Plan Examination process to comment on a consented development application. The Comhairle considers that Development Proposal Prop MU4 Lochboisdale Harbour Regeneration as currently set out is appropriate to inform future phases of potential development and no change to the Plan is required.

Economic Development sites in Harris (019) The identification of specific sites in the Local Development Plan has generally been restricted to sites for housing and for strategic business or economic development purposes. Sites in Harris have been identified within this context. The suite of Plan policies will be sufficient to assess any proposal for additional sites or smaller sites that might come forward. The current primary school at Scalpay is due to close with effect from 29 June 2012. The Comhairle has a Disposal of Assets policy which supports transfer of assets to community redeployment. The Comhairle does not consider that any change to the Plan is required. Reporter’s conclusions and Reporter’s recommendations

Issue 013 STORNOWAY TOWN CENTRE

Policy 18 Stornoway Retail and Stornoway Reporter: Development plan Town Centre Areas (pages 37 - 39), reference: Development Proposal Prop MU2 Former Bus Station Site (page 73) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): The Theatres Trust (009) G N MacLeod (012) Stornoway Port Authority (013) Provision of the The Local Development Plan section on Stornoway Town development plan to Centre sets out the Comhairle’s policy approach on Retail which the issue within Stornoway, and development within Stornoway Town relates: Centre Retail and Development Areas. The Development Proposals section details allocation of sites for a variety of use including mixed uses sites and development proposals within Stornoway main settlement. Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s): Policy 18 Stornoway Retail and Stornoway Town Centre Areas The Theatres Trust (009) notes there is no acknowledgement of cultural facilities especially in Stornoway, and that Policy 18 Stornoway Retail and Stornoway Town Centre Areas appears to only deal with retail.

Stornoway Port Authority (013) notes that the wording of the final paragraph of Policy 18 (page 39) which relates to the wider town centre development area and specifically mentions marine and harbour-related activities therefore implies that these would be excluded from the narrower Retail Area. However as the Retail Area includes harbour- adjacent elements and many buildings of local historical significance it is foreseeable that non-retail marine or harbour-related or tourism activities may be proposed within the retail area and should be allowed if otherwise acceptable.

Development Proposals Prop MU2 Former Bus Station Site G N MacLeod (012) objects to inclusion of site Development Proposal Prop MU2 (Mixed Use) Former Bus Station Site on grounds that it would block light to his office; interfere with view of the Lews Castle from Cromwell Street; reduce parking capacity in the town; and could result in a 'tunnel' effect on Cromwell Street.

Stornoway Port Authority (013) notes that as the site Development Proposal Prop MU2 Former Bus Station Site comes within the definition of operational land for Port Authority purposes it is worth making it clear in the Local Development Plan that developments for the purposes of shipping or certain port-related purposes are also acceptable on this site.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: It is assumed that The Theatres Trust (009) would wish the policies to be broader and encompass cultural facilities

It is assumed that G N MacLeod (012) wants the Development Proposal Prop MU2 Former Bus Station Site removed from Proposal sites.

Stornoway Port Authority (013) requests that it is clarified in the Local Plan that

developments for the purposes of shipping or certain port-related purposes are also acceptable on the Development Proposal MU 2 Former Bus Station Site.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Policy 18 Stornoway Retail and Stornoway Town Centre Areas (009), (013), The wording of Policy 18 Stornoway Retail and Stornoway Town Centre Areas sets out a specific statement with regard to the use of ground floors premises in the defined Town Centre Retail Area and does not preclude other types of development coming forward for consideration. The supporting text accompanying Policy 18 notes that development should be in line with Scottish Planning Policy (Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 52) promoting a mix of uses in the town centre including “cultural and community facilities”. (009) In line with Scottish Planning Policy paragraphs 52 -56 the main policy approach for the defined Stornoway Town Centre Retail Area (per Policy 18) is that uses should be Use Classes 1, 2 and 3 on ground floor premises. These uses are considered to be the ones most likely to contribute to the viability and vitality of the Town Centre. However the policy does allow for a case to be made for uses other than those specified. To be acceptable proposals would be required to meet criteria a) to e) in the policy and demonstrate that the viability of the retail function would not be undermined. Any proposals which do not comply with these criteria would be unacceptable. (013) The Comhairle considers that Policy 18 as currently set out is appropriate and no change to the Plan is required.

Development Proposals Prop MU2 Former Bus Station Site (012), (013) Development Proposal Prop MU2 (page 67) identifies the Former Bus Station Site, Stornoway as suitable for development and indicates the proposed extent of the site and the uses appropriate on the site. There are no details of building(s), structure(s) to make any assessment on the potential impacts on adjacent buildings or the streetscape. These would be matters to be considered at planning application stage and Section 5, Development Proposals sets out the parameters for guiding the assessment of any proposal for this site to ensure its appropriateness for the location. The right to a view and the right to light would be considered as material considerations when a planning application is assessed. This site has been brought forward from the adopted Western Isles Local Plan, page 34, Prop LP/ED3 Former Bus Station Site (core document) and was included in the Main Issues Report. No objections to the site were received in response to the consultation on the Main Issues Report. (012) Neither the Western Isles Local Plan nor the Proposed Local Development Plan specifies that uses for the purposes of shipping or certain port-related purposes specifically would be acceptable on the site. Some port related activities will be permitted under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 Part 13 Class 35, otherwise proposed development will be assessed against Policy 18 and other relevant policies in the Plan. (013) Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 52) recognises the contribution Town Centres can make to sustainable economic growth and paragraph 57 requires planning authorities to identify relevant opportunities in the development plan. There is shortage of development land within Stornoway Town Centre which is a constraint on the ability to develop the Town Centre for a range of uses and activities. The former bus station site offers the opportunity to accommodate a range of Town Centre uses that meet the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy. Consequently the Comhairle considers that the Development Proposal Prop MU2 Former Bus Station Site as currently set out is appropriate and no change to the Plan is required. Reporter’s conclusions and Reporter’s recommendation

Issue 014 ENERGY RESOURCES

Policy 19 Energy Resources (Pages 40-41) Reporter: Development plan reference: Policy 20 Small and Micro Renewables (Policy 20) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Stornoway Port Authority (013) Bhaltos Community Trust (015) M Robertson (025) A Michel (029) Crofters Commission (031) Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust & Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board (032) Jones Lang LaSalle for SSE (034) Provision of the The energy resources and small / micro renewables policies; development plan to including the policy-linked Supplementary Guidance for Large which the issue Scale Wind Energy Developments and associated maps. relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Stornoway Port Authority (013) requests that in paragraph (b) of Policy 19, reference to ‘seascapes and harbour approaches’ should also be included in the list. Additionally they question why the plan does not ‘address offshore proposals even if not directly controlled at a local level (yet)?’ Bhaltos Community Trust (015) states there is no mention in Policy 19 of ‘protecting the recreation and tourism industry from adverse effects of installing renewable energy systems and infrastructure’ and requests that this is addressed. M Robertson (025) states that with regard to wind power, the consultation process should include local views and these should have a major influence in the final decision, ensuring the control of the sites protects the local resident’s environment and that the scenic value of the island is not adversely impacted. A Michel (029) states that: • Policy 19 Energy Resources is virtually identical to current development plan policies and it is difficult to reconcile the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the environmental impacts of Policy 19 with the recent outcomes of the Stornoway Wind Farm proposal.

• A Michel further argues that Policy 19, and the corresponding Large Scale Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance, fails to include consideration of tourism and recreation interests (particularly freshwater fisheries) in general, and specifically in developing the Supplementary Guidance spatial policy maps, contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (190) and Scottish Government’s “The Process for Preparing Spatial Frameworks for Wind Farms’.

• A. Michel questions whether Policy 19 can be considered sufficiently robust given that the shores of Loch Langavat, a Special Area of Conservation, are included in a ‘broad area of search’ in the Supplementary Guidance.

The Crofters Commission (031) supports Policy 19 and 20, but states: • That as Policy 19 refers to the Large Scale Wind Energy Developments

Supplementary Guidance, it is important that the land use practices and benefits of crofting are regarded and incorporated into the criteria when assessing future wind farm sites.

• Additionally, the Crofters Commission suggests a ‘social and economic’ category to be considered in the assessment criteria. The Commission believes this category will be of a significant benefit when assessing renewable energy development in rural communities.

• The Crofters Commission also supports Policy 20 and notes that there is potential for crofting townships to have their own small schemes to provide income for the development of their township.

The Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust and Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board (032): • Express their surprise that specific reference is not made to ‘tourism and recreation interests’, stating that freshwater fisheries form an important industry and community resource throughout the Outer Hebrides and that large scale renewable developments have the potential to not only impact upon the freshwater and coastal environment, but also on the visual and amenity value of freshwater fisheries as a tourism industry. They state that LDP policy 19 b) should be specifically mention 'recreation and tourism interests' and that WIDSFB have requested consideration of this in the past.

• Express support for the general approach of Policy 20, and stress the importance of acknowledging “…that even small scale renewables have the potential to harm fish populations and/or the freshwater environment. Therefore, appropriate pre- construction surveys and monitoring are essential to ensure that appropriate mitigation is in place to protect sensitive species and habitats”.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034): • Recommends Policy 19 acknowledges that Scottish Government Policy and legislation is continually being developed and that any subsequent policy and legislative requirements relating to climate change and renewables development should be taken into account in the application of the policy.

• Considers Policy 19 criterion b to be overly restrictive having regard to SPP and the commercial reality of renewable energy development. They feel it would be more appropriate to refer to “no unacceptable significant adverse residual impacts” instead of "no unacceptable adverse impact".

• States that Policy 19 criterion f) requires development proposals, where appropriate, to comply with Supplementary Guidance for Large Scale Wind Energy Developments, and they have provided a separate representation to this guidance (WE16). In this representation they reiterate the need to change the wording in criterion b, as above, and state that any policy changes in the Plan are reflected in the Supplementary Guidance and vice versa.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Seascapes and Harbour Approaches (013) Add reference to no unacceptable adverse impacts (including cumulative) on…’seascapes and harbour approaches’ in bullet point b) of Policy 19.

Offshore Proposals (013) Plan should address the policy approach to ‘offshore proposals’.

Socio Economic Considerations (015, 029, 031, 032) Add reference in bullet point b) of Policy 19 to no unacceptable adverse impacts

(including cumulative) on: • socio economic considerations (031) • recreation and tourism (015; 029 - assumed; 032) • crofting activities (031 - assumed)

Consultation Process for Wind Energy Proposals (025) Include provision in Policy 19 for local community views to have a major influence on the determination of applications.

Policy Failings in Assessing Wind Energy Proposals (029) Undertake a new Strategic Environmental Assessment of Policy 19 and the Large Scale Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance using examples of previous Wind Farm proposals to demonstrate the effectiveness of the policies and amend the policies subsequent to this.

Reference to National Policy Documents (034) Policy 19 should acknowledge that Scottish Government Policy and legislation is continually being developed and that any subsequent policy and legislative requirements relating to climate change and renewables development should be taken into account in the application of the policy.

Unacceptable Adverse Impact (034) Change the reference in Policy 19 bullet b) from “no unacceptable adverse impact” to "no unacceptable significant adverse impact".

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Seascapes and Harbour Approaches (013) Scottish Planning Policy does not require that regard is given to ‘seascapes’ as a separate consideration to ‘landscape’ in land use planning. At a local level, there has not been sufficient ‘seascape character assessment’ work undertaken to provide comprehensive baseline data for the assessment of general applications. However, for specific applications (e.g. large scale wind energy developments) seascape assessment work may be requested as part of the planning process. The Comhairle acknowledges that our coastal resources have environmental, cultural and economic value and the Local Development Plan identifies coastal areas that are unlikely to be suitable for development in its ‘remote area’ classification in Policy 1 Development Strategy. This includes areas of isolated coastline and uninhabited islands. Further policy guidance on coastal areas is provided in: Policy 23 Coastal Development and Erosion; and Policy 28 Natural Heritage. Note: A similar issue is also raised and considered in Issues 001 Plan Context and Objectives; 003 Assessment of Development; 005 Landscape.

Offshore Proposals (013) It is not within the remit of the Plan to regulate offshore development relating to energy proposals. Statutory planning control under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 extends to the mean low water mark of ordinary spring tides (and to marine fish farming development out to the 3 mile limit). A new marine planning system is being introduced through the Marine (Scotland) Act, and regional marine plans will be prepared by Marine Planning Partnerships to guide decisions within the marine planning system up to the mean high water mark. The Comhairle will work closely with the Marine Planning Partnership when established, to ensure development plans and regional marine plans are complementary with regard to the wider coastal zone.

Socio Economic Considerations (015; 029; 031; 032) Policy 19 Energy Resources requires that proposals are assessed against the impact

development will have on ’natural, built and cultural heritage resources, the water environment…amenity…neighbouring land uses…core paths…and local economic impact’. It goes on to further state that “the type, scale and size of the proposed development will have a significant effect on the way the Comhairle will consider an application and the level of accompanying information that will be required”. The above text is considered sufficient to cover the broad consideration of socio economic impacts (031) with flexibility to request detailed information on specific sectors such as crofting (031) and recreation and tourism (015, 029, 032) should the ‘type, scale and size’ of the proposed development require it. The Comhairle does not consider it necessary to stipulate that all onshore renewable energy projects and oil and gas operation proposals be assessed for their impacts on specific sectors that may not be relevant to the proposal.

Consultation Process for Wind Energy Proposals (025) The statutory consultation procedures for consultation on development plans is prescribed in Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 and anyone with an interest in the Plan can submit comments. With regard to ‘community consultation’ (025), for specific planning applications, pre-application consultation is statutory for planning applications which fall into the “National” and ‘Major” development categories (hierarchy of development), but not for “Local” (Circular 4/2009 (Development Management Procedures). Planning applications are advertised weekly in the press and on the Comhairle’s website.

Policy Failings in Assessing Wind Energy Proposals (029) Policy 19 Energy Resources (bullet f) points to a requirement to comply with the Large Scale Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance, where appropriate, but does not detail the spatial policy approach, nor do the Plan maps identify the ‘broad areas of search’. Comments relating to the spatial policy approach of the Supplementary Guidance are being considered separately to the Local Development Plan as part of a distinct but concurrent consultation process. This also relates to the comments regarding the Strategic Environmental Assessment. The Stornoway Wind Farm proposal has been submitted under the current Development Plan and not the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan. It is not possible to say how the outcomes would differ, not just with regard to the energy policies being discussed, but also in respect of other Proposed Plan policies that would apply to such an application. Once the Local Development Plan is adopted, proposals must comply with all relevant policies of the Plan, and this includes Policy 9 Water Environment and Policy 28 Natural Heritage, which when taken as a whole, the Comhairle considers sufficient to address the issues raised regarding environmental impact. For additional points of note on the comments made regarding the Large Scale Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance and the Stornoway Wind Farm Application, refer to information in the Supporting document.

Reference to National Policy Documents (034) The Comhairle has a duty to contribute to meeting the targets and objectives of a number of key national strategic documents with regard to energy resources, as stated in Policy 19. Any changes to national policy and legislation subsequent to the publication of the Plan will automatically be taken into account in the application of the policy. This is the case for all policy and guidance that is superseded, and it is unnecessary to state this in the policy.

Unacceptable Adverse Impact (034) In terms of energy resources, adverse impacts do not have to be significant for them to be ‘unacceptable’, i.e. aviation, defence, telecommunication or public health impacts. The Comhairle maintains that the terminology in bullet b) of Policy 19 “no unacceptable adverse impacts (including cumulative) on…” is necessary to allow for the range of

circumstances in which impacts would be deemed ‘unacceptable’. The term ‘unacceptable’ is commonly used in planning and within Scottish Planning Policy; it infers that the likely impacts have been tested by an appropriate and established criterion applicable to that topic, and found to be unacceptable. To limit the test to “no unacceptable significant adverse residual impacts…” would potentially allow for unacceptable adverse impacts to be approved which may be contrary to wider planning policy. In response to all the comments submitted in relation to this Issue, the Comhairle considers that Policy 19 Energy Resources as currently set out is appropriate and no change is required.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 015 FISH FARMING AND MARINE PLANNING

Section: Fish Farm and Marine Planning Reporter: Development plan (pages 46 - 47) reference: Policy 22 Marine Fish Farming & Marine Planning (page 47) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) A Laurie (026) Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust and Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board (032) Jones Lang LaSalle for SSE (034) Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (041) South Harris Community Council (042) Marine Harvest Scotland (048) The Scottish Salmon Company (049) Provision of the The Local Development Plan section on Fish Farm and development plan to Marine Planning sets out the Comhairle’s supporting text, which the issue references, and policy approach on marine planning, planning relates: for freshwater fish farming and sign posts to the Comhairle’s Supplementary Guidance for Marine Fish Farming which sets out the Comhairle’s policy (spatial and development criteria) on marine fish farming (fin and shellfish). Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

A Laurie (026) disagrees with mass expansion of open net fish farming as it is presently operated.

The Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust and Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board (032) point out that there should be a move away from further development of freshwater aquaculture within migratory freshwater systems. The risk posed by escapes through introgression to wild fisheries is thought to be greater from freshwater escapes. (The definition of introgression as assumed by Comhairle is set out in Supporting Document)

The Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust and Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board PLDP (032) are unaware of any Appropriate Assessments that have been carried out for either Langavat or North Harris Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) in the recent past, relating to Atlantic salmon. Specifically marine fish farming has the potential to significantly affect wild salmonids.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) states that it is the writer's opinion that the policy requirement for development proposals to have "no adverse environmental or amenity impacts arising from access and servicing considerations" is overly restrictive and unacceptable. Potentially, an adverse impact could be so minor that it would be negligible.

Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (041), Marine Harvest Scotland (048) and The Scottish Salmon Company (049) note that, although the preamble (page 46) to Policy 22 states that "Proposals for fish farming development which have the potential to

sustain and grow the industry will be generally viewed positively", they feel that the policy itself is much more neutral. It does not sufficiently reflect the Council’s stated supportive stance and therefore gives insufficient guidance to investors, developers, the public and decision makers on what the Council intends to happen when development proposals come forward. The Council's position should be made clearer by stating that there is a general presumption in favour of aquaculture development, subject to any specific restrictions in the plan and locational guidance or by including the supporting text noted, in the policy wording.

Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (041) notes that the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 will guide not only aquaculture planning decisions but also all other decisions by public authorities on activities at sea. It states that the Council will be obliged, not simply to "have regard to the National Marine Plan and Regional Marine (Spatial) Plans...", as is stated currently in Policy 22, but will be obliged to determine aquaculture planning applications "according to the appropriate marine plans unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise".

The South Harris Community Council (042) feels that the supporting text of Policy 22 appears to give the impression that fish farming will have a priority status over any other form of economic development whether existing or proposed. Given the need for a diverse economy to ensure sustainability is this statement really necessary or desirable.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

It is assumed that A Laurie (026) wishes a reduction or suspension of open net fish farming as it is presently operated.

Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust and Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board (032) seek that the development of freshwater aquaculture should be avoided within migratory freshwater systems.

Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust and Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board (032) seek that Comhairle nan Eilean Siar confirm the process involved in determining whether an Appropriate Assessment is required for an aquaculture development within proximity to one of these Special Areas of Conservation.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) recommends that the Policy 22 text criteria f) should read "no unacceptable adverse environmental or amenity impacts arising from access and servicing considerations".

Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (041); Marine Harvest Scotland (048); The Scottish Salmon Company (049) seek the inclusion of text stating there is a general presumption in favour of aquaculture development, subject to any specific restrictions in the plan and locational guidance, or by including the supporting text noted, in the policy wording. The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation notes that this would be consistent with the Council's positive support for renewable energy resources (Policy 19 page 40) and with the Draft National Marine Plan.

The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (041) wishes the Comhairle to go further with regard to the National Marine Plan and seek that the Comhairle will be obliged, not simply to "have regard to the National Marine Plan and Regional Marine (Spatial) Plans...", as is stated currently in Policy 22, but will be obliged to determine aquaculture planning applications "according to the appropriate marine plans unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise".

The South Harris Community Council (042) feels that the text supporting Policy 22 appears to give the impression that fish farming will have a priority status over any other

form of economic development whether existing or proposed. Given the need for a diverse economy to ensure sustainability is this statement really necessary or desirable. They wish that this statement (Policy 22) is re-considered.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Alison Laurie (026), Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (041) South Harris Community Council (042) Marine Harvest (048) The Scottish Salmon Company (049) As fish farming activity is present in the Outer Hebrides and is anticipated to grow further, and in line with Scottish Planning Policy (paragraphs 3 – 5) which sets out the purpose of planning as being to guide future development, the Comhairle has set out an effective framework to best guide this type of development, through Policy 22 and the associated Supplementary Guidance for Marine Fish Farming. It is not appropriate for the Comhairle to make statements of support in Plan policy for fish farm development over and above any other type of development. The Comhairle considers the policy wording as proposed provides clear and robust criteria not only for the assessment of proposals but also as guidance to developers. It does not agree that the policy “... gives insufficient guidance to investors, developers, the public and decision makers on what the Council intends to happen when development proposals come forward”. The purpose of the Plan policies and the development criteria in the associated Supplementary Guidance is to set out the approach which will be taken in assessing and determining proposals. It also provides guidance to developers as to the factors that will be used to assess any proposal. Consequently no purpose is achieved by including general support statements in policy. Perceived support statements cited with regard to Policy 19 Energy Resources relate to Scottish Government legislative targets to which the Comhairle is obligated.

Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (041) As the Scotland’s National Marine Plan has not been finalised or approved by Government and it will be some time until regional marine plans are in place, the Comhairle has adhered to the guidance in Scottish Planning Policy (paragraph 99) which states that “Planning Authorities should work closely with Marine Planning Partnerships and neighbouring authorities to ensure that development plans and regional marine plans are complementary, particularly with regard to the inter-tidal area but also for the wider costal zone.” The Comhairle considers that the addition of text referring to the National Marine Plan would add little to the Plan at this stage.

Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust and Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board (032) There is a need for freshwater sites for nursery cultivation stages in aquaculture. While there are numerous existing consents for freshwater cultivation the purpose of the Plan is to set out clear and robust development criteria. Policy 22 and supporting policies including Policy 9 Water Environment and Policy 28 Natural Heritage will ensure effective assessment and management of future aquaculture developments within freshwater systems. Policy 22 specifically notes that freshwater aquaculture developments should be of an acceptable location in terms of Policy 1 Development Strategy.

Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust and Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board (032) The Comhairle is not aware of any Appropriate Assessments having been carried out for

either Langavat or North Harris Special Areas of Conservation in the recent past, relating to Atlantic salmon. The Comhairle would, where it concludes that a development proposal unconnected with the nature conservation management of a Natura 2000 site is likely to have a significant effect on that site, undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications for the conservation interests for which the area has been designated. These sites would be identified following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage in line with Policy 28, “where there is good reason to suggest that a protected species is present on site, or may be affected by a proposed development, the Comhairle will require any such presence to be established and, if necessary, a mitigation plan provided to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts on the species, prior to determining the application.” The Proposed Local Development Plan’s policies and proposals were subject to screening and scoping per the Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans process. The format and findings of this Habitats Regulations Appraisal process were agreed with Scottish Natural Heritage and reported as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment – Environmental Report. Whilst some policies and proposals were scoped for further assessment through appropriate assessment, Policy 22 was not deemed to have a potential impact on Natura sites. Natura sites are identified as part of the areas “sensitive to new or further fish farming in the spatial strategy for marine fish farming”. This provides further safeguarding for Natura sites for which marine fish farming is generally considered to be unsuitable. In response to the foregoing comments submitted in relation to this Issue, the Comhairle considers that Policy 22 Fish Farming and Marine Planning and the supporting text as currently set out is appropriate and that no change is required.

Jones Lang LaSalle (034) The functions of access and servicing of freshwater fish farm developments are areas where fish farming activity can interface with local residents, neighbouring or other water users, and thus the need to have a policy approach is essential to best manage possible interaction. As indicated by the representee, an adverse impact could potentially be so minor that it would be negligible, and thus quantifying the impact as ‘unacceptable’ would be helpful in the policy criteria. On this basis if the Reporter was minded to recommend these modifications, the Comhairle would be willing to accept the following text in Policy 22: “c) no unacceptable adverse noise and lighting impacts; f) no unacceptable adverse environmental or amenity impacts arising from access and servicing considerations;” Note: A similar issue is also raised and considered through Issues 003 Assessment of Development and 014 Energy Resources

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 016 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

Development plan Reporter: Policy 23, page 48. reference: Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Crofters Commission (031)

Provision of the The policy approach set for assessing development proposed development plan to on the coastline. which the issue relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Crofters Commission (031) seeks the protection of better inbye croftland, both with regard to the choice of the site and impact of the associated access on the remainder of the croft.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

The Crofters Commission (031) has not stated explicitly what amendment it would wish to see. It is assumed it would wish an addition to existing criteria to include protection for inbye croftland both with regard to the choice of site and impact of the associated access on the remainder of the croft.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Policy 23 refers to coastal development and erosion and makes no reference to development on crofts, or to any specific form of development. The representation would appear to be out of context and not directly relevant. The policies of the Local Development Plan are not mutually exclusive and proposed development will be measured against more than one policy. For instance any proposed development on the coast would be first measured against Policies 1 Development Strategy; 2 Assessment of Development and 4 Siting and Design. If relevant it may also be assessed against Policy 7: Flooding and Policy 11: Compatibility of Neighbouring Uses. This matter and the Comhairle’s responses are set out in greater detail under Issues 003 Assessment of Development; 004 Siting and Design and 011 Housing.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 017 COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS

Policy 24 Countryside and Coastal Access Reporter: policy wording and supporting text (Page 49) Development plan reference: Policy 25 Open Space (page 51) Infrastructure Proposal INF2 Hebridean Way (Page 73) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Sport Scotland (008); Stornoway Port Authority (013); Harris Development Limited (019); Crofters Commission (031); Barra Watersports (045); Dr. S. K. Dawson (046); Provision of the The policy approach to development proposals that may development plan to impact the Core Path network or other important routes or which the issue open space; and the criteria for assessing proposals for the relates: improvement of the existing path network. The infrastructure development proposal Prop INF2 Hebridean Way. Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

SportScotland (008) states:

• Policy 24 is ambiguous as it is unclear if an application will be refused if it obstructs a core path.

• Policy 24 is not in accordance with paragraph 150 in Scottish Planning Policy as it provides no guidance on ‘other important routes’.

• Policy 24 needs to be strengthened to state that development will be refused if it has a negative impact on a core path or other important route, where that impact cannot be mitigated.

• They recommend the insertion of a new policy that recognises the importance of the natural environment for a range of sport and recreation purposes which ensures that areas important to these activities are taken into account in the consideration of development proposals. They state these areas are important to the tourism industry and to health of local population and a range of development types can impact them. They cite paragraph 125 of Scottish Planning Policy in support.

• In relation to Infrastructure Proposal INF2 Hebridean Way SportScotland state that the text should be amended to accord with access legislation as ‘it is incorrect to talk of footpaths or cycle-ways as it will be a right of access for all forms (where responsible to do so)’. They suggest the text is changed to refer to a ‘long distance trail’.

Stornoway Port Authority (013) states that when developing Core Path networks account should be taken of the fact that the Hebrides have some of the last remaining elements of wilderness in UK and attract walkers and outdoor adventurers because the

land and hills do not have paths on them. This type of development should take account of the wilderness aspects as once lost it cannot be recovered.

Harris Development Ltd (019) supports the creation of a Hebridean Way (Prop INF2) and feels this project will be of significant benefit to many fragile areas throughout the islands. They also state that proposal can benefit from recent path upgrades already undertaking by community groups and trusts. They would urge the Comhairle to press forward and work with local development groups to identify methods of providing the necessary resource to deliver this project.

The Crofters Commission (031) supports Policy 24 subject to end users complying with the various Codes of Practice when accessing the countryside.

Barra Watersports Club (045) requests that a new proposal site is added for the proposed Watersports Club at Port na Marbh in Barra.

Dr S K Dawson (046) questions whether the Hebridean Way (Prop INF2) will be accessible to horses and cyclists as well as walkers.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Policy 24 Countryside and Coastal Access (008) Strengthen Policy 24 to state that development will be refused if it has a negative impact on a core path or other important route, where that impact cannot be mitigated.

New Policy on Recreation and Tourism Natural Resources (008) Insertion of a new policy that recognises the importance of the natural environment for a range of sport and recreation purposes.

Amendments to Prop INF2 Hebridean Way (008, 013, 019, 046) • Change references of ‘footpaths and cycle-ways’ to ‘long distance trails’ to accord with access legislation (008) • State that development of the route will involve the protection of wilderness/wild land resources (013 - assumed) • Make it clear whether the route will be accessible to horses and bikes (046 - assumed)

Inclusion of Reference to Codes of Practice (031) State in Policy 24 and 25 (Open Space) that compliance with the various Codes of Practice is required when accessing the countryside (assumed).

Insertion of New Proposal for Barra Watersports Club (045) Insert a new proposal site for the proposed Watersports Club at Port na Marbh.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Policy 24 Countryside and Coastal Access (008) Policy 25 Open Space (031) The Outer Hebrides Core Paths network is a ‘system of paths which is sufficient for the purpose of giving reasonable access throughout the Outer Hebrides’. The network was designated by the Comhairle in accordance with section 18(8) (b) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and involved extensive consultation with local communities, path users and land managers. Under Section 19 of the Act, the Comhairle has powers to:“…do anything which they consider appropriate for the purposes of—

a) maintaining a core path; b) keeping a core path free from obstruction or encroachment; c) providing the public with directions to, or with an indication of the extent of, a core path.” The Comhairle believes that Policy 24 provides adequate protection to Core Paths (“proposed development must be located to ensure the Core Paths Network is kept free of obstruction”) in line with the powers it is able to exercise regarding this legislation. In Policy 24, the Comhairle felt it was important to make a distinction to the protection offered to ‘Core Paths’ as opposed to ‘other routes’ to underline their strategic importance, the extensive consultation carried out, and the extent of the Comhairle’s legislative remit. The Comhairle considers that due consideration to ‘other important routes’ has been provided (“where possible development should avoid other routes identified in the Core Paths Plan”), in line with Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 150. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act and accompanying Scottish Outdoor Access code makes it clear that access rights for all exist over most land areas and the creation of a system of core paths confers no additional rights. Therefore, access rights will continue for those paths and other important routes in the wider path network which are not adopted as core paths. (008)

The Scottish Outdoor Access Code (2005) accompanies the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to provide formal guidance on responsibilities associated with access rights. The Code details what is considered to be reasonable behaviour by both the public taking access and by land managers. The Comhairle considers that it is unnecessary to detail the requirements of the above guidance in the Plan policies as they are required above and beyond the conditions of the Local Development Plan. (031)

The Comhairle considers that Policy 24 Countryside and Coastal Access and Policy 25 Open Space, as currently set out, meet the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy and does not consider that any amendment to these policies is necessary.

New Policy on Protection of Natural Resources for Recreation and Tourism (008) The Comhairle considers that adequate protection for identified recreation and tourism resources is provided in Policy 25 (existing open space, playing fields and sports pitches). Additionally, Policy 11 Compatibility of Neighbouring Uses ensures any adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring uses are mitigated to an acceptable level. Statutory access rights under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act also apply to most land and inland waters in the Outer Hebrides, underpinning opportunities for outdoor recreation. In terms of the intrinsic value the natural environment provides to recreation and tourism, this is essentially about the quality of the landscape and natural heritage resource itself rather than “the importance of the natural environment for a range of sport and recreation purposes (008)”. The Comhairle believes that sufficient consideration of these resources is already provided in the Plan. Policy 1 Development Strategy provides a spatial strategy for land use that gives consideration of these resources appropriate to the area type (i.e. landscape / settlement character, wild land attributes, natural heritage resource, etc); while Policy 5 Landscape and Policy 28 Natural Resources provide policy guidance on these resources applicable to all proposals. The Comhairle considers no change to the Plan is necessary.

Amendments to Prop INF2 Hebridean Way (008, 013, 019, 046) The development of a strategic route through the Outer Hebrides has been an aspiration of the Comhairle and its partners for many years and is identified in the current Development Plan. A ‘long distance route’ feasibility study was undertaken in 2009.

The Hebridean Way is intended to be an officially designated ‘long distance route’, as recognised by Scottish Natural Heritage and established under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. With regard to access rights, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 does not differentiate between different forms of access, but excludes any form of motorised recreation or passage (except by people with a disability using a vehicle or vessel adapted for their use). The Comhairle accepts that the current wording of Prop INF2 may be misleading as there is a right of access for all forms of non motorised recreation and passage (where responsible to do so). If the Reporter is minded to recommend a modification to the wording in Prop INF2 the Comhairle would be willing to accept the following: ‘It is proposed to progress feasibility work to enable development of a long distance route through the Outer Hebrides’. (008, 046). Regarding the request from Stornoway Port Authority that the development of Prop INF2 should involve the protection of wilderness/wild land resources, the Comhairle would reply as per the response to “New Policy on Protection of Natural Resources for Recreation and Tourism” as above (013). The Action Programme notes that further feasibility work will be required to enable development of this route; this would include further consultation with interested parties, including community groups and landowners. The Comhairle does not consider it necessary to detail this in the Plan (019).

Insertion of New Proposal for Barra Watersports Club (045) Comhairle Planning Officers met with Barra Watersports (045) when they made a submission at the Proposed Plan consultation stage. They discussed that the scale of this development would probably not be appropriate to warrant a proposal site. The representee stated they wanted it noted because he was aware of a possible development happening on an adjacent site and thought there might be opportunities to work together. Both these developments are at a preliminary pre-application stage of planning. The identification of specific sites in the Local Development Plan has generally been restricted to sites for housing and for strategic business purposes. Sites for other individual uses are not identified as proposal sites as the suite of Local Development Plan policies will be sufficient to assess any such proposal. There is therefore no necessity to identify specific sites for new water-sports clubs.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 018 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Policy 26 Transport Infrastructure (page 52 Reporter: Development plan -53) reference: Development Proposal Prop INF1 Spinal Route (page 73) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Stornoway Port Authority (013) Harris Development Ltd (019) Tong Community Council (040) South Harris Community Council (042) Dr S K Dawson (046) Provision of the The Local Development Plan section on Transport development plan to Infrastructure sets out the Comhairle’s policy approach that which the issue aims to plays a role in successful economic development and relates: maximising access to facilities for all. This policy along with others underpins and informs the Infrastructure Development Proposals. Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Stornoway Port Authority (013) notes that no mention is made of car parking which they view as a major transport issue in Stornoway.

Harris Development Ltd (019) fully supports and welcomes Policy 26 Transport Infrastructure and Development Proposal Prop INF1 Spinal Route. In line with these Policies and Proposals, Harris Development Ltd, seeks that priority is given to double tracking the remaining single track sections of the spinal route (A859) in South Harris and that urgent attention is given to the positioning of the double track to single track transitions at Glen Lacasdail in South Harris.

Tong Community Council (040) raises the following issues: options needed to relieve peak time congestion at (single tracked) Laxdale Bridge; visibility may be affected by amenity planting on traffic islands; and a review of car parking provision in Stornoway is needed to ensure the development of the town centre, and some solutions are suggested.

South Harris Community Council (042) considers that the road from Leverburgh to the junction with the C79 poses significant safety issues because of the number of transitions from single to double track.

Dr S K Dawson (046) cannot find provision in the Plan for cycle parking or the promotion of cycling, and questions what provision for cycles are expected in new public buildings and car parks.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

It is assumed that Stornoway Port Authority (013) wishes the Plan to address car parking within Stornoway.

Tong Community Council (040) proposes the construction of a multi storey car park at Development Proposal site Prop MU2 Former Bus Station Site or beside the Caledonian Hotel, Stornoway.

South Harris Community Council (042) and Harris Development Ltd (019) request that Development Proposal Prop INF1 Spinal Route is considered as a priority specifically the section of the route through South Harris, and the transitions between single and double track.

It is assumed that Dr S K Dawson (046) would wish provision made in the Plan for cycling facilities.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Car Parking in Stornoway (013, 040) Parking policy is detailed in the Standards for Car Parking and Roads Layout Supplementary Guidance which has been approved by the Comhairle as policy guidance, and will become statutory in due course when the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan is adopted. The Supplementary Guidance applies across the Outer Hebrides including Stornoway. The provision of parking and transport management within Stornoway is regularly reviewed by the Comhairle’s Traffic and Car Parking Member Officer Working Group (MOWG) which has initiated a number of parking and traffic management orders for Stornoway recently, to improve car parking provision and traffic management flow. The need for a multi storey parking provision has not been identified and the suggested provision is not considered necessary or feasible at this time. Proposals for new development will require to make provision for car parking within the scope of the Supplementary Guidance. The Comhairle does not consider it necessary to amend the Plan in this regard.

Provision for Cycles (046) The Plan (through the supporting text and policy wording of Policy 26 Transport Infrastructure) supports and requires provision for cycling facilities (cycle ways and bike storage facilities). Policy 26 specifically requires provision of cycle storage facilities for new public buildings; schools; housing development consisting of flatted dwellings; and commercial or community premises where a minimum of five car parking spaces. The Comhairle considers that Policy 26 as currently set out adequately details the requirement for cycling facilities and no change to the Plan is necessary.

Development Proposal Prop INF1 Outer Hebrides Spinal Route (042), (019) The Local Development Plan and associated development proposals are set out in the Plan with a 5 year lifespan and a 20 year vision. As required, timetable for implementation of the policies and proposals in the Local Development Plan is set out in the associated Action Programme. This indicates that the delivery of the Spinal Route Development Proposal will happen on an ongoing basis. It remains a corporate objective of the Comhairle to double track the whole spinal route. However this is subject to allocation of funding from the Capital Programme which is currently fully committed. A new Capital Programme will be determined for the 2013-2017 period following election of a new Council in May 2012. The Comhairle considers that Development Proposal Prop INF1 Outer Hebrides Spinal Route as currently set out is appropriate and no change to the Plan is required.

Miscellaneous Transport Comments (040) Improvement to traffic flows at Laxdale Bridge was part of a Development Proposal in the Western Isles Local Plan (Core Document: Prop LP/Trans1 Local Traffic Improvements, page 44), and measures to progress this have been undertaken. Feasibility work, including an options appraisal for addressing issues at Laxdale Bridge, was presented at public events in 2009 and any future proposed works will need to be considered as part of the Comhairle’s Capital Programme, which is currently committed, but a new Capital Programme will be determined following election of a new Council in May 2012. The amenity planting of traffic islands and small local landscaping is not subject to the more strategic policy intended through Policy 5 Landscape. The servicing of plantings on these traffic islands is through a maintenance contract managed by the Comhairle’s Technical Services Department. Comments on the specific locations noted will be passed to the Technical Services Department. The Comhairle considers that the Plan as currently set out is appropriate and no change is required.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 019 NATURAL HERITAGE AND BIODIVERSITY

Policy 21 Minerals (pages 44-45) Reporter: Development plan Policy 25 Open Space (page 51) reference: Policy 28 Natural Heritage (page 56) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Scottish Natural Heritage (024) Scottish Wildlife Trust (033) Highlands & Islands Airports Limited (037) National Trust for Scotland (043) Provision of the Policy 21 - Policy approach to permitted reserves of mineral development plan to resources and proposals for new sites, extensions and sites which the issue for export. relates: Policy 25 - Policy approach to existing open space, playing fields and sports pitches, and new open space as part of a development Policy 28 - Policy approach to international, national and local natural heritage designations and protected species. Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Scottish Natural Heritage (024) states that Policy 28 Natural Heritage, as worded, does not accurately reflect the Habitats Regulation Appraisal wording and suggests amended text. Additionally, in relation to the known presence of European Protected Species, it is stated that there is a requirement for proposed development to fulfil three tests and not two as set out in the policy. Amended wording for policy guidance relating to UK BAP and LBAP priority habitats and species is also recommended.

Scottish Wildlife Trust (033) states that Policy 21 Minerals should require that restoration and after-use proposals increase the bio-diversity value of sites in addition to other requirements. Where this is not possible offsite contributions should be considered as a last resort. It would also wish that Policy 25 should state that any alternative provision achieves comparable quality benefits to include natural heritage or biodiversity value.

Highlands & Islands Airports Limited (037) states that new natural heritage sites should be able to demonstrate that they will not have an adverse effect on the operation of airports nor compromise their possible future development or upgrading so as not to compromise Policy 26 Transport Infrastructure.

National Trust for Scotland (043) states that although Policy 28 Natural Heritage recognises the importance of the islands’ natural heritage it is unclear if this also includes marine resources.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Scottish Natural Heritage (024): • At the end of the first paragraph of Policy 28 Natural Heritage, amend the sentence beginning “Development which could have…” to read “Development which is likely to…” to more accurately reflect the Habitats Regulations.

• Add a third test in relation to European Protected Species in line with paragraph 29 of ‘European Protected Species, Development Sites and the Planning System’ (2001).

• Replace the wording in relation to ‘UK BAP and LBAP priority habitats and species’ to read “the Planning Authority will have regard to the value of these other non- designated or non-protected habitats and species in the assessment of any development proposals which may affect them”.

Scottish Wildlife Trust (033) seeks text amendments to: . Policy 21 Minerals bullet point (c) requiring the biodiversity value of a restoration or after use site to be increased in addition to the other criteria specified:; and

• Policy 25 Open Space to clarify that the ‘quality benefits’ include natural heritage or biodiversity value.

Highlands & Islands Airports Limited (037) seeks a modification to Policy 28 Natural Heritage to require any proposed new Natural Heritage sites to demonstrate that they will not have an adverse impact on the operation or future development of airports in the Islands.

National Trust for Scotland (043) seeks clarification in Policy 28 Natural Heritage that the islands’ natural heritage includes marine resources as well as land resources.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Scottish Natural Heritage (024) Whilst the suggested text amendment at the end of the first paragraph of Policy 28 “Development which is likely to…” is accepted as being in line with the text of the Habitats Regulations, Policy 28 Natural Heritage as worded is considered satisfactory in conveying what has to be taken into account. However, if the Reporter is minded to recommend a modification to the policy wording, the Comhairle would have no objection to the amended wording as suggested. Due to the current lack of site specific data regarding the habitats and species on the UK BAP and LBAP lists it would be problematic for the Comhairle to use this data for the assessment of general applications. Lack of data was identified as an issue during production of the Western Isles LBAP Audit in 2002 and remains an issue. However, the Outer Hebrides Biological Recording Project has recently been established and will in time provide data on the distribution of species throughout the area via the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway online portal. Policy 28 Natural Heritage encourages developers to assess the impact of their proposed development on UK BAP and LBAP habitats and species. Wider biodiversity and ecological interests are taken into account in Policy 2 Assessment of Development, which requires development proposals to demonstrate they: “a) will not significantly adversely affect biodiversity and ecological interests, and where possible, result in an enhancement of these interests (The Online Biodiversity Planning Toolkit should be consulted for general advice and good practice).” The Comhairle considers that the Policy 2 and Policy 28 when taken together satisfy the duty placed on public bodies by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to “further the conservation of biodiversity” therefore does not support the amended wording as proposed by Scottish Natural Heritage. If the Reporter is minded to recommend that the Plan is strengthened with regard to

biodiversity, the Comhairle would accept an amendment to the italic text in Policy 2: Assessment of Development, bullet a) to read “The online Biodiversity Planning Toolkit should be consulted for general advice and good practice on habitats and species and the NBN Gateway for site specific biodiversity data.” Additionally, if the Reporter is minded to recommend a further modification the Comhairle would also accept an amendment to include a link to the SNH advice for planners and developers webpage in the Reference section of Policy 28 Natural Heritage. On the matter of the tests to be applied to proposals requiring a licence under section 44 of the 1994 Habitats Directive there seems to be a discrepancy in advice given. In the document ‘European Protected Species, Development Sites and the Planning System Interim Guidance for Local Authorities on licensing arrangements, October 2001’ the text quite clearly sets out the requirements as three tests. However, in Scottish Planning Policy Paragraph 143 (on which Policy 28 is based) the requirements are less explicit appearing to state only two distinct requirements. The Comhairle accepts that the policy as worded is not explicit with regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive. If the Reporter is minded to recommend a modification to Policy 28 Natural Heritage to reflect this, the Comhairle would accept the addition of the following text to the relevant paragraph: “and, • the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a European protected species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range”.

Scottish Wildlife Trust (033) The Plan is not a set of mutually exclusive provisions but sets a range of criteria to guide and manage development. This is clearly explained at the beginning of the Plan in the section on ‘How to Use this Plan” (page 2). The supporting text to Policy 2 Assessment of Development repeats this interrelationship of policies and reaffirms the need to ensure that proposals comply with all relevant policies. Policy 2 Assessment of Development criteria a) set out the Comhairle’s approach to the assessment of development proposals in relation their impact on biodiversity. It would seem superfluous, therefore to repeat these requirements in relation to Policies 21 and 25 in isolation. Therefore the Comhairle does not consider it necessary to amend Policy 21 Minerals or Policy 25 Open Space in this regard.

Highlands & Islands Airports Limited (037) Natural heritage sites occur where conditions are appropriate and are a result of ecological conditions. The potential impact of any new natural heritage site on existing/proposed development would have to follow the requirements of the Habitats Directive and be assessed accordingly. The proposed modification is considered to be unacceptable in the terms of European Directives and in this regard, the Comhairle rejects this proposed amendment to the Plan.

National Trust for Scotland (043) Statutory planning control under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 extends to the mean low water mark of ordinary spring tides with the exception of freshwater farms and marine farms where planning control extends out to three nautical miles (Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 104). With regard to planning control over marine fish farming and aquaculture, the Comhairle’s draft Marine Fish Farming Supplementary Guidance provides the relevant policy guidance in terms of marine resources. Additionally, and for all other applications, the Local Development Plan ensures that the Comhairle complies with its statutory duties to protect the marine environment from development on land that may result in unacceptable impacts, particularly Policy 2 Assessment of Development (‘development proposals will not result

in pollution or discharges out-with the prescribed limits to the air, land, freshwater or sea’); and Policy 9 Water Environment but also Policy 6 Water and Waste Water; Policy 7 Flooding; Policy 22 Fish Farming and Marine Planning; Policy 23: Coastal Development and Erosion and Policy 28 Natural Heritage. A new marine planning system is being introduced through the Marine (Scotland) Act, and regional marine plans will be prepared by Marine Planning Partnerships to guide decisions within the marine planning system up to the mean high water mark. The Comhairle will work closely with the Marine Planning Partnership, once established, to ensure development plans and regional marine plans are complementary with regard to the wider coastal zone. The Comhairle considers that in this regard there is no justification to amend the policy to explicitly refer to the marine environment.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 020 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Policy 32: Conservation Areas Reporter: Development plan reference: Lack of policy on buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Stornoway Port Authority (013) M Robertson (025) Provision of the Policy 32 Conservation Areas provides the policy approach for development plan to developments affecting Conservation Areas. which the issue relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Stornoway Port Authority (013) believes it is inappropriate to apply listed building criteria to every unlisted building in a Conservation Area. This calls into question the purpose of the listing system. If a building warrants listing it should be listed otherwise why apply listed building criteria?

M Robertson (025) encourages the Comhairle to include a policy, or policies, on the re- use of existing buildings with particular reference to those buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register. M Robertson maintains that the Comhairle needs to demonstrate a commitment to the retention of traditional buildings where they can be reused so as to maintain the high quality of places and spaces.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Stornoway Port Authority (013) is not explicit but is assumed to infer that the reference to applying listed building criteria to proposals for the demolition of unlisted buildings in Conservation Areas should be removed.

M Robertson (025) wishes the inclusion of a policy, or policies, encouraging the re-use of existing traditional buildings, particularly those on The Buildings at Risk Register.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

The Scottish Historic Environment Policy (2009) sets out the Scottish Government’s policies on the Historic Environment. Chapter 3 (Supporting Document extract) sets out (amongst other factors), criteria which should be taken account of when considering proposals to demolish unlisted buildings in a Conservation Area and those for listed buildings. They have a significant number of similarities. In Historic Scotland’s Managing Change series the Guidance Note on Demolition (Supporting Document extract) sets out an indicative list of criteria to take into account when considering applications for the demolition of listed buildings. It goes on to state ‘Similar considerations apply to applications for conservation area consent to demolish an unlisted building.’ The criteria are focussed on the building in its context and its role in the townscape and not the individual qualities of the building itself. The assessment of a building, or buildings, for listed status is based on its individual qualities or importance. The criteria are distinctly different. The Comhairle considers that contribution of the unlisted building in question to the

character of the Conservation Area would be the primary consideration and that distinction has been accommodated in Policy 32 by the text “… taking into consideration its contribution to the character of the Conservation Area”. However the Reporter may consider this is not sufficiently clear. If the Reporter is minded to recommend a modification, the Comhairle would accept an amendment to Policy 32 Conservation Areas to read: “Where it is considered that a building offers a positive contribution to the character of a Conservation Area demolition of the building will be assessed against the criteria for assessing proposed demolition of listed buildings, as set out in Policy 31.” (013).

The request for additional policies (025) is unspecific beyond simply encouraging owners and potential owners to pursue renovation of vacant traditional buildings. The planning authority has no direct influence on such issues beyond a vacant building being listed or located within a conservation area in which case the proposed policies (31 and 32) take account of this by requiring developers to fully justify any proposals for full of substantial demolition. Policy 31 further states ‘Every effort will be made to retain listed buildings and bring them back into use.’ Unlisted buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register are afforded no specific protection. At present there are only two buildings on the register within Outer Hebrides that are not listed. However the significance of buildings being included on the ‘At Risk’ Register and the concerns of the representee in encouraging the re-use of buildings of traditional character, are acknowledged. This is a wider issue than just buildings located within conservation areas. Therefore, should the Reporter be minded to recommend a modification to the Plan in this regard, the Comhairle would accept the addition of the following text to Policy 2 Assessment of Development: “In considering a proposal for the full demolition of a building on the Buildings at Risk Register, the developer will be expected to provide evidence that renovation and re-use of the building is unrealistic at reasonable cost.”

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 021 PROPOSAL SITE MAPS

Development plan Reporter: Development Proposal site maps reference: Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) Scottish Water (036) Provision of the Templates showing the site and providing details of each development plan to individual site proposal which the issue relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) recommends that Props MU2, H2b, H2d, H2f, H1d, H1g, H1h, H1j, H1k, H1l, H1m, H1n, H1q, E2b, E2g, E1b, E1d, E1e, E1f, E1h includes additional text relating to connection to the public sewer

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) recommends that Props MU1, MU3, MU4, MU5, H2c, H2e, H1b, H1f, E2c include additional text relating to a potential need for public sewer upgrade.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) recommends that Props MU4, H1e, H1i, H1l, H1p include additional text relating to potential flood risk.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) recommends additional text for Prop H1p relating to discharge to designated shellfish waters.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency recommends that H2f, E2b, E2e, E2g, E1c, E1d, E1h, E1i include additional text relating to water environment.

Scottish Water (036) feels the term 'constraint' is not appropriate

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) For allocations Props MU1, MU3, MU4, MU5, H2c, H2e, H1b, H1f, E2c include text to read “Public sewer upgrade may be required”

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) For allocations Props MU2, H2b, H2d, H2f, H1d, H1g, H1h, H1j, H1k, H1l, H1m, H1n, H1q, E2b, E2g, E1b, E1d, E1e, E1f, E1h include text to read Public sewer connection required

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) For allocations Props MU4, H1e, H1i, H1l, H1p include text to read “This site may be at risk from flooding and therefore a topographic survey showing the existing site levels in relation to the proposed development should be submitted in support of any planning application to inform the need for a Flood Risk Assessment.”

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) For allocation Prop H1p include the text “A private waste water system that discharges to land would be preferred on this site to protect the shellfish harvesting area”.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (007) For allocations Props H2f, E2b, E2e, E2g, E1c, E1d, E1h, E1i include text to read “Development should be at a minimum of 4m from the edge of the watercourse and any opportunities to improve the ecological status of the watercourse should be investigated.”

Note: The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has since clarified that it is satisfied with the text set against each of the Proposals in the LDP Proposed Plan document (at Section 5 Development Proposals pages 67 – 73) and that the submitted comments refer to the text shown in the booklet of individual Development Proposal Maps (email from Scottish Environment Protection Agency dated 1 February 2012). They have also indicated that they would be happy if the relevant text in the Local Development Plan document was replicated on the Proposal site maps.

Scottish Water (036) seeks an amendment of the term ‘constrained’ in the booklet of Proposal Site Maps

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Props MU2, H2b, H2d, H2f, H1d, H1g, H1h, H1j, H1k, H1l, H1m, H1n, H1q, E2b, E2g, E1b, E1d, E1e, E1f, E1h) (007) While the allocation of sites in the development plan establishes the principle of specific uses for specified sites, where planning consent is required to develop these sites (as with all development applications) the application will be assessed against the Plan policies. Policy 6 Water and Waste Water states the development requirements in relation to water and waste water. It sets out when connection to the public sewer is a requirement and the terms of any exception. Therefore it is not considered necessary to repeat this against individual site allocations.

Props MU1, MU3, MU4, MU5, H2c, H2e, H1b, H1f, E2c (007) The need for new or significant upgrade of existing waste water infrastructure has been highlighted as material consideration against a number of Development Proposals in the Proposed Plan (ref pages 67/68). However this has not been raised previously as an issue for consideration against the proposal sites listed above by either Scottish Environment Protection Agency or Scottish Water, therefore is not highlighted in the Proposed Plan against these allocations. Any requirement for such works will be a matter for consideration when detailed proposals come forward for these sites or when further information is available from the appropriate agencies. The Comhairle does not consider that any amendment is necessary.

Props MU4, H1e, H1i, H1l, H1p (007) Concern was raised regarding possible flood risk on the sites listed above during early discussions with Key Agencies. As a consequence the site boundaries were subsequently adjusted prior to publication of the Proposed Plan to eliminate the areas within each site potentially at risk from flooding. Therefore the Comhairle does not consider it necessary to highlight this for these sites nor to require applicants to carry out this additional work.

Prop H1p (007) While the allocation of sites in the development plan establishes the principle of specific uses for specified sites, where planning consent is required to develop these sites (as with all development applications) the application will be assessed against the Plan policies. Policy 6 Water and Waste Water generally requires discharge to land rather than water. However it specifically states that discharge from waste water systems direct to waters designated under EC Shellfish Directives will not be permitted. Therefore it is not considered necessary to repeat this against individual site allocations.

Props H2f, E1c, E1d, E1h, E1i, E2b, E2e (007) The requirement to create a buffer strip between watercourses and proposed development has been highlighted as material consideration against a number of Development Proposals in the Proposed Plan (ref pages 67/68). Where planning consent is required for all other allocations (as with all development applications) the application will be assessed against the Plan policies. Policy 9 Water Environment (final paragraph) provides the criteria for situations when development should be set back from watercourses. Any requirement for such works will be a matter for consideration when detailed proposals come forward for these sites or when further information is available from the appropriate agencies. The Comhairle does not consider that any amendment is necessary.

Scottish Water (036) The term ‘Constraint’ is an accepted planning term that indicates a feature that must be taken into account in development proposals or may have a bearing on the ability of a site to be developed. It is the correct terminology to indicate areas where the present capacity of the water or wastewater infrastructure is limited and may be unable to support further development without upgrade. The Comhairle does not consider that any amendment is necessary.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Issue 022 MISCELLANEOUS

Plan Glossary Reporter: No Local Development Plan reference for Development plan sites for new churches reference: General comment re enhancing the status of Gaelic Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): The Theatres Trust (009) Crofters Commission (031) Jehovah’s Witnesses (044) Provision of the General comments development plan to which the issue relates: Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

The Theatres Trust (009) suggests that elements of “community facilities” are clarified in the Plan Glossary, and a draft text is suggested.

Crofters Commission (031) states that the Plan does not recognise Gaelic as an integral part of Scotland’s heritage, national identity and cultural life, particularly in the Outer Hebrides. Every effort should be made to enhance the status of Gaelic; promote the acquisition and learning of Gaelic; encourage the increased use of Gaelic. (031)

Jehovah’s Witnesses (044) wishes the Plan to recognise need for new places of worship.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

The Theatres Trust (009) suggests a definition of “community facilities” for inclusion in the Plan Glossary.

It is assumed Crofters Commission (031) wishes the Plan to contribute towards enhancing the status of Gaelic

Jehovah’s Witnesses (044) wishes the Plan to recognise need for new places of worship.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

The requirement for allocation of sites for new places of worship (044) has not been raised previously either through early discussion/consultation or in response to the Main Issues Report. The identification of specific sites in the Local Development Plan has generally been restricted to sites for housing and for strategic business purposes. Sites for other individual uses, including community facilities such as churches, are not identified as proposal sites as the suite of Local Development Plan policies will be sufficient to assess any such proposal. There is therefore no necessity to identify specific sites for new churches.

The Comhairle accepts that a definition of ‘community facilities’ for inclusion in the Plan Glossary may be useful (009). If the Reporter is minded to recommend such an inclusion the Comhairle would accept the text as suggested i.e. “community facilities provide for the health, welfare, social, educational, spiritual, recreational, leisure and cultural needs of the community”.

The Comhairle is fully committed to enhancing the status of Gaelic and encouraging its use (031). However the Local Plan is a land use planning document and as such is limited to land use matters. In line with the Comhairle’s Gaelic Policy the adopted plan will be produced in full bi-lingual form.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

APPENDIX 4

MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMHAIRLE

It is recognised that in some instances the Plan might be improved if an amendment suggested through submission were to be accepted. Such instances are indicated in the schedules and the possible modifications to the plan that might result from these are set out below.

LDP Plan Ref. LDP text as approved at Amended text Comhairle will accept Sch4 Comhairle Committee October (MARKED IN BOLD) Ref. 2011 Policy 2 “The online Biodiversity Planning “The online Biodiversity Planning Toolkit 019 Assessment of Toolkit should be consulted for should be consulted for general advice Development general advice and good and good practice on habitats and (Page 14) practice.” species, and the NBN Gateway for site specific biodiversity data.” Policy 2 n/a “In considering a proposal for the full 020 Assessment of demolition of a building on the Development Buildings at Risk Register, the (Page 14) developer will be expected to provide evidence that renovation and re-use of the building is unrealistic at reasonable cost.” Policy 4 Siting and n/a “…where possible the proposal should 001 Design facilitate opportunities and minimise 003 (Page 16) constraints in relation to any future 004 development potential of adjacent land or future use of the land for crofting purposes.” Policy 7 Flooding n/a “Developers should avoid areas 007 (Page 23) susceptible to flooding.” Policy 8 Waste “The primary waste management “The primary waste management and 008 Management and recycling sites to meet the recycling sites which will be (Page 25) current needs of the Outer safeguarded to meet the current needs of Hebrides and for the location of the Outer Hebrides and for the location of additional waste management additional waste management facilities facilities are Bennadrove, are Bennadrove, Stornoway; Creed Park Stornoway; Creed Park Recycling, Lochs Road, Lewis; and Recycling, Lochs Road, Lewis; Rueval, Benbecula.” and Rueval, Benbecula.” Policy 9 Water “…Where any water body is “…Where any water body is located within 009 Environment located within or bordering a or bordering a proposed development (Page 27) proposed development, a (with the exception of those relating to development buffer strip should quays, piers, jetties etc) a development be incorporated between the buffer should be incorporated between the water body and the proposed water body and the proposed development, which can be development, which can be accessed and accessed and maintained all maintained all year round.” year round.” Policy 22 “Proposals for new freshwater “Proposals for new freshwater 015 aquaculture developments will aquaculture developments will be Marine Fish be assessed against all of the assessed against all of the following Farming & Marine following criteria: criteria: Planning a) acceptable location in terms a) acceptable location in terms of the (Page 47) of the Development Development Strategy; Strategy; b) sympathetic siting and design of

b) sympathetic siting and installations and associated facilities; design of installations and c) no unacceptable adverse noise and associated facilities; lighting impacts; c) no adverse noise and d) satisfactory operational impacts lighting impacts; (including site restoration and waste d) satisfactory operational management arrangements; impacts (including site e) no significant adverse impact on restoration and waste other uses of the site or neighbouring management arrangements; water or land; e) no significant adverse f) no unacceptable adverse impact on other uses of the environmental or amenity impacts site or neighbouring water arising from access and servicing or land; considerations; f) no adverse environmental g) the incremental or cumulative impact or amenity impacts arising of the proposal.” from access and servicing considerations; g) the incremental or cumulative impact of the proposal.” Policy 28 Natural “Any development proposal “Development which is likely to have a 019 Heritage which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site and is (Page 55) significant effect on a Natura site not directly connected with or necessary and is not directly connected to the conservation management of that with or necessary to the site will be subject to an Appropriate conservation management of Assessment by the Comhairle.” that site will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment by the Comhairle.” Policy 28 Natural “Planning permission will not be “Planning permission will not be granted 019 Heritage granted for development that for development that would be likely to (Page 55) would be likely to have an have an adverse effect on a European adverse effect on a European protected species unless the Comhairle is protected species unless the satisfied that: Comhairle is satisfied that: • there is no satisfactory alternative, • there is no satisfactory and alternative, and • the development is required for • the development is required preserving public health or public for preserving public health safety or for other imperative reasons or public safety or for other of overriding public interest including imperative reasons of those of a social or economic nature overriding public interest and beneficial consequences of including those of a social primary importance for the or economic nature and environment, and beneficial consequences of • the development will not be primary importance for the detrimental to the maintenance of environment.” the population of a European protected species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range.” Policy 31 Listed n/a “In order to preserve the setting of the 011 Buildings Lewis War Memorial, development will be restricted on the hill known as Cnoc Nan Uan unless it can be shown that there are over-riding reasons of public interest why the development should proceed and no suitable alternative location exists.” Policy 32 “The same criteria for assessing “Where it is considered that a building 020 Conservation proposed demolition of listed offers a positive contribution to the Areas buildings, as set out in Policy 31, character of a Conservation Area

will be applied to proposals for demolition of the building will be assessed the demolition of unlisted against the criteria for assessing proposed buildings in a Conservation Area demolition of listed buildings, as set out in taking into consideration its Policy 31.” contribution to the character of the Conservation Area.” Prop H1a Bernera Identified in the Plan as a Remove Prop H1a Bernera and replace 011 (Page 67 and Housing 1 proposal site: with site identified by community. Proposal Site Community have highlighted that it is the Maps) land around the Manse and not the Church that is available for development.

Prop H1j Allt Na Identified in the Plan as Housing The Comhairle is currently waiting for the 007 Broige (North) 1 proposal sites and in Proposal completion of a flood risk assessment for Site Maps. these sites and dependent on the Prop H1K Allt na outcome there will be one of two Broige (South) scenarios: EITHER: (Page 67) limited areas of the sites can be developed or no development should take place on these sites and they should be removed from the Plan. Prop H2d Labost Identified in the Plan as a Remove Prop H2d Labost Lane as 011 Lane Housing 2 proposal site and in requested by the owner. (Page 67) LDP Proposal Site Maps. Prop E1a Arnish Identified in the Plan as an “Prop E1a Arnish 012 Economic Dev Site and in LDP (Page 69) Arnish is identified as a safeguarded first Proposal Site Maps. phase site in the National Renewables “Prop E1a Arnish Infrastructure Plan. The core of the industrial estate is identified as the prime Arnish is identified as a location for energy related development safeguarded first phase site in or other appropriate large scale uses that the National Renewables utilise its facilities and/or require a deep Infrastructure Plan. The core of water harbour. the industrial estate is identified as the prime location for energy An area within the site has been related development or other identified and safeguarded for Low appropriate large scale uses Carbon / Renewables related that utilise its facilities and development purposes.” require a deep water harbour.” Corresponding site map will be amended accordingly to indicate safeguarded area.

Prop INF2 Identified in the Plan as an “It is proposed to progress feasibility work 017 Hebridean Way Infrastructure Proposal and in to enable development of a long Proposal Site Maps. distance route through the Outer (Page 73) Hebrides.” “It is proposed to progress feasibility work to enable development of a strategic footpath and cycle route through the Outer Hebrides”. Development n/a Add new Housing Proposal 1 site: 011 Proposals (Page 67 and Proposal Kintulavig, Harris Site Maps)

Development n/a Add new Housing Proposal 1 site: 011 Proposals (Page Tong Allotments, Lewis 67 and Proposal Site Maps)