Notice of Meeting

NOTICE OF MEETING

A MEETING of the PLANNING PANEL will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 10 APRIL 2012 at 10.00 a.m.

ELIZABETH M DUNCAN Chief Governance Officer Clerk to the Council

2 April 2012

A G E N D A

1 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS

2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

3 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR

4 MINUTES Planning Panel – 6 March 2012 (Pages 1 - 20)

5 DEVELOPMENT OF 11 WIND TURBINES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURES INCLUDING A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND, SUB STATION AND CONTROL BUILDING, UNDERGROUND POWER CABLES, 2 PERMANENT ANEMOMETER MASTS, SITE ACCESS TRACKS, 5 WATER CROSSINGS AND UP TO 2 BORROW PITS AT LAND SOME 1.5KM NORTH WEST OF MUIRPARK FARM, STIRLING - SSE RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENTS UK LTD - 09/00170/FUL Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation (Pages 21 - 54)

6 EXTERNAL CLADDING REPAIRS, WINDOW REPLACEMENT TO NEW WING, RELOCATION OF EXTERNAL STEPS AND ADDITION OF NEW EXTERNAL LIFT AT MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, 8 - 10 CORN EXCHANGE ROAD, STIRLING, FK8 2HU - STIRLING COUNCIL - 12/00038/FUL Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation (Pages 55 - 62)

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\AGENDA\2012\PP20120410.DOC 7 PROPOSED PLOT FOR ONE NEW DWELLING AT LAND 85 METRES NORTH OF SHIAN, BALFRON – MR & MRS G ADAMS - 12/00016/PPP Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation (Pages 63 - 82)

8 DEMOLISH AND REMOVE THE FORMER SCHOOL HOUSE ADJACENT TO EAST PLEAN PRIMARY SCHOOL AND DEVELOP THE REMAINING GROUND TO IMPROVE THE CAR PARKING PROVISION, IMPROVE THE ACCESS FOR FIRE APPLIANCES AND TO INCREASE THE PLAYGROUND SPACE AT EAST PLEAN PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAIN STREET, PLEAN, FK7 8BX - ROBERTSON CONSTRUCTION - 12/00057/FUL Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation (Pages 83 - 90)

9 CHANGE OF USE FROM 3 BEDROOM FLAT TO 4 BEDROOM HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HMO) AT 3B MORRIS TERRACE, TOP OF THE TOWN, STIRLING, FK8 1BP – GRANT PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LTD – 12/00113/FUL Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation (Pages 91 - 100)

10 ALTERATION AND UPGRADE TO EXISTING HOTEL TO INCLUDE EXTERNAL DECKING FOR EATING AND DRINKING AT STIRLING ARMS HOTEL, STIRLING ROAD, DUNBLANE, FK15 9EP – MR MAURICE HERON –

(a) Application 11/00696/LBC Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation (Pages 101 - 108)

(b) Application 11/00670/FUL Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation (Pages 109 - 116)

(For further information contact Ann Dromgoole - 01786 443296)

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\AGENDA\2012\PP20120410.DOC 1

THIS REPORT RELATES TO ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA

STIRLING COUNCIL

MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING PANEL held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 6 MARCH 2012 at 10.00 a.m.

Present:

Councillor Graham REED (in the Chair)

Councillor Margaret BRISLEY Councillor Alasdair MacPHERSON Councillor David GOSS Councillor Andrew SIMPSON Councillor Graham LAMBIE (Substitute) Councillor Jim THOMSON

Also Present:

Councillor Colin O’Brien

In Attendance:

Jay Dawson, Principal Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Elizabeth M Duncan, Chief Governance Officer, Governance & Resources Fiona Fulton, Communication’s Officer, Chief Executive’s Office Iain Jeffrey, Senior Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Mark Laird, Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Jim McBrier, Waste Projects & Communications Team Leader, Environment Peter Morgan, Chief Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Neil Pirie, Roads Development Control Officer, Environment Maureen Bennison, Committee Support Officer, Governance & Resources Ann Dromgoole, Committee Officer, Governance & Resources (Clerk)

Also in attendance:

Neil Deasley – Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Paragraph PP 482 only) Alistair Milne – Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Paragraph PP 482 only) Michelle Hickson – Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Paragraph PP 482 only)

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Scott Farmer and Councillor Tony Ffinch.

Prior to commencement of the business the Chair reported that the Vice-Chair, Councillor Tony Ffinch, had undergone medical treatment and was making good progress.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 2

PP479 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

With reference to Standing Order No 33 (c)

The Chair and Councillor Graham Lambie both declared an interest in Item 8 on the agenda “Variation of Condition 1 of the Outline Planning Permission Reference 07/00824/OUT to extend the period for the submission of Reserved Matters to 18 March 2015 at Stirling Enterprise Park, Springbank Road, Stirling – Mr Gordon Bell – 12/00010/PPP”. Both Councillor Reed and Councillor Lambie were Directors of Stirling Enterprise Park Limited.

The Chair also confirmed that he would vacate the chair for this item.

Decision

The Panel agreed to appoint Councillor Margaret Brisley to take the Chair, for Item 8.

PP480 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHIAR

There was no Urgent Business.

PP481 MINUTES

Planning Panel – 7 February 2012

The Panel considered the Minutes of the Panel held on 7 February 2012.

Decision

The Panel approved the Minutes of Meeting of the Panel held on 7 February 2012 as a correct record of the proceedings.

Matters Arising –

Development Comprising Retail (Class 1), Financial Professional and Other Services (Class 2) and Food and Drink (Class 3) at Land and Buildings, Burghmuir Industrial Estate, Stirling – Stirling Development Agency Ltd – 11/00658/FUL – Paragraph PP478 refers

In response to a question the Chief Planning Officer confirmed that there had been no discussion to date with the Islamic Centre regarding their possible challenge to the validity of this Planning Panel decision. However, he understood that a meeting was scheduled to take place between representatives of the Islamic Centre and the Chief Executive and Head of Economy, Planning and Regulation to discuss this matter.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 3

PP482 FORMATION OF AN ACCESS VIA A NEW ROUNDABOUT, ERECTION OF A WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY COMPRISING A UNIT TO SORT PRE- APPROVED WASTES FOR RECYCLING OR REPROCESSING AND A PROCESSING PLANT GENERATING ENERGY FROM SUITABLE WASTES, AND PLANT SUITABLE FOR SUPPLYING STEAM OR HOT WATER GENERATED AS A BY-PRODUCT OF THE MAIN PROCESSES TO A POSSIBLE FUTURE DISTRICT HEATING SCHEME AT LAND ADJACENT TO WEST OF BANDEATH LODGE, THROSK - THE DIRECTORS OF POWERCROFTERS (SCOTLAND) LTD - 10/00215/PPP -

HEARING

The above Application was brought to the Panel under the requirements of Planning legislation since the Application was made, in part, by a Member of the Council, as Planning Authority.

Provost Fergus Wood is a Director of Power Crofters (Scotland) Limited – (the Applicant).

On 7 February 2012 the Panel agreed to continue determination of the Application pending a Site Visit and Hearing.

The Site Visit took place on 15 February 2012 at which the following Councillors were present:- Councillor Margaret Brisley; Councillor Scott Farmer; Councillor David Goss; Councillor Alasdair MacPherson; Councillor Graham Reed (Chair); Councillor Andrew Simpson and Councillor Jim Thomson. Councillor Violet Weir was also in attendance as a Member for Ward 7.

The report submitted to the Panel on 7 February 2012 was appended as Appendix B to a report by the Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 27 February 2012.

The report dated 27 February 2012 gave an updated Assessment on the Firth of Forth Site of Special Scientific Interest; Visual Impact; Need - The Zero Waste Plan for Scotland; and Decommissioning and Restoration as referred to in Paragraphs 3.6 – 3.9 respectively of the report.

Appendix B provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) Previous History; (d) Development Plan Policy; (e) Assessment; (f) Objections and (g) Policy Resource Implications and Consultations.

The Note of the Site Visit was appended as Appendix C to the submitted report dated 27 February 2012.

The Chair reported that since the issue of the agenda for this meeting the following submissions were received and these were tabled at the meeting (a) Fax from McLean & Stewart, Solicitor, Dunblane on behalf of Mr & Mrs D Dick; (b) Submission from Friends of the Earth – Stirling and Supporting documents; (c) Petition from Liz McCulloch on behalf of residents of Throsk (121 signatures); (d) Submission from Mr McCulloch (Objector); (e) Petition from South Alloa Tenants and Residents Association (20 signatures); (f) Petition from Dunmore Village Association (26 signatures); and (g) Submission from Airth Parish Community Council (all tabled).

The Panel considered the Application under the procedure for allowing Interested Parties to be heard.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 4

The Chair welcomed all of the Parties to the Hearing and explained that the representatives from Scottish Environment Protection Agency were in attendance to answer questions, of a technical nature, from Panel Members.

Prior to discussion Councillor Alasdair MacPherson sought clarity on whether the Applicants had complied with procedures in terms of “Bad Neighbourhood Development” and whether the Council could be open to judicial review if found to be failing.

The Chair confirmed that following the presentation from the Principal Planning Officer the Panel would adjourn to consider the contents of the tabled submissions.

The Principal Planning Officer spoke to the submitted report.

Throsk Community Council and Polmaise Community Councils objected to the Application for the reasons stated in Paragraph 3.45 of Appendix B to the submitted report and these objections were also referred to in Paragraphs 4.8 and 4.21 respectively of Appendix B.

Twenty-five letters of comment were received. These included comments from South Alloa Tenants and Residents Association, Airth Parish Community Council, Friends of the Earth - Stirling, Dunmore Village Association, and the Leader of Falkirk Council, representing Carse, Kinnaird and Tryst Wards. A Petition containing 83 signatures was also submitted.

The objections and the responses to these objections were referred to in Paragraph 3.47 (a) – (z) of Appendix B to the submitted report.

Since the Panel meeting on 7 February 2012 Bruce Crawford MSP had registered his objection, on behalf of constituents who had contacted him. The grounds of his objection were “loss of amenity, and the impact of light into their community facility”.

The grounds of the objections, referred to in the 3 tabled Petitions, were that the proposed site is an entirely unsuitable location, the Plant should not be located at this proximity to housing/play areas and concerns regarding noise and disturbance, health and the greatly increased volume of heavy traffic.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (East) had commented at various stages throughout the Application process. On 14 December 2011 the Agency withdrew their objection and stated that their concerns relating to the proposal had now been addressed and they had no outstanding objections.

Scottish Natural Heritage objected to the Application unless the Conditions and mitigating measures listed in Paragraph 4.16 of Appendix B were applied to any consent granted.

Whilst Scottish Water did not object to the Application they were unable to reserve capacity at their Water and Wastewater Treatment Works in advance of formal agreement made with them.

The Team Leader, Bridge & Flood Maintenance recommended that the Condition referred to in Paragraph 4.9 of Appendix B be applied to the site.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 5

The responses from Falkirk Council Development Control Services were referred to in Paragraph 4.10 of Appendix B. These responses referred to issues regarding – a vacuum on the availability of data to justify the need for such a Facility in terms of Scottish Planning Policy; how much of the waste, proposed to be diverted from landfill, is currently disposed off to Forth Valley Landfill sites, the number of traffic movements to and from the site which would affect Airth and a comparison provided of the number of traffic movements expected from the earlier approval of 37 industrial units on the site.

Falkirk Council Transport Planning Unit requested that a 3m wide shared cycle/footpath should be provided along the development frontage to allow the development to tie into the National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 76 (Round the Forth) at Cowie Road.

Roads Development Control – Stirling Council had no objection to the Application provided the Conditions listed in Paragraph 4.11 of Appendix B were added to any consent granted.

All of the outstanding objections from Scottish Environment Protection Agency were addressed.

The Principal Planning Officer spoke to the report, referred to in the Section “Development Plan Policy” in Appendix B and confirmed that the site is designated in the Development Plan as a strategic employment site where uses falling within Use Classes 4, 5 and 6 (Business, General Industrial and Storage and Distribution) should be retained. As stated within the Zero Waste Plan and Scottish Planning Policy, industrial or storage and distribution sites are considered appropriate for the siting of Waste Management Installations.

The Panel was reminded that Scottish Planning Policy states that since operational control is regulated by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, consideration of Applications for planning permission relating to Waste Management Facilities should:

(a) Focus on whether the development itself is acceptable rather than on control of the processes or waste streams involved,

(b) Consider only the aspects of operations enforceable under planning control to minimise impacts on the environment, transport network and local communities, and

Scottish Natural Heritage had updated their initial response to include an assessment of the proposed development in relation to the Firth of Forth Site of Special Scientific Interest and confirmed that if Scottish Environment Protection Agency was content with any proposed discharges to air or water, then these interests should not be affected by the proposal. Therefore there should be no adverse effects on the integrity of the site of Special Scientific Interest or damage to the natural features of the site.

Waste Services had confirmed that with regard to Municipal Solid Waste there was currently no immediate benefit for the siting of an Energy from Waste Plant within the Stirling area and that such a Facility would be better sited adjacent to contracted material reclamation facilities.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 6

The Panel was recommended to Approve the Application subject to the Conditions and Reasons attached as Appendix 1 to Appendix B and the further Condition attached as Appendix A to the submitted report dated 27 February 2012.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency representatives explained the process of how the Agency’s Pollution Prevention and Control regime operated. The Application had first to be determined by the Planning Authority. The Agency needed information from the Developers on the type of waste that the Plant will process before the model for regulating emissions (the Pollution Prevention and Control Regime) could be put in place.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency did not have information on the types of waste; hazardous; non hazardous that would be processed at the Plant. The Agency did not require knowing where any of the bi-product wastes coming out of the Plant were to be dumped only that the wastes were delivered to a suitably licensed area. The Agency’s Pollution Prevention and Control Regime process was not concerned about carbon footprint. The Agency’s role concerned types of waste/amenity issues and, where appropriate, cross-site boundary.

Officers from the Agency were questioned on the transportation of wastes; effect of spillages; interruptions in the 24 hour operation of the Plant, due to breakdowns, what constituted a short term breach, how many breaches occurred at the few existing Plants already in operation; effects on communities/environment resultant from the operations; noise; emissions from the stack; odours; buffer zone; possible ground contamination, and effect on wildlife and fish.

In response to a question the Waste Projects & Communications Team Leader, Environment advised that Stirling Council’s current contract for the disposal of residual waste was with Avondale Environmental, Larbert. This contract included for the 'Primary' treatment of wastes via a Material Reclamation Facility to extract the maximum available resources from the wastes, prior to any further 'secondary' thermal treatments such as Energy From Waste. The contract could run up to August 2015, including extensions.

Thereafter, Stirling Council is mandated via Scotland's Zero Waste Plan to send any such residual wastes via a similar 'Primary' Treatment Material Reclamation Facility where they would be looking to recover and recycle in the region of 50% of the material, prior to further treatments. On this basis, Stirling Council could not directly engage with an Energy From Waste provider.

Once Stirling Council had established a contract with a 'Primary' Waste Treatment Provider, it would be for that Provider to engage with the marketplace to identify a 'secondary' Energy For Waste’ contractor (if required) in order to provide for the requirements of the Zero Waste Plan. The Zero Waste Plan requirements include the implementation of a landfill ban on biodegradable wastes by 2020 and a 5% restriction on the total volume of residual waste that are sent to landfill by 2025.

Accordingly, Stirling Council could not contract directly with the proposed Facility (under the terms of the Zero Waste Plan) that supported the intimation that such a site may have been more appropriately located adjacent to an existing Material Reclamation Facility in proximity terms.

At this juncture the Panel adjourned at 10.55 a.m. and reconvened at 11.15 a.m. with the same Officers and Members present.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 7

The Chief Governance Officer confirmed that it was competent for the Panel to determine the Application – the Council had complied with the procedures it was required to undertake regarding “Bad Neighbourhood Development”.

Mr Tom McDonald, Architect and Development Consultant, Edinburgh, Agent for the Developers spoke on their behalf. He stated that the Application was in principle and explained that work was in progress on the details of the Application that included addressing the issues of traffic, noise and play areas. He also explained the planning process.

Mr McDonald stated that the reference to the Plant undertaking incineration processes was inaccurate; although the Plant had the potential to undertake these works. The Developers had met all relevant Planning Guidance to operate within Government Guidelines and comply with Environmental Policies. The Application did not include details of the type of materials that would be reprocessed at the Plant; the types of materials to be reprocessed would be dependent on the contracts the Company won. The Developers could not indicate at this stage where the source of the waste products for processing would come from; nor the % of wastes that would be deemed toxic. The Agent advised that it was anticipated that the bulk of the wastes processed at the Plant would come from the Forth Valley area; it was not necessarily the case that waste would be transported from long distances; the site was situated in the middle of industrial Scotland. He further referred to a small amount of hazardous ash. In any event Scottish Environment Protection Agency would control the movements of the wastes.

Mr McDonald also stated that the Plant would achieve what had been achieved elsewhere in the UK and in Europe. He referred to an unnamed Plant (located somewhere within Europe) where the residents lived happily adjacent to it. The Agent confirmed that the proposed Plant would not use the same type of technology that operated at the Waste Processing site located near Dumfries. The reference to the presence of an artesian well on the Throsk site was inaccurate. The Developers did not anticipate issues regarding noise emissions. Mr McDonald suggested that ventilation noise would compare to the noise of a passing car.

Regarding play areas the Developers had offered to relocate the play area in Throsk or build a new one at their cost and relocate it. Regarding traffic issues the Developers had offered to provide a light controlled crossing. The Plant would employ 65 full time employees – working on a shift basis – and would operate 24 hours 7 days per week.

The Developers sought approval of the Application and were happy to accept Conditions.

Members expressed the view that the proposals for the Application reported by the Agent at this meeting were not those reported in the report before the Panel.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 8

Members sought clarity on - where waste would come from – (local, UK or external to the UK); would bringing waste to the proposed Plant contribute to carbon footprint reduction; the range of hazardous waste likely to be reprocessed at the Plant; the proportion of the waste to be processed for animal feeding; the close proximity of the site to Bandeath Lodge; the measures the Developer intended to put in place to prevent leakages at the site; proposed location of Sustainable Drainage System Ponds. Could a guarantee be given that there would be no pollutant/toxic emissions from the stack? Questions were also directed regarding air quality; the potential effect on wildlife, fish and water-course; discharges into the River Forth and whether processed waste, if reusable would be transported out of the Plant as raw material.

Mr Willie Liddell, Throsk Community Council, Mr Walter Attwood, Friends of the Earth, Stirling, and Mr Ian McCulloch, Dunblane spoke on behalf of the objectors.

Mr Liddell reiterated that Throsk Community Council’s, and residents’ objections still stood. The site was metres from residential housing and a play area and the Plant boundary fenced with Bandeath House.

Mr Liddell referred to a similar reprocessing Plant that operated outside Dumfries. There had been a catalogue of failures at this site e.g complaints regarding noise. Dangerous levels of mercury leakages were recorded at the Dumfries Plant in October 2010 - levels in excess of what was deemed safe for humans.

There was the possibility of mercury/dioxins leakage from the Throsk Plant and emissions being carried by the prevailing wind into play areas/homes. What would be the effect on Throsk village of similar breaches occurring at the Throsk Plant?

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s listed the Dumfries Plant amongst the 20 worst polluters.

Residents/objectors were aware that the Agency would monitor the Plant but monitoring would only take place once the Facility was operational – the Plant operations could affect public health. The increase in traffic, using the Plant, would impact on the residents of Throsk, Fallin and Plean. Mr Liddell referred to a Traffic Assessment undertaken by Friends of the Earth.

Mr Liddell reminded the Panel that the site was allocated for 37 light industrial units. The Planning Conditions attached to the use of these Units included business/general use. These Conditions did not however grant approval for general industrial use. A restriction on times of operation and the types of industrial use on the site had been put in place to safeguard the amenity of the local population. These units were also restricted to single storey height and a control placed on density/parking.

The existing Conditions for the site had now been brushed aside. The Application before the Panel did not include safeguards to protect the amenities of Kersie Road residents. The Plant would operate 24 hours/7 days per week. The height of the proposed stack to be built on the site was unknown. The composition of the waste emissions from the stack was unknown. The level of toxic waste to be re-processed at the Plant was also unknown. The visual image of this stack would not blend with the environment. Neither were safeguards in place regarding what pollutants would be emitted from the stack.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 9

The Petition from Throsk held 120 signatures against the development; the objectors were unhappy with the proposed location; no guarantees had been given regarding risk to public health. The proposed site was unsuitable.

Referring to the Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken Mr Attwood highlighted the lack of reference to the technology to be used in the operations at the Plant. This technology was the lynch pin behind the whole development. Therefore until detailed information on this technology was made known the Application should be rejected. Mr Attwood also stated that Friends of the Earth Scotland were not consulted on the Environment Impact Assessment. The reference to this Assessment should be disregarded. The Applicants had yet to produce a Transport Statement.

Mr McCulloch, objector, had a long personal connection with Throsk.

Mr McCulloch stated that the Application was for a major development that was unacceptable; the site location was unsuitable because of the size of the development, and impact on the amenity. The nature of the Facility was bulky and conspicuous because of the necessary size of the chimneystack and associated buildings.

Mr McCulloch referred to Paragraph 3.2 of Appendix B to the submitted report which stated that the present Application was for 60,000 tonnes; and referred the Panel to Page 1 of his tabled submission “Gasification – Residual Waste Treatment Technologies” in which it was stated that a stack height of a Plant treating approx 50,000 tonnes of waste may range from 30 – 70 metres.

The Recommendation attached to Application 08/00267/DET granted for the site, on 21 August 2008 included Conditions restricting (a) working hours and (b) height of future development. Approval was given for a development of low impact scale. The current Application could hardly be more different in character. The allocation of a site for industrial uses 4, 5, and 6 did not in itself qualify the site suitable for a major Waste to Energy development.

Mr McCulloch reminded the Panel that Planning Advice Note 63 gave advice on appropriate locations for new Waste Management Facilities. In relation to industrial areas it referred especially to those containing other heavy or specialised industrial uses. The Throsk site could not be described as such.

The proposed site had never been used for industrial processes but previously used for farming. Mr McCulloch produced evidence of how close Bandeath Lodge was to the site. He reiterated that Condition 10 for the previous Consent placed restrictions on the height of buildings and the category of industrial uses. Regarding Scottish Planning Policy 10 the Developers could not comply with the buffer zone.

Paragraph 3.31 of Appendix B to the submitted report - Scottish Planning Policy (SPP 10) - recommended consideration of a buffer zone of about 250 metres between sensitive receptors for gasification plant.

A buffer zone of 250 metres or nothing approaching it could be achieved at Throsk. The report from Economy, Planning & Regulation recognised that the plans as submitted, in principle, show an unacceptable large and visually intrusive development.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 10

Regarding the argument made that there was a lack of conclusive evidence as to whether this type of Facility was detrimental to human health Mr McCulloch referred to the “Precautionary Principles” set out in Policy SD 1 of Clackmannanshire & Stirling Structure Plan 2002 which supported the Precautionary Principle being applied “whenever the environmental implications of development are unclear, or inconclusive, but there is potential for irreversible environmental damage”.

Mr McCulloch urged the Panel to refuse the Application.

A representative from Airth Parish Community Council had also been invited to speak at the Hearing but was unable to attend.

Airth Parish Community Council’s objections formed part of the Hearing process and the written submission covered issues regarding -

Increase in Traffic; By-Product coming from a Plant that is an unnecessary addition to Stirling Waste Plan; Plant location; Effect on wildlife.

The essential objections to the Application received from Mr and Mrs David Dick were that the Development will have an adverse effect in relation to amenity, enjoyment, visual outlook and valuation depreciation in respect of their property at Mains of Throsk Farmhouse and Steading and Mains of Throsk Bungalow.

Prior to determining the Application the Chair referred to the final paragraph in Airth Parish Community Council’s submission. The Chair clarified that Provost Wood was not part of the Hearing process.

During discussion the following points were made:-

The Application dealt with a false premise; it was too premature to grant approval of the Application until an understanding of new technology on Waste Reprocessing was gained.

The issue for Scottish Environment Protection Agency regarding the information that the Applicants had submitted had been altered by what had been reported to this meeting.

The information on the Application that had been communicated to the community had been changed at the Planning stage – had valid public consultation taken place; public consultation was a formal part of the planning process.

The representative from Scottish Environment Agency commented that whilst it was not possible for the Agency to maintain their objection to the Application it was unhelpful that the community had been told something different; the Application before the Panel was a flexible generic application.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 11

MOTION

“To Refuse Application 10/00215/PPP on the grounds of valid planning objections i.e.

1 The proposed development is considered to be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, specifically paragraph 217 since neither of the buffer zone distances highlighted between sensitive receptors and the proposed facility are likely to be met as a consequence of the scale and location of the proposed site;

2 The Precautionary Principle cannot be assured and the precautionary approach in refusing planning permission on potential health impacts is justified in this instance;

3 It is considered that the Applicants have not adequately demonstrated that there would be no risk to human health as a result of the operation of the proposed development;

4 The proposed development, due to its 24 hour working and associated traffic would have a significant detrimental effect to the amenity and quality of life for the residents of Throsk.”

Moved by Councillor Margaret Brisley, seconded by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson.

Decision

The Panel unanimously agreed to Refuse Application 10/00215/PPP for the following reasons:-

2 The Precautionary Principle cannot be assured and the precautionary approach in refusing planning permission on potential health impacts is justified in this instance;

3 It is considered that the Applicants have not adequately demonstrated that there would be no risk to human health as a result of the operation of the proposed development;

4 The proposed development, due to its 24 hour working and associated traffic would have a significant detrimental effect to the amenity and quality of life for the residents of Throsk.

(Reference – Paragraph PP477 of 7 February 2012; Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 27 February 2012 (submitted); Fax from McLean & Stewart, Solicitor, Dunblane on behalf of Mr & Mrs D Dick; Submission from Friends of the Earth – Stirling and Supporting documents; Petition from Liz McCulloch on behalf of residents of Throsk; Submission from Mr McCulloch (Objector); Petition from South Alloa Tenants and Residents Association; Petition from Dunmore Village Association; Submission from Airth Parish Community Council (all tabled).

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 12

The Panel adjourned at 12.45 p.m. and reconvened at 1.00 p.m. with the following Members and Officers present:-

Councillor Graham REED (in the Chair)

Councillor Margaret BRISLEY Councillor Alasdair MacPHERSON Councillor David GOSS Councillor Andrew SIMPSON Councillor Graham LAMBIE (Substitute) Councillor Jim THOMSON

Also Present:

Councillor Colin O’Brien

In Attendance:

Jay Dawson, Principal Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Fiona Fulton, Communication’s Officer, Chief Executive’s Office Iain Jeffrey, Senior Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Mark Laird, Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Peter Morgan, Chief Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Neil Pirie, Roads Development Control Officer, Environment Maureen Bennison, Committee Support Officer, Governance & Resources Ann Dromgoole, Committee Officer, Governance & Resources (Clerk)

PP483DEVELOPMENT OF 11 WIND TURBINES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURES INCLUDING A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND, SUB STATION AND CONTROL BUILDING, UNDERGROUND POWER CABLES, 2 PERMANENT ANEMOMETER MASTS, SITE ACCESS TRACKS, 5 WATER CROSSINGS AND UP TO 2 BORROW PITS AT LAND SOME 1.5KM NORTH WEST OF MUIRPARK FARM, STIRLING – SCOTTISH AND SOUTHERN ENERGY PLC - 09/00170/FUL

The above Application considered the proposal for the development of eleven wind turbines at Muirpark Farm, located to the northeast of the Craigengelt Wind Farm.

A report by the Head of Economy Planning & Regulation advised that the Application was contrary to the Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance on wind energy and due to its significance, should be considered by the Planning Panel.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 13

MOTION

“To continue determination of Application 09/00170/FUL for a site visit.”

Moved by Councillor Graham Reed, seconded by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson.

AMENDMENT

“To determine Application 09/00170/FUL at this meeting.”

Moved by Councillor Jim Thomson, seconded by Councillor Margaret Brisley.

The vote on the Amendment was as follows:-

For the Amendment (2) Councillor Margaret Brisley Councillor Jim Thomson

Against the Amendment (5) Councillor Graham Lambie Councillor David Goss Councillor Alasdair MacPherson Councillor Graham Reed Councillor Andrew Simpson

The vote for the Motion was as follows:-

For the Motion (5) Councillor Graham Lambie Councillor David Goss Councillor Alasdair MacPherson Councillor Graham Reed Councillor Andrew Simpson

Against the Motion (2) Councillor Margaret Brisley Councillor Jim Thomson

Decision

The Motion was carried by 5 votes to 2 votes and accordingly the Panel agreed to continue determination of the Application pending a Site Visit.

(Reference – Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 27 February 2012 submitted.)

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 14

Councillor Graham Lambie took no part in the determination of the undernoted Applications but intimated that he wished to speak as a Local Member for Forth & Endrick Ward.

PP484 LAND ADJACENT TO EAST OF BALAUCHAN LODGE, MUGDOCK ROAD, STRATHBLANE – SCOTIA HOUSE LTD -

The Panel agreed that Application 11/00509/PPP, Application 11/00547/PPP and Application 11/00549/PPP be considered at the same time since all of the Applications were in respect of the same site.

Application 11/00509/PPP (Plot 1), Application 11/00547/PPP (Plot 2) and Application 11/00549/PPP (Plot 3) were referred to the Panel at the request of Councillor Alistair Berrill for the following reasons:-

“It is understood the current Application (and the related two other Applications) have been designed to address the reasons for the Reporter dismissing the Applicant’s previous Appeal. Therefore these raise another test case for the Council’s practice for its Green Belt and Countryside Policies which ought to be discussed and determined in public”.

The Planning Officer spoke to the three Applications.

The Panel was advised that The Reporter in the Appeal Decision Notice (Reference PPA-390-2001, paragraph 21) considered that the previous Application (Reference 09/00394/FUL) involving the erection of five dwelling houses would not compromise these strategic aims and objectives.

Regarding the current Application(s), it was accepted that when assessing the proposals in isolation, the proposals would not result in coalescence.

It was however considered that the development scheme would constitute sprawl into the Countryside by virtue of the fact that the proposal would allow, in principle, the erection of dwelling houses on previously undeveloped green field land.

The Planning Officer advised that allowing this type of development without reasonable justification in Planning Policy terms would make it very difficult for the Council to refuse similar Applications in future. If permitted, such development could result in the kind of sprawl and ‘urbanisation’ of the green belt that the Council’s Policies were seeking to control. The 3 Applications before the Panel should therefore be resisted. This view was considered to be consistent with provisions of Scottish Planning Policy relating to Green Belts within which it was stated “the cumulative erosion of a green belt’s integrity through the granting of individual planning permission should be avoided”.

The Panel was asked to note however, for the purpose of assessment, that the Applicant’s submission(s) was centred principally on Policy ENV4 of the Clackmannanshire and Structure Plan 2002 in an attempt to justify the development proposal and address the concerns of the Reporter referred to in the Appeal Decision Notice (Reference PPA-390-2001, paragraph 28).

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 15

An additional submission from the Planning Administrator, Strathblane Community Council, was tabled at the meeting. This submission referred to the Community Council’s comments that were incorporated in the Planning Officer’s submitted report. The Planning Administrator confirmed that the Community Council had submitted sound reasons for refusal of the Applications.

Referring to Councillor Berrill’s reasons for calling in the Application(s) the Planning Administrator in the further submission advised that these reasons raise another test case for the Council's practice for its Green Belt and Countryside Policies, which ought to be discussed and determined in public.

Strathblane Community Council hoped that this 'test case' will be used to reinforce and confirm the Council's clear and established policies. Even if the worst aesthetics of the previous proposal were softened, the new proposals were still very far from meeting the criteria for development in the Green Belt.

For the Panel to accept the Applicant's logic for granting Approval would render the Green Belt designation meaningless, as any well-designed development would be permitted.

Strathblane Community Council hoped the Panel would support the Planning Officer's analysis and refuse all of the Applications without the need for a Hearing.

The Panel was advised that the Community Council would request a Hearing in the event that the Panel found itself uncertain or inclined to allow the Applications.

Councillor Graham Lambie spoke against the 3 Applications and stated that basically what was before the Panel was the same Application as the 2009 Application minus 2 houses. There were no circumstances where the Council’s current Policies allowed this development.

(a) Proposed Development of One New Dwelling in Principle on Plot 1 – Application 11/00509/PPP

A report by the Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) Previous History; (d) Development Plan Policy; (e) Assessment; (f) Objections; and (g) Policy/Resource Implications and Consultations.

Twenty-four representations on the Application were received. The grounds of the objections were listed in Paragraphs 3.49 (a) – (i) of the submitted report.

Roads Development Control had no objection to the Application subject to the Condition referred to in Paragraph 4.6 of the submitted report being added to any Consent granted.

The Panel was recommended to Refuse the Application for the reasons stated in Paragraph 2.1 (a) – (e) of the submitted report.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 16

Decision

The Panel agreed to Refuse Application 11/00509/PPP for the following reasons:

(a) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan 2002 Policies ENV3 and ENV4 as the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficiently exceptional circumstances in order to overcome the presumption against approach to development in the green belt. The development proposals are not deemed to represent an enhancement and as such the application is considered contrary to the objective requirements of the green belt.

(b) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to Policy E16 of the Stirling Council Local Plan As Altered, which operates a presumption against any development not essential for agriculture or forestry (except appropriate recreation and tourism projects dependent upon a countryside location) when proposed in a Green Belt. The development proposal is not required in connection with these rural economic activities and as such is contrary to Policy E16.

(c) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the development proposal is contrary to Policy H6 of the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan, Approved 2002, since it has not been demonstrated that the applicant has an essential need to be housed to manage land in the vicinity for agriculture, horticulture, forestry or an established rural business.

(d) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to Policy H10 of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) 2007 as the applicant has failed to demonstrate a genuine need to be housed to manage land in the vicinity for agriculture, horticulture or forestry or for the management of an established rural business where there is a clear operational need to be housed in the vicinity.

(e) In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is not in accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of Policy H10A: Housing in the Countryside. Subcategory 7: Development in the Green Belt, allows new housing in the countryside in the circumstances covered in categories 3(a), 4(ai), 4(aiii), 4b and 5a only (ie principally in cases involving redundant buildings), where proposals are considered capable of achieving a net environmental gain and other Green Belt objectives are not compromised.

(Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 28 February 2012 submitted.)

(b) Proposed Development of One New Dwelling in Principle on Plot 2 – Application 11/00547/PPP

Paragraph 3.49 (a) – (i) of the report incorporated the comments from the Twenty- four representations received on the Application.

Strathblane Community Council’s objections and submission on the Application were listed in Paragraph 4.8 of the report.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 17

Roads Development Control had no objection to the Application subject to the Condition referred to in Paragraph 4.6 of the submitted report being added to any Consent granted.

The Panel was recommended to Refuse Application 11/00547/PPP for the Reasons stated in Paragraph 2.1 (a) – (e) of the submitted report.

Decision

The Panel agreed to Refuse Application 11/00547/PPP for the following reasons:

(b) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to Policy E16 of the Stirling Council Local Plan as Altered which operates a presumption against any development not essential for agriculture or forestry (except appropriate recreation and tourism projects dependent upon a countryside location) when proposed in a Green Belt. The development proposal is not required in connection with these rural economic activities and as such is contrary to Policy E16.

(e) In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is not in accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of Policy H10A: Housing in the Countryside. Subcategory 7: Development in the Green Belt, allows new housing in the countryside in the circumstances covered in categories 3(a), 4(ai), 4(aiii), 4b and 5a only (i.e. principally in cases involving redundant buildings), where proposals are considered capable of achieving a net environmental gain and other Green Belt objectives are not compromised.

(Reference - Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 27 February 2012 submitted.)

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 18

Twenty-four representations were made on the Application and comments on the objections were listed in Paragraph 3.49 (a) – (i) of the submitted report.

Strathblane Community Council’s objections and submission on the Application were listed in Paragraph 4.8 of the report.

Roads Development Control had no objection to the Application subject to the Condition referred to in Paragraph 4.6 of the submitted report being added to any Consent granted.

The Panel was recommended to Refuse Application 11/00548/PPP for the Reasons stated in Paragraph 2.1 (a) – (e) of the submitted report.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 19

Decision

The Panel agreed to Refuse Application 11/00548/PPP for the following reasons:

(b) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to Policy E16 of the Stirling Council Local Plan As Altered which operates a presumption against any development not essential for agriculture or forestry except appropriate recreation and tourism projects dependent upon a countryside location) when proposed in a Green Belt. The development proposal is not required in connection with these rural economic activities and as such is contrary to Policy E16.

(Reference - Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 28 February 2012 submitted.)

At this juncture Councillor Graham Reed vacated the Chair and Councillor Margaret Brisley took the Chair.

Councillor Graham Lambie and Councillor Graham Reed left the meeting Chamber.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 20

PP485 VARIATION OF CONDITION 1 OF THE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE 07/00824/OUT TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR THE SUBMISSION OF RESERVED MATTERS TO 18 MARCH 2015 AT STIRLING ENTERPRISE PARK, SPRINGBANK ROAD, STIRLING - MR GORDON BELL - 12/00010/PPP

The above Application was brought to the Panel since the Council had a financial interest in the land.

On 18 March 2009 Outline Planning permission for Application 07/00824/OUT was originally granted for a Class 1 Convenience Superstore. Planning permission for this Application expired on 18 March 2012.

A report by the Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) Previous History; (d) Development Plan Policy; (e) Assessment; (f) Objections and (g) Policy/Resource Implications and Consultations.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that Application 12/00010/PPP was made under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which makes provision for the determination of Applications to develop land without complying with a Condition attached to a previous permission.

The Condition in question required any matters reserved (which in this case would have been the detailed drawings) to be submitted within three years of the date of grant of the then Outline planning permission.

The Panel was recommended to Approve Planning Application 12/00010/PPP subject to the Conditions in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.

Decision

The Panel agreed to Approve Planning Application 12/00010/PPP subject to the Conditions in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.

(Reference – Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 27 February 2012 submitted.)

The Chair declared the meeting closed at 1.20 p.m.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\REPORTS\2012\PP20120410ITEM04MINUTES.DOC 21

THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA

PLANNING PANEL ECONOMY, PLANNING & REGULATION

10 APRIL 2012 NOT EXEMPT

DEVELOPMENT OF 11 WIND TURBINES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURES INCLUDING A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND, SUB STATION AND CONTROL BUILDING, UNDERGROUND POWER CABLES, 2 PERMANENT ANEMOMETER MASTS, SITE ACCESS TRACKS, 5 WATER CROSSINGS AND UP TO 2 BORROW PITS AT LAND SOME 1.5KILOMETRES NORTH WEST OF MUIRPARK FARM, STIRLING - SSE RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENTS UK LTD - 09/00170/FUL

1 SUMMARY

1.1 This Application was presented at Planning Panel on 6 March 2012 and was continued for a Site Visit. The Site Visit took place on 19 March 2012 and a Note of the Site Visit is appended as Appendix B to the report.

2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)

The Panel agrees:

2.1 To Refuse Application 09/00170/FUL

(a) For the Reasons stated in Paragraph 2.1 1(a); (b) and (c); 2; 3; 5; 6 and 7 of Appendix A to the submitted report by the Head of Planning and Regulation;

(b) In respect of Reason 5 of the recommendation for Refusal, regarding the setting of Stirling Castle and adverse impact on the setting of the King’s Yett Cairn, the proposal is also contrary to Scottish Planning Policy paragraph 118.

3 CONSIDERATIONS

The Site

3.1 See previous Report attached as Appendix A.

The Proposal

3.2 See previous Report attached as Appendix A.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 22

Previous History

3.3 See previous Report attached as Appendix A.

Development Plan Policy

3.4 See previous Report attached as Appendix A.

Assessment

3.5 See previous Report attached as Appendix A.

3.6 Following receipt of the further consultation reply from National Air Traffic Services (NATS) En-Route Ltd, and withdrawal of the objection, Reason 4 of the recommendation for Refusal (referred to in Appendix A) is no longer applicable.

Objections

3.7 See previous Report attached as Appendix A. An additional letter of objection has been received which may be summarised as follows:

(a) There are enough turbines and any more would overtake the landscape. Stirling area has more than its fair share.

(b) Noise disturbance.

(d) There are far more productive ways of generating clean energy.

(e) The view from Stirling Castle.

(f) The efficiency of wind turbines compared with other forms of clean energy.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 23

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications Delete as appropriate

Equality Impact Assessment No Strategic Environmental Assessment No Single Outcome Agreement No Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) No Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) No Effect on Council’s green house gas emissions Decrease

Strategic/Service Plan No Existing Policy or Strategy No Risk No Resource Implications Financial No People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes

Equality Impact Assessment

4.1 See previous Report attached as Appendix A.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

4.2 See previous Report attached as Appendix A.

Single Outcome Agreement

4.3 See previous Report attached as Appendix A.

Other Policy Implications

4.4 See previous Report attached as Appendix A.

Resource Implications

4.5 See previous Report attached as Appendix A.

Consultations

4.6 See previous Report attached as Appendix A.

4.7 Cambusbarron Community Council: Object to the Application and fully supports the Recommendations for Refusal.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 24

4.8 National Air Traffic Services (Nats) En-Route Ltd: Further consultation - Objection withdrawn. National Air Traffic Services (Nats) En-Route Ltd has reached agreement with the applicant regarding a mitigation solution and has agreed with the developer that the following conditions be imposed on any permission granted:

(a) No turbine shall be erected until the Developer has agreed a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme with the Operator that has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the Primary Radar Installation at Lowther Hill.

(b) No turbine blades shall be fitted unless and until the approved Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme has been implemented and the development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with such approved Scheme.

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 Planning Application file 09/00170/FUL. File can be viewed online at:

http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/Results.asp?AppNumber=09/00170/FUL

6 APPENDICES

6.1 Appendix A – Planning Panel Report dated 6 March 2012

6.2 Appendix B – Note of Site Meeting Dated Monday 19 March 2012

Author(s) Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail

Iain Jeffrey Senior Planning Officer 01786 442987, [email protected]

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Kevin Robertson Head of Economy, Planning and Regulation

Date 28 March, 2012 Service 09/00170/FUL Reference

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 25

APPENDIX A

THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM ON THE AGENDA

PLANNING PANEL ECONOMY, PLANNING & REGULATION

6 MARCH 2012 NOT EXEMPT

DEVELOPMENT OF 11 WIND TURBINES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURES INCLUDING A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND, SUB STATION AND CONTROL BUILDING, UNDERGROUND POWER CABLES, 2 PERMANENT ANEMOMETER MASTS, SITE ACCESS TRACKS, 5 WATER CROSSINGS AND UP TO 2 BORROW PITS AT LAND SOME 1.5KM NORTH WEST OF MUIRPARK FARM, STIRLING – SCOTTISH AND SOUTHERN ENERGY PLC - 09/00170/FUL

1 SUMMARY

1.1 This report considers the proposal for the development of eleven wind turbines at Muirpark Farm, located to the northeast of the Craigengelt wind farm. The issues raised by the application are conformity with Development Plan Policy and Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy, cumulative visual impact, residential amenity, noise, effect on the setting of Stirling Castle and other Monuments, national air traffic control, and the effect from the turbines on bird population. The application is contrary to the Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance on wind energy and due to its significance, should be considered by the Planning Panel.

2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)

The Panel agrees:

2.1 To Refuse Application 09/00170/FUL for the following reasons:

1 In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal is contrary to Structure Plan Policy ENV16 Wind energy developments in that:

(a) Due to the height of the proposed wind turbines and altitude of the site the proposals would be visually dominant relative to Lewis Hill and are therefore considered to be located within an 'Exclusion Areas’ the purpose of which is to conserve landscape character which would be compromised.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 26

(b) The location of the turbines in relation to the setting of Stirling Castle is such that the purpose of the 'exclusion area' in conserving historic heritage is compromised.

(c) The relationship of the proposal to established wind farms and those that are currently the subject of undetermined applications would result in an adverse affect on amenity by reason of cumulative visual impact.

2 The proposal is contrary to the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for Wind Energy, based on the Stirling Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development in that it is within an “Area of Significant Protection” where it’s cumulative landscape and visual impact in relation to existing wind farms is considered unacceptable, and also in an area where the scale of turbines proposed is considered incompatible with landscape characteristics identified in the Landscape Sensitivity Study as being significant constraints.

3 The proposal is contrary to Policy ENV2 of the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan and E15 of the Stirling Council Local Plan 1999 which state a presumption against development in Areas of Great Landscape Value and that development will only be permitted if it can be accommodated without adversely affecting the overall quality of the designed landscape. The Landscape sensitivity and capacity study finds that this would not be the case.

4 The proposed development conflicts with safeguarding criteria set out by the Nats En-route Ltd consultation reply which has been the subject of a technical and operational assessment. The consultation response refers to the potentially affected Radar on Lowther Hill. The radar safeguarding assessment reveals that the windfarm development is located within an area where there is insufficient terrain shielding from the Primary Radar Service at Lowther Hill. Due to the large dimension of the wind turbines and distance from the radar it is anticipated that the reflected power from the wind turbines will be of adequate value to be detected by the radar and consequently generate false plots. A reduction of the radar’s probability of detection, for real targets, is also expected. In view of the technical and operational assessment, the approval of the application would not be in the best interests of air traffic safety and activity.

5 In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal is contrary to Policy ENV6 (2) and (3) relating to the protection of Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings and to Local Plan Policies E45 and E47 in that it will have:

(a) Significant adverse impact on the setting of Stirling Castle.

(b) An adverse impact on the Kings Yett cairn.

Furthermore, the approval of the application, in addition to nearby Craigengelt windfarm, would result in an unacceptable cumulative impact on the setting of Stirling Castle and Kings Yett cairn.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 27

6 The development of the site for the proposed 11 turbines would have an adverse impact on the westward views from Sauchie Crags therefore the proposed turbine development would result in a loss of amenity for walkers and detract from the recreational enjoyment of the surrounding rural area.

7 The proposal development will adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring residential occupiers at Todholes Cottage by reason of close proximity and visual dominance.

3 CONSIDERATIONS

The Site

3.1 The site is located on the lower eastern slopes of Touchadam Muir and Earl’s Hill, approx 8 kilometres southwest of Stirling. The site occupies an area of approximately 753 hectares although the actual development including all infrastructure components such as access tracks, turbine bases, borrow pits, meteorological masts, and temporary and permanent compounds will occupy only 2% of this area. The main land uses within the site are sheep and cattle grazing, and occasional grouse shooting. The operational windfarm at Earlsburn is located to the west between Craigengelt Law and Earl’s Hill. Craigengelt windfarm (8 turbines) is to the southwest.

The Proposal

3.2 A summary statement setting out the applicant’s case for approval is contained within Appendix 1 attached to the report. The main components of the proposed windfarm include;

(a) Installation of an 11 wind turbines with a maximum hub height of 80 metres and rotor diameter of 93 metres giving a maximum height of up to 126.5 metres.

(b) Construction of approximately 8.1 kilometres of new on-site access tracks and upgrading of existing access track.

(c) Construction of ancillary development comprising all on-site substation, hardstanding areas, connecting cabling and two permanent wind monitoring masts.

(d) Creation of a temporary construction compound.

(e) Working of two new borrow pits for extraction of stone.

Previous History

3.3 None.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 28

Development Plan Policy

Structure Plan Policies:

3.4 SD1 Key Principles: In identifying sites for development in Local Plans and in the assessment of other development proposals, the Council will consider the contribution of the development of the Plan's Strategy of working towards sustainable development.

3.5 Structure Plan Policy ENV14 establishes support in principle for renewable energy developments, subject to conformity with other relevant criteria.

3.6 Policy ENV1 requires protection and conservation of wildlife habitats of international, national and local importance.

3.7 ENV2 seeks protection for designated landscapes of national and local value. The site is within an Area of Great Landscape Value, where the Structure Plan expects that development will only occur if "it can be accommodated without adversely affecting the overall quality of the designated landscape area".

3.8 ENV3 covers any development in Countryside and is of relevance in terms of its concern that developments should respect their setting.

3.9 ENV6 relates to archaeological interest within and around the site requiring protection, including protection of setting.

3.10 Policy ENV 14 states:

(a) In the interests of sustainable development the Council and the National Park Authority will, subject to conformity with other relevant Structure Plan and Local Plan policies, support:

(i) Developments required for the regeneration of energy from renewable sources and fuels: and (ii) Integration of renewable energy generation and utilisation into new developments.

(b) Development proposals must demonstrate that energy conservation and efficiency are integral to design, and to the layouts of new buildings.

Policy ENV14 is cross-referenced to Structure Plan Policies SD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV5 and ENV6, relevant to this proposal.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 29

3.11 ENV16 Wind energy developments-states:

The strategic location and design of wind energy developments will be assessed against the following principles:

(a) For overriding landscape character, built heritage and natural heritage conservation reasons, siting of wind turbines will not normally be acceptable in National Scenic Areas, in Green Belts or in areas shown on the Structure Plan Renewable Supplementary Key Diagram as 'Exclusion Areas'. These areas are:

• The Ochil Hills escarpment • The Touch-Gargunnock-Fintry Hills escarpments (including Lewis Hill) • The Campsie Fells escarpments • Queens's View (Aucheneden) • Kippen Muir view • The settings of the Abbey Craig- Wallace Monument, Stirling Castle, Bannockburn Memorial and Battlefield, and Sheriffmuir Battlefield • Flanders Moss

(b) The remainder of the Structure Plan will be regarded as an 'area of search' for development opportunities.

(c) Within the 'area of search' it will be for Local Plans, the National Park and Supplementary Advice to set out all relevant consultation requirements and constraints. Local Plans have further to define the 'Exclusion Areas' and give guidance regarding development opportunities in 'buffer zones' and around the National Scenic Areas.

(d) The relationship of new proposals to established and approved developments and those that are currently the subject of undermined applications. Proposals will not normally be acceptable where they would result in an adverse affect on amenity, or features of scenic and/or heritage value, by reason of cumulative visual impact.

In text and by reference to a Key Diagram it establishes the principle of 'areas of search' and 'exclusion areas' for such developments. The exclusion areas are identified broadly by reference to key heritage and landscape features. ENV16 looks to a subsequent Local Plan to define these areas more precisely.

Stirling Council Local Plan Policies: Local Plan Policy E10 -Renewable Energy Development states ' providing that the development will not have any adverse impact on the environment, application for renewable energy development will be supported within areas of defined countryside (but outwith Green Belts).

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 30

Local Plan Policy E7 Development in the Countryside states the Council will only give favourable consideration to development which are essential to the proper functioning of primary rural activities, or other uses which can be shown to have an overidding need for a countryside location. Such developments will be subject to further assessment in relation to traffic generation and access, services, pollution, and potential conflict with established neighbouring uses.

Documents which are Material planning considerations: • The Council's commissioned Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development. • Supplementary Planning Guidance for Renewable Energy Developments (Wind Turbines):

The proposed turbines are 126.5 metres high and are classed as very large. Within the guidance, the site is located within an ‘Area of Significant Protection’ and therefore the following parts of the guidance are relevant: (1) Wind Energy : General (2) Wind Energy : Visual and Landscape Impacts The landscape of the Council area possesses distinctive characteristics of high quality. In relation to visual impact and the maintenance of the key characteristics and quality of the landscape, the capacity of the plan area to accommodate additional large and very large wind turbines (80 – 110 metres, and over110 metres) is considered to be severely limited. (3) Wind Energy: Cumulative Impacts The location, scale and design of all wind farm proposals, and proposals for individual turbines or small clusters in the medium – very large size classes (over 20metre turbines) will also be assessed in relation to wind turbines (across the same size range) that are established, approved or the subject of valid undetermined applications (including those located within neighbouring Planning Authority areas).

New proposals will not normally be acceptable where they would result in a significant adverse effect upon amenity, including features of landscape, wildlife conservation and/or historic heritage value, by reason of cumulative visual or ecological impact.

In particular, wind turbines proposed or likely to be perceived as extensions to existing wind farms will not be permitted if of significantly different colour, size and/or proportions (tower height to blade length ratio; nacelle design) to the existing turbines, or if laid out according to a discordant design concept.

For reasons of cumulative impact, discrete wind farms will not be supported within the zones identified on Areas of Significant Protection around existing wind farms. Sensitively designed additions to these wind farms may be acceptable.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 31

(e) Wind Energy: ‘Community Benefit’ ‘Community benefit’ arrangements unrelated to the implementation of a wind energy project will not be taken into account in the Development Management process.

3.12 Scottish Planning Policy Paragraph 118 states that “development that will have an adverse impact on a Scheduled Ancient Monument or integrity of its setting should not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances”.

Assessment

3.13 The Structure Plan supports renewable energy developments in principle (Policy ENV14-1). In terms of the location and design of wind energy developments, however, it further indicates that turbines will not normally be acceptable in the ‘Exclusion Areas’ shown on the Key Diagram, one of which is ‘The Touch - Gargunnock - Fintry Hills escarpments (including Lewis Hill)’ (Policy ENV16). This Structure Plan policy also states that ‘Proposals will not normally be acceptable where they would result in an adverse effect upon amenity, or features of scenic and/or heritage value, by reason of cumulative visual impact’. Areas not subject to these constraints are ‘Areas of Search’, but within such areas there will still be constraints and sensitivities that have to be addressed.

3.14 Of the 11 turbines proposed at Muirpark Farm the nearest to Lewis Hill is only 1.7 km distant and its base would be almost exactly at eye-level to an observer standing on top of the Hill. A lower meteorological monitoring mast would be slightly closer to the viewpoint. Most of the rest of the turbine array would be at higher levels. Given the height of the proposed turbines it is considered, from a Planning viewpoint that the proposed ‘wind farm’ will be visually dominant relative to Lewis Hill and therefore within the Structure Plan ‘Exclusion Area’ (Policy ENV16-1). In terms of cumulative effect, the Craigengelt windfarm (8 turbines; with the nearest to Lewis Hill just over 4 km distant from the viewpoint) would lie in the same field of view at slightly higher levels and be likely to present a confused visual impression, because the two proposals have not been designed together to achieve a best fit with the landscape. Immediately to the observer’s right in such a view will be any parts of the existing Earlsburn turbines that are visible. Taken together this collection of existing, approved and proposed turbines, the proposed development is considered to constitute an unacceptable cumulative visual impact, contrary to Structure Plan policy (Policy ENV16-4).

3.15 ENV2 seeks protection for designated landscapes of national and local value. The site is within an Area of Great Landscape Value, where the Structure Plan expects that development will only occur if “it can be accommodated without adversely affecting the overall quality of the designated landscape area”. The Council’s commissioned Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development - hereafter ‘the Study’ - finds that this would not be the case.

3.16 In relation to ENV6 there is archaeological interest within and around the site requiring protection, including protection of setting.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 32

3.17 Structure Plan Policy ENV16 deals specifically with wind energy developments. In text and by reference to a Key Diagram it establishes the principle of ‘areas of search’ and ‘exclusion areas’ for such developments. The exclusion areas are identified broadly by reference to key heritage and landscape features. ENV16 looks to a subsequent Local Plan to define these areas more precisely.

3.18 In the Stirling Council Local Plan the principal policy of relevance is E10 renewable energy developments and provides support for renewable energy developments providing the development will not have an adverse impact on the environment. The report sets out that the proposed development will have an adverse visual impact.

3.19 On February 2012 the Council published planning policy and guidelines (Supplementary Planning Guidance) for wind turbine developments, based on the Landscape Study. The guidance identifies ‘Areas of Significant Protection’ where wind farms will not be supported. It further identifies areas where the Study indicates that wind turbines of certain sizes will not be acceptable. Muirpark Farm is within an ‘Area of Significant Protection’ by virtue of the assessment that its cumulative impact with existing wind farms would be unacceptable in landscape terms. The Supplementary Planning Guidance rests significantly on the Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study commissioned jointly by the Council, Scottish Natural Heritage and the National Park, the findings of which were endorsed by the Council (and adopted as a material consideration in the determination of subsequent planning applications) in March 2008. The Landscape Study considered whether additional turbines could be accommodated in the area without adversely affecting the character and quality of the landscape to such a degree that the landscape capacity would be exceeded. In those terms it was concluded that there was no capacity for large turbines over 110m in height. Indeed the Study stated: “the windfarms currently proposed (August 2007) at Craigengelt, Muirpark [then at EIA scoping stage], Kingsburn, Earlsburn Extension and Ballindalloch Muir are individually likely to exceed identified landscape capacity.”

3.20 Taking the conclusions and recommendations of the Study in more detail, it identified four significant constraints upon turbine developments within the landscape, and three sensitivities. These were applied to a range of potential turbine sizes.

(a) Constraint in relation to landscape scale: Landscape scale, and how it is perceived and experienced, is the most widespread constraint. Local landscapes are perceived as large - scale with hill and mountain backdrops to broad lowlands, but the introduction of large structures of known scale is considered to damage that visual relationship. At Muirpark the Study advises that there is no capacity in relation to landscape scale for any turbine more than 50 metres high.

(b) Constraint in relation to distinctive hill edges: Allied to scale is the presence in the main southern part of the Council’s planning area of distinctive edges to the main hill and mountain masses (Ochils, Braes of Doune, Trossachs, Campsie - Touch, etc). This is a somewhat different concept to the ‘escarpments’ identified in the Structure Plan Policy. Again Muirpark is considered to be constrained, in this case for any turbine greater than 20 metres in height.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 33

(c) Constraint in relation to iconic landscape features: The Study consultant took a fresh look at the features listed in Structure Plan Policy ENV16-1 and drew some slightly different conclusions, including, relative to Muirpark, a smaller constraint area (for turbines of more than 20 metres in height). On this criterion, Muirpark is not identified as being constrained.

(d) Constraint in relation to existing and consented windfarms: The Study consultant concluded that the presence of a wind farm in the landscape does not ‘de-sensitise’ that landscape to the presence of additional turbines; rather it introduces the consideration that there may be areas within which further developments would introduce cumulative impacts because of insufficient visual separation. On this criterion the Study advises that there is no capacity at Muirpark for turbines of more than 20 metres in height.

(e) Sensitivity in relation to existing and consented windfarms: This recognises that the current perception is that wind farms happen on hill tops, and so proposals ‘down the hill’ and in the lowlands would be a sensitive landscape issue. Muirpark, being generally perceived as a hill site is not affected by this sensitivity.

(f) Sensitivity in relation to landscape pattern: Landscapes with very different topography and features may nevertheless share a scale that renders them more or less suited to accommodate developments of different scales. Simplistically, an open landscape with very large rectilinear fields and a few extensive tree plantations, might - all other things being equal - be better suited to accommodate visually an array of large turbines than a landscape characterised by many changes of level, a pattern of small irregular fields and woods. Muirpark is not considered sensitive in this respect.

(g) Sensitivity in relation to areas with a sense of remoteness: The Study identifies the Campsie - Touch Hills as having ‘added value’ in landscape terms because the area offers a perception of remoteness despite its proximity to surrounding urban communities. This is partly due to its high rim and inward - looking views (but with hints of distant hills beyond). In the wider planning context this gives the area a high recreational value even though its landscapes - the edges aside - are less than dramatic. Muirpark falls within this sensitivity area.

Taking these specific factors, Muirpark is considered to be affected by three of the landscape constraints and one of the sensitivities. Reducing the scale of the turbines would not, in terms of the landscape constraints, introduce development capacity.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 34

3.21 There were concerns when the Craigengelt proposal was being considered, particularly from Historic Scotland, that the turbines might adversely affect views from Stirling Castle and therefore the ‘setting’ of this important heritage site. The approval of the Muirpark application, in addition to nearby Craigengelt windfarm, would the result in an unacceptable cumulative impact on the setting of Stirling Castle and Kings Yett cairn. Historic Scotland has objected to this application on the basis that it will have a significant adverse impact on the setting of Stirling Castle and an adverse impact on the setting of the schedule King's Yett cairn. The proposal is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy Paragraph 118 and Policy ENV6 (2) and (3) relating to the protection of Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings and to Local Plan Policies E45 and E47.

3.22 Scottish Natural Heritage advises against the application on grounds of cumulative landscape and visual impact and support the recommendations contained in the Stirling Landscape Capacity Study, and consider that a commercial windfarm at Muirpark would be likely to exceed identified landscape capacity. Existing adverse landscape and visual impacts associated with Craigengelt windfarm would be magnified by the Muirpark proposal in views from the wider Stirling area. There would be a greater horizontal spread of turbines, which would also appear more imposing, and more confused, than for Craigengelt alone.

3.23 The proposal development will adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring residential occupiers at Todholes Cottage by reason of close proximity and visual dominance. Wind turbine numbers nine and eleven (both up to126.5m high), are to be situated on the hillside above the Todholes Cottage and set back from the Cottage by 705m and 915m respectively; the scale and proximity of these turbines on rising ground would detract from the residential amenities that the occupants of Todholes Cottage which the occupants could reasonably expect.

3.24 The development of the site for the proposed 11 turbines would have an adverse impact on the views from Sauchie Crags in views looking west and therefore the proposed turbine development would result in a loss of amenity for walkers and detract from the recreational enjoyment of the surrounding rural area.

3.25 The proposed development conflicts with the safeguarding criteria set out by the Nats En-Route Ltd consultation reply which has been the subject of a technical and operational assessment. The consultation response refers to the potentially affected Radar on Lowther Hill. The radar safeguarding assessment reveals that the windfarm development is located within an area where there is insufficient terrain shielding from the Primary Radar Service at Lowther Hill. Due to the large dimension of the wind turbines and distance from the radar it is anticipated that the reflected power from the wind turbines will be of adequate value to be detected by the radar and consequently generate false plots. A reduction of the radar’s probability of detection, for real targets, is also expected. In view of the technical and operational assessment by Nats En-Route Ltd, approval of the application would not be in the best interests of air traffic safety and activity.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 35

3.26 In respect of the ornithology Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds recommend a Condition that a Habitat Management Plan should be submitted and agreed prior to the commencement of development. It should include more detail on the proposals for black grouse management, and also, suggest, additional compensation/enhancement measures for farmland waders and predicted habitat loss. In respect of post-construction bird monitoring proposals, Scottish Natural Heritage welcome these monitoring proposals which will help provide a better understanding of the impact of the windfarm upon fairly important bird interests and request that Stirling Council intends to incorporate the proposals into any planning permission through a Condition or other means.

3.27 Noise Impact: Environmental Health do not object to the application on the basis that the Applicant has provided information to show that:

• An upper absolute level being 40 decibels LA90, (10 min), permitted within the advice recommended by the Scottish government (ETSU-R-97), can be achieved, if the following guarantees and undertakings are given by the developer, and are attached to any planning permission.

• An upper absolute limit of 45dB LA90, (10 min),will be achieved at properties with a financial interest in the development, and

• That there will be no significant adverse effect at a property where the 45dB LA90, (10 min) limit already applies due to a financial interest in an earlier windfarm development,

Objections

3.28 Three letters of objection has been received detailing the following:

(a) Loss of amenity from close proximity of wind turbines to Todholes Cottage. The principal objection relates to the location of turbines nine and eleven as they are unacceptably close to Todholes Cottage being approx 700metres from Todholes boundary. The noise limit is right on the margin of acceptable tolerances. Likewise the noise of these wind turbines in high winds will be such that they will suffer a considerable loss of amenity. With careful thought and consideration, these two turbines could be placed at a more sympathetic distance from Todholes Cottage.

(b) Interrupted or contaminated water supply: Todholes is totally dependent upon surface water from the hillside and have major concern regarding the construction impact of the wind turbines on water supply to Todholes Cottage, particularly in the location of wind turbines nine and eleven. Todholes is not fed by a borehole but is entirely reliant on surface water coming from the location of the proposed windfarm.

(c) Loss of amenity and tourism: loss of amenity for walkers and tourism for the Stirling area as the views from Sauchie Crags looking west over Todholes Farm will be altered for ever.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 36

(d) Safety: Children and adults regularly ride horses from Todholes into the surrounding hillside and area of the proposed windfarm. The noise from construction and ongoing operation of the wind-turbines, in particular turbines nine and eleven, will have safety implications due to horses being frightened or startled. An undertaking that explosives would not be used as a matter of course (having all other possibilities to progress works eliminated) would be the subject of specific notices (with exact times provided) to provide sufficient times to relocate horses away from cottages and stables. Without sufficient notice of detonation times, there could be serious accidents.

(e) Property value: The property value of Todholes is likely to be significantly impacted.

(f) Affect on Howietoun Fishery: The Developer is amenable to providing the necessary Filters to help mitigate against any elevated levels of suspended solids created by the work and would certainly welcome it as a condition if the application were granted. There are still questions to be answered over the route in of the turbines and also the route and method of bringing the cables back down to join the Grid and understand from them this will not be sorted out until after the initial Planning Permission is given. The fishery would be in a stronger position to negotiate “do’s and don’ts” if they knew the applicants had to cross their land, which they would have to do if they came from Auchenbowie using the road that was put in for the Craigengelt wind farm, rather than from the Pirnhall direction. It is possible that overhead cables would be better for the Fishery in any sensitive areas close to the watercourse and using an existing route for the turbines would mean no road excavations to the C10 road close to Howietoun.

(g) Will the application affect the line of sight for the masts at Earlsburn?

(h) If the application is approved, the house known as Rycroft will be surrounded by 35 wind turnines. Is cumulative impact being considered?

(i) Access to Ryecroft is along a road that is in a very poor state of repair. The Earlshill development only required the road to be repaired. There is inconveneince on the B919 through road closures.

(j) Loss of value to property.

(k) No neighbour notification sent to Ryecroft.

Support:

3.29 One representation supporting the application on the basis that wind energy is clean and green.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 37

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications Delete as appropriate

Strategic/Service Plan No Existing Policy or Strategy No Risk No Resource Implications Financial No People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes

Equality Impact Assessment

4.1 An Equality Impact Assessment seeks to promote equality between different groups of people (people of different races, men and women, people with a disability, etc) and differing issues such as religion/belief, age and sexual orientation. An Equality Impact Assessment demonstrates that equality has been addressed in policy-making and review. Since this proposal does not relate to a new policy or revising an existing policy, it is considered that it will have a neutral impact on equality.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

4.2 An Environmental Statement was submitted with the application.

Single Outcome Agreement

4.3 The recommendation supports the objectives of the Single Outcome Agreement Topic 5 - Making Stirling a place through protection of the natural environment in terms of visual impact of a wind farm in the Area of Great Landscape Value.

Other Policy Implications

4.4 Not applicable.

Resource Implications

4.5 No resource implications.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 38

Consultations

4.6 Nats En-Route Ltd: Objection. The consultation response refers to the potentially affected Radar on Lowther Hill. The radar safeguarding assessment reveals that the windfarm development is located within an area where there is insufficient terrain shielding from the Primary Radar Service at Lowther Hill. Due to the large dimension of the wind turbines and distance from the radar it is anticipated that the reflected power from the wind turbines will be of adequate value to be detected by the radar and consequently generate false plots. A reduction of the radar’s probability of detection, for real targets, is also expected. The proposed development at Muirpark if built without an effective radar mitigation scheme, would cause an adverse impact to Nats En-Route Ltd operations and systems. A contract between Nats En- Route Ltd and Scottish and Southern Energy has not been finalised or agreed. One is being negotiated currently. Until such time as the contract is signed and there is sufficient comfort and certainty that the Developer will be responsible for the radar problem and solution, Nats En-Route Ltd will maintain its objection. Nats En-Route Ltd will withdraw its objection once a contract for the provision of a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme has been completed. We hope to have one signed as soon as possible. Given that no mitigation has been guaranteed or a commitment for the delivery of the same, Nats En-Route Ltd will not remove its objection subject to a Suspensive Condition until a contract with the Developer has been signed.

4.7 Falkirk Council Development Services: No reply.

4.8 Trunk Roads: Overall there will be a minimal increase in traffic on the trunk road, during the operation of the facility, therefore the proposed development is not likely to have a significant impact on the operation of the trunk road network. However, it is likely that as many of the construction loads may be categorised as abnormal, authorisation from our management organisation BEAR may be required. It is advisable that BEAR are consulted as to the feasibility of transportation of these items to site. Due to the frequency and number of these loads it is UK policy to restrict these movements via the nearest suitable port.

4.9 Scottish Water: There are no public sewers in the vicinity. There are no public water mains in the vicinity.

4.10 Scottish Environment Protection Agency: No objection provided that the recommended planning conditions are enforced. Scottish Environment Protection Agency is satisfied with the scope of the Environmental Statement and considers that once the matters specified below have been dealt with, then the remaining environmental protection measures can be secured through planning conditions. In particular, it is recommended that planning conditions are included to protect the quality of the downstream Howietoun and Buckieburn aquaculture centres. These conditions are:

(a) That roads are constructed with sustainable urban drainage to ensure that all runoff is treated prior to discharge to the nearby watercourse.

(b) That further assessment is made of the watercourses on site, to ascertain the base level quality prior to work being carried out.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 39

(c) That a water monitoring plan is developed before works begin, and implemented as soon as works commence, to include a survey of water features.

(d) That a programme to monitor surface water drainage or foul water effluent during the site's decommissioning stage is developed and implemented as soon as appropriate.

4.11 Carron Valley & District Community Council: As it is, the Stirling area is doing more than enough for renewable energy. The main concern is that planning for the turbines should also include plans for home, road and cables.

4.12 Bannockburn Community Council: No reply.

4.13 Service Manager (Environmental Health): Noise report: No objections for a wind-farm development with 11 wind turbines at the above location, as the Applicant has provided information to show that:

• An upper absolute level being 40 decibels LA90, (10 min), permitted within the advice recommended by the Scottish government (ETSU-R- 97), can be achieved, if the following guarantees and undertakings are given by the developer, and are attached to any planning permission.

• An upper absolute limit of 45dB LA90, (10 min),will be achieved at properties with a financial interest in the development, and

• That there will be no significant adverse effect at a property where the 45dB LA90, (10 min) limit already applies due to a financial interest in an earlier windfarm development,

if the following guarantees and undertakings are given by the Developer, and are attached to any planning consent.

(1) The turbine model used shall be: a) The SIEMENS VS93 2.3 MW, 80 metres hub height with maximum noise emission level of 105 decibel (see paragraph 11.52 of the Environment Statement) which must operated in restricted mode B for wind turbines 1,2,3,and 9.up to a maximum of 103 decibels or, b) The REPOWER MM92 with maximum noise emission levels of 105 decibels or, c) An alternative turbine of same or better noise characteristics as agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 40

In proceeding with any of the options above, full results of the updated final noise modelling must be submitted to Environmental Health prior to final decision been made. The sound power levels must be clearly indicated, as well as a statement made on ‘measurement uncertainty’ and ‘tonal correction’ used in the calculations. Any data used relating to the turbine/s must be warranted by the manufacturer and the appropriate technical document attached with the final submissions.

2) At any property lawfully existing at the date of this planning permission the rating level of noise emissions, including any tonal correction, from the wind turbine, when measured in accordance with the guidance in ‘’The assessment and Rating of noise from wind farms, ETSU-R-97’’, shall not exceed 40 dB (LA90, (10min) at wind speeds up to 10 ms-1 at 10m height.

3) The locations of the 11 wind turbines shall be the as per table 11.3 of the Environment Statement.

4) The Environmental Statement supporting this application states that the Muirpark and Townhead properties will benefit financially from the scheme and the higher absolute limit of 45dB LA90, (10min) may therefore be applied to these properties.

5) The Environmental Statement also states that the property at Easter Cringate Cottage was financially involved with the earlier Craigenfelt Windfarm proposal and a 45dB LA90, (10min) limit value already applies to that development.

6) At the request of the Planning Authority following a complaint, the operator of the development shall, at the operator’s expense, measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine following the procedures described in ‘’The assessment and rating of noise from wind farms, ETSU-R-97’’ or other method as maybe agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

7) At the request of the Planning Authority following a complaint, the operator of the development shall, at the operator’s expense, employ a consultant approved by the Planning Authority, to assess whether noise emissions at the complainant’s dwelling are characterised by greater than expected amplitude modulation. Amplitude modulation is the modulation of the level of broadband noise emitted by a turbine at blade passing frequency. These will be deemed greater than expected if the following characteristics apply:

a) A change in the measured LAeq (125milliseconds) turbine noise level of more than 3dB (represented as a rise and fall in sound energy levels each of more than 3 dB occurring within a 2 second period. b) The change identified in (a) above shall not occur less than five times in any one minute period provided the LAeq (1 min) turbine sound energy level for that minute is not below 28dB, and c) The changes identified in (a) and (b) above shall not occur for fewer than six minutes in any hour.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 41

Noise emissions at the complainant’s dwelling shall be measured not further than 35 metres from the relevant building, and not closer than 3.5 metres of any reflective building or surface, or within 1.2 metres of the ground.

8) No wind turbine shall generate electricity to the grid until the Planning Authority (as advised by the consultant approved by the Planning Authority in terms of Condition 7) has approved in writing a scheme submitted by the wind farm operator providing for the control of greater than expected amplitude modulation emissions generated by the wind turbines in a range of wind speeds and directions.

Private Water Supply: Figure 7.4: Site Water Features and Constraints identified point 14 as a residence with private water supply named Wireless Station. From our records this premises is in fact a domestic residence called Ryecroft. With the proposed Mitigation measures as detailed in 7.101 - 7.120 and 7.123 - 7.126, and the identified designated Private Water Supplies protection areas and 50m buffer zones around water courses as illustrated in Figure 7.4: Site Water Features and Constraints the risk to any Private Water Supply is minimal. As such there are no objections in relation to Private Water Supplies. From this and the undertakings given on the Environmental Statement, Environmental Health should not anticipate any complaints from any of the properties that depend on private water supplies. Risk to any private water supply, including that of Todholes is minimal with the proposed mitigation measures.

4.14 Historic Scotland: Object to the proposed wind farm due to serious concerns about the assessment of its impact on a number of nationally important sites in its vicinity as it is set out in chapter 12 of the ES. Those concerns are so significant that they consider that the proposed development does not accord with Scottish Government policy for the protection of the historic environment. This is on the basis that it will have a significant adverse impact on the setting of Stirling Castle (index no 90291) and an adverse impact on the setting of the schedule King's Yett cairn (index no 2580). They are also concerned that the impact of the development on the setting of the Wallace Monument is likely to be significant in terms of this Environmental Impact Assessment. Furthermore, Historic Scotland consider that the cumulative impact of this wind farm with existing and consented wind farms in the area is unacceptable in policy terms.

E-mail received on 23 February 2012: In response to SSE Renewables Statement of Support, the Council should take into account paragraph 118 of Scottish Planning Policy which states that ’development that will have an adverse impact on a Scheduled Ancient Monument or integrity of its setting should not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances’. Historic Scotland has nothing further to add to previous comments.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 42

4.15 Scottish Natural Heritage: Reply dated 20 July 2009 advises against consent on grounds of cumulative landscape and visual impact and support the recommendations contained in the Stirling Landscape Capacity Study, and consider that a commercial windfarm at Muirpark would be likely to exceed identified landscape capacity. Existing adverse landscape and visual impacts associated with Craigengelt windfarm would be magnified by the Muirpark proposal in views from the wider Stirling area. There would be a greater horizontal spread of turbines, which would also appear more imposing, and more confused, than for Craigengelt alone.

Reply dated 26 September 2011: In respect of the ornithology chapter Scottish Natural Heritage have objection in relation to birds and recommend a Condition that a Habitat Management Plan should be submitted and agreed at an appropriate point, i.e. prior to the commencement of development. It should include more detail on the proposals for black grouse management, and also, suggest, additional compensation/enhancement measures for farmland waders and predicted habitat loss.

Reply dated 17 October 2011: In respect of post-construction bird monitoring proposals, Scottish Natural Heritage welcome these monitoring proposals that will help provide a better understanding of the impact of the windfarm upon fairly important bird interests and have asked whether Stirling Council intends to incorporate the proposals into any planning permission through a Condition or other means.

E-mail received on 23 February 2012: Have nothing further to add at this stage in relation to the SSE Renewables Statement of Support.

4.16 Royal Society for Protection Birds Scotland: No objection subject to the following being secured through Planning Conditions, and should the Council be minded to grant consent without these Conditions, including ensuring completion of the Habitat Management Plan prior to construction, Royal Society for Protection Birds Scotland would object to the application.

Royal Society for Protection Birds Scotland Conditions:

(a) A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) must be completed to the satisfaction of Scottish Natural Heritage and Royal Society for Protection Birds Scotland before commencement of works on the site. This Habitat Management Plan must include measures to compensate for displacement effects on breeding waders and raptors and loss of blanket bog habitat as well as habitat enhancement for black grouse.

(b) An area of modified blanket bog should be identified and restored to compensate for the loss of blanket bog that would be caused through construction of the windfarm.

(c) Vegetation clearance will be undertaken outwith the bird-breeding season (April to July inclusive) unless the ground has been surveyed by a suitably qualified ecologist and there are no nesting birds present.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 43

(d) A suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Works will be appointed by the applicant to oversee the implementation of the blanket bog compensatory work, that no nests are destroyed or disturbed within the development area including buffer zone amongst other tasks as appropriate.

4.17 Forestry Commission (Scotland): There is no woodland area within the proposed wind farm.

4.18 Loch Lomond And Trossachs National Park Authority: No reply.

4.19 Civil Aviation Authority: The development might have the potential to impact upon operations associated with both Glasgow and Cumbernauld Airports. It is strongly recommended that the aerodrome licensees are each provided the opportunity to comment upon the Environmental Statement and Planning Application as a whole.

4.20 British Airports Authority (Glasgow Airport Authority): No objection. The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria.

4.21 Cumbernauld Airport Limited: In so far as aerodrome safeguarding is concerned, there is no objection.

4.22 Defence Estates: The Ministry of Defence has no objection. In the interests of air safety, the Ministry of Defence recommends that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. All turbines should be fitted with 25-candela omni- directional red lighting at the highest practicable point. The principal safeguarding concern of the Ministry of Defence with respect to the development of wind turbines relates to their potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and cause interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. Defence Estates Safeguarding wishes to be consulted and notified of the progression of planning applications and submissions relating to this proposal to verify that it will not adversely affect defence interests.

If planning permission is granted you must tell us: the date construction starts and ends; the maximum height of construction equipment; the latitude and longitude of every turbine.

4.23 Roads Development Control: The Muirpark Wind Farm Environment Statement dated March 2009, outlines the traffic and transport aspect of the proposed development. The applicant proposes erection of 11 wind turbines over a ten months construction period. The use of onsite borrow pits will enable all stone for access tracks to be quarried without additional transportation of stone, greatly reducing the number of vehicular movements to the site. Maximum traffic flow associated with construction of the proposed wind farm is predicted to occur in the sixth month of the construction programme when 54 one-way trips on average are predicted each working day.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 44

The applicant has indicated that two options are potentially available to access the site:

Access Route Option 1 (all vehicles including Heavy Goods vehicles, Light Goods Vehicles and abnormal loads) - Vehicles would travel north from either junction 9 of the M9 or junction 9 of the M80 (depending on the motorway delivery route) onto the A872 and northward for approximately 250 metres before turning left onto Pirnhall Road and continuing for 1 kilometre. At the T- junction, vehicles will turn left onto New Line Road, passing over the M9. After approximately 2 kilometres vehicles would bear right progressing onto the C10 and progress approximately 2 kilometres to the site entrance.

Access Route Option 2 (abnormal load only) - All other vehicles to utilise access route option 1. Abnormal loads would leave either junction 9 of the M9 or junction 9 of the M80 (depending on the motorway delivery route) onto the A872, then southward and turning right onto the C55. Vehicles then pass under the M80 and travel west for approximately 1.5 kilometres to the T- junction outside the Auchenbowie Caravan Park. From here abnormal loads would follow the temporary access track constructed to accommodate the Craigengelt Wind Farm. After crossing the track vehicles would follow the remainder of the route as per Option 1.

The Road Authority’s preferred option is for abnormal loads to utilise access route option 2 with all other traffic associated with the site adopting access route option 1. The applicant should therefore be encouraged to conclude negotiations with the Craigengelt Wind Farm developer to have shared use of the temporary haul road. Ensuring both wind farms adopt the same access route will minimise any inconvenience to residents of the area.

It is recommended that a Road Traffic Management Plan be developed by the applicant to help ensure that all construction traffic access the site in a safe and efficient manner. The Road Traffic Management Plan should be incorporated in a Section 75 Agreement, with the required road infrastructure being delivered under Section 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.

The extent of road improvements required to accommodate all traffic associated with the development will be dependent on the timing of the works in relation to the planned Craigengelt Wind Farm road improvements. Section 10.94 of the Environmental Statement highlights that “ the Muirpark Windfarm project management team will consult with the Craigengelt Windfarm project management team regarding their construction programmes to ensure that peak delivery months do not coincide, where possible ”. Adopting this co-ordinated approach will help ensure disruption to the road network is minimised.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 45

The following Conditions should be attached to the Section 75 Agreement for any permission granted:

(a) A Road Traffic Management Plan should be developed and submitted for approval by the Roads Authority prior to construction works commencing on site. The Road Traffic Management Plan will detail how traffic associated with the site will be managed including permitted delivery times, traffic control measures and any mitigation measures required to accommodate the passage of abnormal loads. The Road Traffic Management Plan, will need to be incorporated in a Section 75 Agreement and be delivered under Section 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.

(b) Bridge assessments will be required on the four masonry arch road bridges, known as C55/10, C10/30, C10/40 and C10/50. The applicant will be required to provide Public Liability Insurance cover for failure caused by their abnormal loads. It is further recommended that Transport Scotland be consulted with regard to their requirements should abnormal loads utilise the bridge over the M9/M80 Motorways.

(c) Prior to commencement of construction works, the applicant will undertake a local road condition video survey to the satisfaction of Stirling Councils Roads Area Maintenance Manager. Deterioration of the local road network shall be monitored and the developer shall be responsible for costs of repair work required as a result of development traffic. It is recommended that a road bond to the value of £500,000 be secured from the applicant to cover the cost of such work.

A generic condition to be applied to any approval, specifying that details of access to the site must be submitted to Stirling Council for written approval. No building works shall commence until security for the proposed road works has been provided.

4.24 Central Scotland Police: No objection regarding the proximity of the turbines to the line of sight path of Police communication links and can confirm that there will be no direct impact.

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 Planning Application file 09/00170/FUL. File can be viewed online at:

http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/Results.asp?AppNumber=09/00170/FUL

6 APPENDICES

6.1 Statement in Support of Planning Application – Appendix 1

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 46

Author(s) Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail

Iain Jeffrey Senior Planning Officer 01786 442987, [email protected]

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Kevin Robertson Head of Economy, Planning and Regulation

Date 27 February 2012 Service 09/00170/FUL Reference

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 47

APPENDIX 1

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 48

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 49

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 50 51

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 52 53

APPENDIX B

PLANNING PANEL SITE VISIT MONDAY 19 MARCH 2012 PROPOSED 11 WIND TURBINES ETC, MUIRPARK FARM, STIRLING

Present:

Councillor Graham Reed (Chair) Councillor Scott Farmer Councillor David Goss Councillor Graham Lambie (substitute for Councillor MacPherson) Councillor Andrew Simpson Councillor Jim Thomson

Apologies:

Councillor Margaret Brisley Councillor Tony Ffinch Councillor Alasdair MacPherson

In Attendance:

Jay Dawson, Principal Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Iain Jeffrey, Senior Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Maureen Bennison, Committee Support Officer, Democratic Support

DEVELOPMENT OF 11 WIND TURBINES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURES INCLUDING A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND, SUB STATION AND CONTROL BUILDING, UNDERGROUND POWER CABLES, 2 PERMANENT ANEMOMETER MASTS, SITE ACCESS TRACKS, 5 WATER CROSSINGS AND UP TO 2 BORROW PITS AT LAND SOME 1.5KM NORTH WEST OF MUIRPARK FARM, STIRLING – SSE RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENTS UK LTD – 09/00170/FUL

This application has been called to Planning Panel as it is contrary to the Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance on wind energy and due to its significance, should be considered by the Planning Panel.

In order to surmise the visual impact from Stirling Castle, it had been agreed that the Group view the site from the Castle. The Group gathered at the Car Park and then onto the Gardens of Stirling Castle:

Discussion took place on the following:

• Members viewed a photograph montage of how the site is anticipated to look, if the Application is approved. The views from the Car Park are 8 current wind turbines, at Craigengelt. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there would be more 11 wind turbines in view from the Stirling Castle Car Park, should the application be approved.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 54

• The Senior Planning Officer would advise the Members at Panel of the exact height of the proposed wind turbines. The proposed turbines are 126.5 metres high to blade tip. The existing turbines are 125 metres to blade tip.

• The Senior Planning Officer confirmed the proposed wind turbines would be nearer to the Castle than the current turbines.

• The Senior Planning Officer reported that the area was designated as a site of significant protection for the Council’s windfarm Supplementary Planning Guidance

• The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that Stirling Council, Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park and Scottish Natural Heritage had carried out a study of the area. The Senior Planning Officer advised the study had found that there was no capacity in relation to landscape scale for any turbines more than 50 metres high. Historic Scotland had also objected to the application due to the accumulative impact and the visual effects of the wind turbines from Stirling Castle.

• The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Application is within Stirling Council boundary.

• Following a question from Councillor Lambie, the Senior Planning Officer advised that a community benefits package would not be considered as a planning matter.

The Group then gathered near the site at Greathill House.

Discussion took place on the following:

• Members viewed a photograph montage of how the site is anticipated to look from Greathill House outlook, if the Application is approved.

• The Senior Planning Officer pointed out the site of Todhills Cottage and described the area from the hillside.

• The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there are two potentially available options for access to the site. He reported that Environment Services had made a contribution to the Application and one of the Conditions for the Application, should it be Approved, would be a survey of the road before and after development.

All issues would be considered at the meeting of the Planning Panel on 10 April 2012.

PP20120410Item05Muirpark.doc 55

THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 6 ON THE AGENDA

PLANNING PANEL ECONOMY, PLANNING & REGULATION

10 APRIL 2012 NOT EXEMPT

EXTERNAL CLADDING REPAIRS, WINDOW REPLACEMENT TO NEW WING, RELOCATION OF EXTERNAL STEPS AND ADDITION OF NEW EXTERNAL LIFT AT MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, 8 - 10 CORN EXCHANGE ROAD, STIRLING, FK8 2HU - STIRLING COUNCIL - 12/00038/FUL

1 SUMMARY

1.1 This Application has been referred to the Planning Panel because it relates to land that belongs to the Council.

2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)

The Panel agrees:

2.1 To Approve Application 12/00038/FUL subject to the Conditions outlined in Appendix 1 to this report.

3 CONSIDERATIONS

The Site

3.1 The application site is the Municipal Buildings Complex in Corn Exchange Road.

The Proposal

3.2 The proposal is to upgrade the exterior of the building, including external cladding repairs and window replacement to the new wing, and the re- configuration of the entrance steps at the Spittal Street corner to include a new external lift.

3.3 The building is a Category B Listed Building. In addition to the Planning Application, there is a Listed Building Consent Application for the internal and external works. This will be dealt with by Historic Scotland, as the Council cannot determine its own Listed Building Applications.

PP20120410Item06MuniBuilds.doc 56

Previous History

3.4 The building is presently vacant but has been used as Council Offices since it was originally constructed.

Development Plan Policy

3.5 The relevant policies in the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) 2007 are:-

3.6 POL.E35 In seeking to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas the Council will require all new development within Conservation Areas, including redevelopment, to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. All new development, including redevelopment, should:

(a) Accord with the special architectural and visual qualities of the Conservation Area, having particular regard to; the density and pattern of existing development; the architectural style, massing and materials used in surrounding buildings; means of access and boundary and landscape treatments such as walls, trees and hedges;

(b) Retain existing natural and built features which contribute to the character of the Conservation Area.

3.7 POL.E43 The Council will encourage the preservation of Listed Buildings and will ensure that in relation to any works affecting Listed Buildings or their setting, special attention is paid to design, and the sympathetic choice of materials, in order that the building’s character is not eroded.

3.8 POL.E44 The replacement of original windows and doors on a Listed Building will only be acceptable where repair is not achievable. Where new windows or doors are required, replacements should match the originals in every aspect including material and method of opening.

3.9 POL.E45 Development which adversely affects the character or the setting of a Listed Building will not be permitted unless strong justification is produced in support of the application.

Assessment

3.10 The proposals will restore the new wing as closely as possible to its original character. The provision of an external lift will allow access to the building for everyone. This will be achieved by relocating the existing steps to face towards Spittal Street. These works are in keeping with the character and appearance of the Listed Building.

Representations

3.6 An Access Consultant has made comments in support of the Planning Application, relating to the original drawings. His comments were to seek the provision of a level area for wheelchairs to be manoeuvred when entering and exiting the lift and to ask for the road crossing point to be upgraded.

PP20120410Item06MuniBuilds.doc 57

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications Delete as appropriate

Strategic/Service Plan Yes Existing Policy or Strategy No Risk No Resource Implications Financial Yes People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations No

Equality Impact Assessment

4.1 An Equality Impact Assessment seeks to promote equality between different groups of people (people of different races, men and women, people with a disability, etc.) and differing issues such as religion/belief, age and sexual orientation. An Equality Impact Assessment demonstrates that equality has been addressed in policy making and review. Since this proposal does not relate to a new policy or revising an existing policy, it is considered that it will have a neutral impact on equality.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

4.2 When a new plan, policy or strategy is being submitted or an existing plan, policy or strategy is being reviewed it is a legal requirement that a Strategic Environmental Assessment is considered and undertaken if necessary. Since this proposal does not relate to any of the aforementioned, a Strategic Environmental Assessment is not necessary.

Single Outcome Agreement

4.3 The recommendation supports the objectives of the Single Outcome Agreement Topic 5 - Making Stirling a place with a high quality environment – Theme A: - Making services better.

Other Policy Implications

4.4 The works are proposed as part of the ‘Big Move’.

PP20120410Item06MuniBuilds.doc 58

Resource Implications

4.5 The proposal involves land and property belonging to the Council and will require resources in the form of finances and people to secure its implementation.

Consultations

4.6 No consultations were sent or requested.

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 Planning Application file 12/00038/FUL. File can be viewed online at:

http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/Results.asp?AppNumber=12/00038/FUL

6 APPENDICES

Author(s) Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail

Fiona Murphy Planning Officer 01786 442775, [email protected]

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Kevin Robertson Head of Economy, Planning and Regulation

Date 28 March, 2012 Service 12/00038/FUL Reference

PP20120410Item06MuniBuilds.doc 59

APPENDIX 1

Approve subject to the following conditions:

1 Period of Consent: This development must begin within 3 years.

2 Compliance with Details: All works shall be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

3 Windows: Full details of the design and materials of the proposed windows shall be submitted for the consideration and written approval of the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site.

4 Wheelchair Access: The applicant shall ensure that the bottom level of the wheelchair lift is accessible to wheelchairs from the street, including providing a level area for wheelchairs to be manoeuvred when entering and exiting the lift and upgrading the road crossing point.

Reasons:

1 To comply with the terms of Section 58 and 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2 To ensure that the overall development is undertaken in accordance with the approved drawings.

3 To safeguard the character and appearance of the listed building.

4 To ensure that suitable access arrangements for wheelchair users is provided.

PP20120410Item06MuniBuilds.doc 60 61

PP20120410Item06MuniBuilds.doc 62 63

THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 7 ON THE AGENDA

PLANNING PANEL ECONOMY, PLANNING & REGULATION

10 APRIL 2012 NOT EXEMPT

PROPOSED PLOT FOR ONE NEW DWELLING AT LAND 85 METRES NORTH OF SHIAN, BALFRON - MR & MRS G ADAMS - 12/00016/PPP

1 SUMMARY

1.1 The Application has been referred to the Planning Panel at the request of Councillor Graham Lambie. Councillor Lambie has visited the site and having looked at the remnants of the old water works installation, considers there are grounds to refer this Application to the Planning Panel under the definition of brownfield land as laid out under Section 6 of the H10a Housing in the Countryside Policy.

2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)

The Panel agrees:

2.1 To Refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal is contrary to the terms of Supplementary Planning Guidance, Policy H10a in that the site is not considered to meet the test of brownfield land. This is on the basis that the site is not occupied by redundant or unused buildings and notwithstanding the existence of tanks, chambers, screens, and pipes underneath it, the site has not been significantly visually degraded by any former activity.

3 CONSIDERATIONS

The Site

3.1 The site is agricultural land located approximately 1 kilometre to the north of Balfron and adjacent to the Shian Reservoir.

The Proposal

3.2 The Application is for Planning Permission in Principle for a new dwelling house.

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 64

Previous History

3.3 There is no history relevant to this Application.

Development Plan Policy

3.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance H10A for housing in the countryside, states that new houses in the countryside will be permitted in the circumstances (1-7 and sub-categories) in the Guidance provided that the relevant general planning criteria (8) set out are satisfied. In particular part 6 is relevant. Part 6 states:

3.5 Brownfield sites are broadly defined as sites that have previously been developed. In rural areas this usually means sites that are occupied by redundant or unused buildings or where the land has been significantly degraded by a former activity.

3.6 The proposed houses should be of a number, scale and design appropriate to the landscape setting, and to the services and infrastructure available at the location.

Assessment

3.7 The Application is for Planning Permission in Principle for one new dwelling. The Application, when submitted included the Shian Reservoir along with the hard standing surface area and fencing. The Application site boundary was amended and this area was omitted. The site covers greenfield land, a watercourse and boggy ground/wetland grasses. Below the boggy ground and wetland grasses are underground tanks, chambers, screens, and pipes. The boggy area has formed due to the watercourse/burn that runs through it and subsidence due to the underground waterworks.

3.8 The Application is on the grounds that the site is brownfield as the boggy and subsided ground has been degraded by the former use and is not suitable for sheep grazing.

3.9 The Agent has indicated that the proposed house would be positioned on the greenfield land to the rear of the site and the underground tanks, chambers, screens, and pipes would be removed and the area restored – infilled and landscaped into domestic garden. The watercourse would have to be retained.

3.10 In the case of this Application, the Brownfield site test is whether the land has been significantly degraded by the former activity. The purpose of the ‘brownfield’ guidance is the enhancement of sites degraded by former use.

3.11 The large majority of the Application site is Greenfield. The relatively small area of boggy ground and wetland grasses within the field, has not visually degraded the site and as such is not Brownfield. The below ground tanks etc is a development underground and does not determine the use of the field above the ground.

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 65

3.12 Tall grasses and wet ground are not uncharacteristic of rural areas. The field has been used for sheep grazing and the Agent has confirmed this to be the case. The farmer could enclose the site boggy area in a fence for animal safety. The fact that animals could not graze in boggy ground in a rural area does not render this area as Brownfield as it is not a visual degradation. Also, it is not possible to build the proposed house on the area the Applicant considers as Brownfield as the Flood Officer would not support building on top of the line of the watercourse or diverting it. The proposal is to build the house on the Greenfield to the rear of the site and not over the relatively small area covered by boggy ground area which the Applicant considers is brownfield.

3.13 The consultation reply from Roads Development Control advises that visibility at the site’s access with the A875 is restricted to the north due to the road alignment and the roadside embankment on the east side of the A875. The recommended sightline for a junction of this nature is 2.5 metres x 160 metres. In order to achieve this requirement the embankment to the north of the access shall require to be reduced. The embankment at this location falls within the adopted road boundary, and as a result the Applicant will need to obtain permission from the Roads Service for the works required in reducing the verge height should the Application be approved.

3.14 Conclusion: The site is essentially a Greenfield site and has not been significantly degraded – the use of the site is agriculture and the Application fails to comply with the definition of Brownfield sites as set out in Part 6 of H10a Supplementary Planning Guidance.

3.15 The Applicant has requested that the letters and appeal document in the Appendix attached to the report are drawn to the attention of the Planning Panel. Reference is made to the Application for land adjacent to Kippen Station and tile works where the Planning Panel did not consider the site has been naturally regenerated, and the Appeal Decision for the Mink Farm at Kippen, where the Reporter decided that the remains of the Mink Farm are substantial and did not agree with the Council’s case that the site has naturally regenerated. The current Application at Shian, Balfron, is not being recommended for Refusal on the grounds of natural regeneration so the two cases set out in the Appendix are not comparable with this Application.

Representations

3.16 One letter of support has been received from an adjacent resident.

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 66

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications Delete as appropriate

Strategic/Service Plan No Existing Policy or Strategy No Risk No Resource Implications Financial No People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes

Equality Impact Assessment

Strategic Environmental Assessment

4.2 When a new plan, policy, or strategy is being submitted or an existing plan, policy or strategy is being reviewed it is a legal requirement that a Strategic Environmental Assessment is considered and undertaken if necessary. Since this proposal does not relate to any of the aforementioned, a Strategic Environmental Assessment is not necessary.

Single Outcome Agreement

4.3 The recommendation supports the objectives of the Single Outcome Agreement Topic 5 - Making Stirling a place with a high quality environment through protection of natural environment in a refusal of development in the countryside on a Greenfield site.

Other Policy Implications

4.4 Not applicable.

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 67

Resource Implications

4.5 No resource implications.

Consultations

4.6 Roads Development Control: The application site is located on the east side of the A875 approximately 0.8km north of the village of Balfron. Access to the site is proposed via an existing bellmouth access directly off the A875, which currently serves 3 properties (Beechfield, Shian and Cairnhall). A ‘Side Road Ahead' warning sign on each approach and reflective bollards at the junction highlights this access. Visibility at the sites access with the A875 is restricted to the north due to the road alignment and the roadside embankment on the east side of the A875. The recommended sightline for a junction of this nature is 2.5 metres by 160 metres.

No objection to the proposal submitted provided the following Condition is added to any consent granted.

Visibility: Visibility to the north of the access shall be improved to provide a visibility splay of 2.5 metres x 160 metres, measured from the centre of the access within which there shall be no obstruction to visibility above carriageway level. In order to achieve this requirement the embankment to the north of the access shall require to be reduced. The embankment at this location falls within the adopted road boundary, and as a result the Applicant will need to obtain permission from this Service for the works required in reducing the verge height.

4.7 Service Manager (Environmental Health): Restrict Construction Hours.

4.8 Balfron Community Council: Concerns were raised at the Applicant's assertion that this is a brownfield site. We feel that it would be for Stirling Council to make considered comments in regards to this. Provided the application falls within current planning legislation and policies of Stirling Council, in regards to development in a rural and countryside setting, the Community Council would have no objection in principle.

4.9 Flood Officer: No objection - would have concerns if planning to build on top of the line of the watercourse or start diverting it etc but if house is to be positioned away from the watercourse and it is significantly below the proposed level of the house then do not see any issues. Following the information provided on the historic and current use of the tanks, there is no objection or comment to make regarding their removal. As these tanks are no longer used for attenuation, there should be no associated increase in flood risk following their removal.

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 Planning Application file 12/00016/PPP. File can be viewed online at:

http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/Results.asp?AppNumber=12/00016/PPP

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 68

6 APPENDICES

6.1 Letter from Agent dated 19 March 2012 – Appendix 1

6.2 Letter from SAC Consulting, Farm & Rural Business Services, Stirling dated 16 March 2012 – Appendix 2

6.3 Letter from Calum Bannerman dated 24 February 2012 – Appendix 3

6.4 Letter from Scottish Water dated 6 March 2012 – Appendix 4

6.5 Appeal Decision Notice on Application 10/00359/PPP for new dwelling house at Land to East of Rochoill, Dasher Road, Kippen – Appendix 5

Author(s) Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail

Iain Jeffrey Senior Planning Officer 01786 442987, [email protected]

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Kevin Robertson Head of Economy, Planning and Regulation

Date 28 March, 2012 Service 12/00016/PPP Reference

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 69

APPENDIX 1

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 70

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 71

APPENDIX 2

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 72 73

APPENDIX 3

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 74 75

APPENDIX 4

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 76 77

APPENDIX 5

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 78

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 79

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 80

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 81

PP20120410Item07Balfron.doc 82 83

THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 8 ON THE AGENDA

PLANNING PANEL ECONOMY, PLANNING & REGULATION

10 APRIL 2012 NOT EXEMPT

DEMOLISH AND REMOVE THE FORMER SCHOOL HOUSE ADJACENT TO EAST PLEAN PRIMARY SCHOOL AND DEVELOP THE REMAINING GROUND TO IMPROVE THE CAR PARKING PROVISION, IMPROVE THE ACCESS FOR FIRE APPLIANCES AND TO INCREASE THE PLAYGROUND SPACE AT EAST PLEAN PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAIN STREET, PLEAN, FK7 8BX - ROBERTSON CONSTRUCTION - 12/00057/FUL

1 SUMMARY

1.1 This Application has been referred to the Planning Panel because it relates to land that has been acquired by the Council.

2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)

The Panel agrees:

2.1 To Approve Application 12/00057/FUL subject to the Conditions outlined in Appendix 1 to this report.

3 CONSIDERATIONS

The Site

3.1 The site adjoins East Plean Primary School and is located on the north west side of Main Street in Plean. It has been occupied by the school house for many years.

The Proposal

3.2 The proposal is to demolish the former school house and use the site as part of the school grounds to provide additional parking and playground areas.

Previous History

3.3 The school building was badly damaged by fire in 2010. It was connected to the former school house, which latterly had been owned and occupied as a private dwelling. The Council recently obtained planning permission to redevelop the school but at that time it did not own the school house. However, it has now acquired the property with a view to including the site as part of the new school development.

PP20120410Item08PleanPS.doc 84

Development Plan Policy

3.4 POL.E18 of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) 2007 states:-

The following basic principles should be reflected in new developments:

(a) Wherever appropriate the siting and layout of developments should reflect the traditional pattern and form of surrounding townscape;

(b) The road and footpath system should be designed to minimise visual disruption in the townscape and be integral to the overall design concept;

(c) The design of buildings including the use of materials should have regard to the essential traditional architectural and townscape character of the locality;

(d) Existing buildings of merit which contribute positively to the surrounding area should be retained and incorporated in new developments where possible and any extensions to existing buildings should be in keeping with the original.

Assessment

3.5 Whilst the former school house had a relationship with the original school, its removal in conjunction with the development of the new school will facilitate a more suitable solution to parking and access for the school, together with increased play facilities.

Objections

3.6 None

PP20120410Item08PleanPS.doc 85

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications Delete as appropriate

Equality Impact Assessment No Strategic Environmental Assessment No Single Outcome Agreement Yes Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) No Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) Yes Effect on Council’s green house gas emissions No Effect

Strategic/Service Plan No Existing Policy or Strategy No Risk No Resource Implications Financial Yes People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations No

Equality Impact Assessment

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Single Outcome Agreement

4.3 The proposal will contribute towards Strategic Topic 3: Making Stirling a place where lifelong learning is valued and encouraged.

Other Policy Implications

4.4 (a) Sustainability – the proposal is to enhance an important facility within the local community

PP20120410Item08PleanPS.doc 86

Resource Implications

4.5 The proposal involves land and property belonging to the Council and will require resources in the form of finances and people to secure its implementation.

Consultations

4.6 Roads Development Control: - there are no Roads Conditions to apply should permission be granted.

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 Planning Application file 12/00057/FUL. File can be viewed online at:

http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/Results.asp?AppNumber=12/00057/FUL

6 APPENDICES

Author(s) Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail

Fiona Murphy Planning Officer 01786 442775, [email protected]

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Kevin Robertson Head of Economy, Planning and Regulation

Date 28 March, 2012 Service 12/00057/FUL Reference

PP20120410Item08PleanPS.doc 87

APPENDIX 1

DEMOLISH AND REMOVE THE FORMER SCHOOL HOUSE ADJACENT TO EAST PLEAN PRIMARY AND DEVELOP THE REMAINING GROUND TO IMPROVE THE CAR PARKING PROVISION, IMPROVE THE ACCESS FOR FIRE APPLIANCES AND TO INCREASE THE PLAYGROUND SPACE AT EAST PLEAN PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAIN STREET, PLEAN, FK7 8BX - ROBERTSON CONSTRUCTION - 12/00057/FUL

Approve, subject to the following conditions:

1 Period of Consent: This development must begin within 3 years.

2 Compliance with Details: All works shall be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

3 Landscape - Hard Landscaping: No development shall take place until details of proposed means of boundary treatment, enclosures, screening, walls and fences, paving and hard surfacing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

4 Restriction on Construction Hours: No machinery shall be operated, no activity carried out and no deliveries received at or despatched from the site outwith the hours of 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, and 9.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays; unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reasons:

1 To comply with the terms of Section 58 and 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2 To ensure that the overall development is undertaken in accordance with the approved drawings.

3 To ensure that the scheme of landscaping for the proposed development is of a satisfactory standard relative to the functional requirements and visual amenity of the site and its setting in the locality as insufficient details of the proposed scheme of landscaping have been submitted with the application.

4 To protect the occupants of nearby housing from excessive noise/disturbance associated with the implementation of this permission.

PP20120410Item08PleanPS.doc 88 89

PP20120410Item08PleanPS.doc 90 91

THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 9 ON THE AGENDA

PLANNING PANEL ECONOMY, PLANNING & REGULATION

10 APRIL 2012 NOT EXEMPT

CHANGE OF USE FROM 3 BEDROOM FLAT TO 4 BEDROOM HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HMO) AT 3B MORRIS TERRACE, TOP OF THE TOWN, STIRLING, FK8 1BP - GRANT PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LTD - 12/00113/FUL

1 SUMMARY

1.1 This Application seeks full planning permission to change the use of a flat within the Stirling Town Conservation Area from a three bedroom flat to a four bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 3B Morris Terrace, The Top Of The Town, Stirling.

1.2 The Application is being recommended for Approval as it is considered to comply with Stirling Council’s Approved Development Plan Policies for Houses in Multiple Occupation and material consideration: Supplementary Planning Guidance For Housing In Multiple Occupation. The proposed change of use is considered to comply, as it is within the city centre, close to employment, social, transport and recreation facilities. Also this part of Stirling is not within a restricted area for House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) development and the proposal represents a single House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) within a block of four flats and this complies with the 25 percent ratio set out in the Supplementary Guidance. The proposal is also considered to comply with Stirling Council’s Approved Development Plan Policies for development within a Conservation Area, as it will be sympathetic to the existing character.

1.3 The Application has been referred to the Planning Panel at the request of Councillor Graham Reed who wishes to discuss the concentration of Houses In Multiple Occupation for this street.

2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)

The Panel agrees:

2.1 To Approve the Application subject to the Planning Conditions set out within Appendix 1 to this report.

PP20120410ItemMorrisTer.doc 92

3 CONSIDERATIONS

The Site

3.1 The flat is situated at the top of the town within the Stirling Town Conservation Area and is within a block of four flats. The flat is traditional in appearance with a close that runs up the middle of the properties. These flats are situated within a cul de sac where there is on-street parking available to permit holders and disabled people.

The Proposal

3.2 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the change of use of a three bedroom flat to a four-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The proposals involve altering the internal layout to form a fourth bedroom and these works involve moving the existing kitchen into the living room, forming a new bedroom in the existing kitchen. There are no external alterations to the property.

Previous History

3.3 None.

Development Plan Policy

3.4 Policy H2 (a) of the adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 seeks to achieve a mix of house types, sizes and tenures.

3.5 Policy H15 (a) of the adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 states that the Council will asses planning applications for houses in multiple occupation (HMO’s) on their individual merits and in accordance with the following criteria:

(a) Location: Normally within or close to a settlement, where employment, social, transport and recreation facilities are more readily available;

(b) Design to be suitable to the proposed site and location (if new build) and appropriate and sympathetic to the character of existing buildings (if an alteration or conversion);

(c) Proposals in existing residential areas should respect the general amenity of the surroundings by including measures for the maintenance of external spaces, boundary treatments and garden ground;

(d) Compliance with other Local Plan and Council Policies.

PP20120410ItemMorrisTer.doc 93

3.6 Material consideration Supplementary Planning Guidance for Housing in Multiple Occupancy, adopted 1 June 2011, states that: Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) have a role to play in helping to meet a particular housing need, however it recognises that concentrations of House in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) can, in some instances, lead to a range of cultural, social, physical and economic changes in a community and high concentrations can result in problems. Therefore the purpose of this Supplementary Planning Guidance is to Support HMO accommodation in appropriate locations, but also to prevent the creation or exacerbation of concentrations in particular areas in order to protect residential amenity. The Supplementary Planning Guidance sets out two concentration thresholds for the Stirling Area: one which applies in the area defined on the supporting map (15%), and another which applies in all other areas outwith (5%). The 15% threshold area is composed of a group of Census Output Areas loosely aligned with the city centre boundaries and those of the Mercat Cross and City Community Council Area, although it also takes in a portion of Riverside. Within these two concentration thresholds Planning Applications for the formation of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s), except those that are purpose built student accommodation, must comply with this Supplementary Planning Guidance. Planning applications will be supported where they:

3.7 Are in Census Output Areas where 5% or less of all properties are Houses in Multiple Occupation and where they would not result in the concentration increasing beyond 5%, except in the area shown on the map where the concentration threshold is 15% and

3.8 25% or less of the properties in the block of flats are Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) and where the proposal would not result in the number increasing beyond 25%. However, where 75% or more of the properties in the block are already in House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) use, the remaining properties will be permitted to change to House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) use.

3.9 All Applications must also demonstrate that suitable off-street waste and recycling storage space will be provided, and that the House in Multiple (HMO) will not create or exacerbate parking or road safety problems. They must also be accompanied by details of maintenance arrangements for any external spaces/garden ground associated with the House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).

Assessment

3.10 The main planning issues relating to the consideration of this Application are whether this proposal will accord with the criteria set out within the Policies quoted above: whether the proposal achieves a mix of house types, is within a town where transport, facilities and employment is available, the works can be carried out to respect the character of the building and will respect the amenity of the area. Also whether the proposal accords with the material consideration Supplementary Planning Guidance set out above including the ratios set out within this recent document, which is given significant weight for these proposals.

3.11 The proposal is considered to comply with the above Policies and material considerations for the following reasons

PP20120410ItemMorrisTer.doc 94

3.12 The proposed location is within the main City of Stirling and is close to employment, social, transport and recreation facilities. The proposal is considered to be appropriate and sympathetic to the character of the existing buildings and does not raise any concerns regarding the Conservation Area, as there are to be no significant external changes to the building.

3.13 Furthermore the application site within Morris Terrace, which forms a Census Output Area, is within the area where the fifteen percent threshold applies as defined above. This street can accommodate a number of Houses In Multiple Occupation, as it is neither an area of limited scope nor no scope for further Houses In Multiple Occupation. To date there have been two Approvals given for a House in Multiple Occupations at 5A and 12B Morris Terrace. There are forty residential properties within this street which forms a Census Output area, therefore purely in number terms the street can support the approval of six Houses In Multiple Occupation provided all other criteria are met. The approval given at 12B set the current percentage at two and half percent and the approval of this Application would take the percentage to seven and a half percent, which is well below the fifteen percent threshold. This establishes that in number terms the Application can be supported within this street. The other threshold set out within the Supplementary Guidance relates to the number of Houses In Multiple Occupation supported with a block of flats and the proposal is also considered to comply with this for the reasons set out below.

3.14 This proposal represents the first House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) within the block of four flats; therefore it complies with the 25 percent ratio of the Supplementary Planning Guidance set out above.

3.15 In conclusion the Application is considered to comply with the above Development Plan Policies and material considerations as the proposal represents a range of house types within a suitable location that complies with the development threshold set out within the Supplementary Planning Guidance and the Applicants have demonstrated that occupants will be required to respect the residential amenity of the area. A Planning Condition is being recommended to ensure that this proposal respects the general amenity of the surroundings by including measures for the maintenance of external spaces, boundary treatments and garden ground.

3.16 For these reasons the Application is recommended for Approval.

Objections

3.17 None.

PP20120410ItemMorrisTer.doc 95

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications Delete as appropriate

Strategic/Service Plan No Existing Policy or Strategy /No Risk No Resource Implications Financial No People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes

Equality Impact Assessment

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Single Outcome Agreement

4.3 The recommendation supports the objectives of the Single Outcome Agreement Topic 2 – Making Stirling a place with jobs and opportunities for all and Topic 6 – Making Stirling a place with a high quality environment

Other Policy Implications

4.4 None.

PP20120410ItemMorrisTer.doc 96

Resource Implications

4.5 None

Consultations

4.6 None

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 Planning Application file 12/00113/FUL. File can be viewed online at:

http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/Results.asp?AppNumber=12/00113/FUL

6 APPENDICES

6.1 Conditions and Reasons – Appendix 1.

Author(s) Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail

Peter McKechnie Planning Officer 01786 443143, [email protected]

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Kevin Robertson Head of Economy, Planning and Regulation

Date 28 March, 2012 Service 12/00113/FUL Reference

PP20120410ItemMorrisTer.doc 97

APPENDIX 1

CHANGE OF USE FROM 3 BEDROOM FLAT TO 4 BEDROOM HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HMO) AT 3B MORRIS TERRACE, TOP OF THE TOWN, STIRLING, FK8 1BP - GRANT PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LTD - 12/00113/FUL

Approve, subject to the following conditions:

1 Period of Consent: This development must begin within 3 years.

2 Compliance with Details: All works shall be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

3 Further Details: Prior to the commencement of work on site the following additional details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:-

a) Proposed new ventilation and flue arrangements.

b) Details of maintenance arrangements for any external spaces/garden ground associated with the HMO.

Following the approval of the above required additional details, these works shall be implemented concurrently with the remainder of the development and completed prior to the development being brought in to use (or other phasing agreed in writing with the Planning Authority) and thereafter retained, maintained, or reinstated, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reasons

1 To comply with the terms of Section 58 and 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2 The proposed development and its location is such that landscaping is necessary to enable it to fit in with its surroundings, enhance the locality and the quality of the development itself for those using it and those affected by it.

3 To ensure that adequate details are submitted covering these matters in the interests of ensuring that the development, when implemented, is of the highest quality.

PP20120410ItemMorrisTer.doc 98 99

PP20120410ItemMorrisTer.doc 100 101

THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 10(a) ON THE AGENDA

PLANNING PANEL ECONOMY, PLANNING & REGULATION

10 APRIL 2012 NOT EXEMPT

ALTERATION AND UPGRADE TO EXISTING HOTEL TO INCLUDE EXTERNAL DECKING FOR EATING AND DRINKING AT STIRLING ARMS HOTEL, STIRLING ROAD, DUNBLANE, FK15 9EP - MR MAURICE HERON - 11/00696/LBC

1 SUMMARY

1.1 The Application proposes the refurbishment of the Stirling Arms and addition of external decking for eating and drinking. The Application has been referred to Planning Panel at the request of Councillor Graham Houston, who would like the Panel to scrutinise the Application to ascertain if the proposal is an appropriate form of development in the Dunblane Conservation Area.

2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)

The Panel agrees:

2.1 To Refuse the Application for the following reasons:-

(a) The proposed external decking is contrary to Policy POL.E35 in the adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) in that it will not preserve or enhance the character of the Dunblane Conservation Area, due to its detrimental effect on this major landmark building; on the key views of the river from the Stirling Road Bridge and across Stirling Road Bridge towards the High Street and on the open green space that contributes to the picturesque riverside setting of the Conservation Area.

(b) The proposed external decking is contrary to Policy POL.E43 in the adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) in that it will erode the character of this Grade B Listed Building due to its inappropriate size and unsympathetic design and materials.

(c) The proposed external decking is contrary to Policy POL.E45 in the adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) in that a strong justification has not been submitted for this proposal, which will adversely affect the character and setting of the Grade B Listed Building.

PP20120410Item10ADunblane.doc 102

3 CONSIDERATIONS

The Site

3.1 The Stirling Arms Hotel is located in Stirling Road, immediately to the south of the Allan Water. The original building dates from 1770 and was extended in 1905. It has a basement, which has a side elevation at the level of the riverbank, and three main storeys and an attic. The listing description includes a reference to the presence of ‘a carved panel above blocked door in bar bearing obscured inscription, 2 coats-of-arms and the initials, IP and ID’. The building is currently vacant.

3.2 The building is a Grade B Listed Building, located beside the Stirling Road Bridge, which is a Grade C Listed Building and located within the Dunblane Conservation Area.

The Proposal

3.3 The proposal is to refurbish the ground floor and basement of the hotel, with a temporary wall being constructed at the first floor landing to prevent public access to the upper levels. The works at ground floor level comprise the infilling of two existing openings on the east elevation, the infilling of the opening from the front bar to the stairway and the addition of an accessible toilet. In addition, two windows on the west elevation are to be converted into doors to give access to a new external decking area, which has an area of 58.5 square metres. The external decking is approximately 12 metres long (plus stairs) with an amended depth of 4.5 metres. Previously the proposal incorporated a decking area of 59.2 square metres. It is a simple metal structure with ash decking and a glazed balustrade with metal top rail. The basement works involved provision of ladies and gents toilets, with the remainder of the area ‘reserved for future development’. The carved panel referred to in the Listed Building description will be retained in a cubicle in the Gents toilets.

Previous History

3.4 The only recent Applications were for the approval of painting and signage in 2003.

Development Plan Policy

3.5 The relevant Policies in the adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) are:-

3.6 POL.E35: In seeking to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas, the Council will require all new development within Conservation Areas to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. All new development, including re-development, should:

PP20120410Item10ADunblane.doc 103

(b) Retain existing natural and built features which contribute to the character of the Conservation Area.

3.7 POL.E43: The Council will encourage the preservation of Listed Buildings and will ensure that in relation to any works affecting Listed Buildings or their setting, special attention is paid to design, and the sympathetic choice of materials, in order that the building's character is not eroded.

3.8 POL.E45: Development which adversely affects the character or the setting of a Listed Building will not be permitted unless strong justification is produced in support of the application.

Assessment

3.9 The interior refurbishment of the ground floor and part of the basement of this hotel is to be welcomed, although it is disappointing that there are no proposals to bring the remainder of the building back into use at this stage. It is also disappointing that the Applicant has chosen not to make more of a feature of the carved panel in the basement. It should also be noted that, in commenting in support of the associated Planning Application, Dunblane Community Council requested that ‘All historic aspects of the building must be protected such as the Marriage Lintol in any internal alterations’.

3.10 However, there is a significant issue relating to the acceptability or otherwise of the addition of the large external decking area overlooking the river. The issues are firstly, whether the principle of adding a structure to the side of this Listed Building is acceptable, and secondly, whether the detailed design of the structure is acceptable.

3.11 The addition of a narrow, elegantly designed and well-detailed traditional balcony on the side of the Listed Building would be acceptable. Such a balcony should be no more than 2 metres from the face of the building and should be an appropriate addition that reads as part of the building itself (similar to that suggested in the pre-application sketches prepared by the architect). There is an existing garden area on the river bank that could be landscaped and planted to create an attractive outdoor eating and drinking space. This area, either on its own, or in combination with a much narrower and appropriately designed balcony above could provided an alternative solution that would relate well to the character of the building and Conservation Area. The proposed external decking however is substantially deeper than this and combined with the use of inappropriate materials and detailing would result in a large deck structure that would not relate well to the building, or the bridge and its setting, and would be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area.

PP20120410Item10ADunblane.doc 104

3.12 The draft Conservation Area character appraisal for Dunblane identifies the Stirling Arms Hotel as a major landmark building in this part of the Conservation Area. It also identifies two important key views: of the river from the Stirling Road Bridge; and the view across Stirling Road Bridge towards the High Street. The proposed external decking would be visible in both of these views and would be detrimental in its effect.

3.13 The Allan Water cuts through the town of Dunblane and for the majority of its path through the Conservation Area it provides open green spaces and walkways on its banks, retaining the picturesque riverside setting. From the bridge the banks of the river are open green spaces. A large, elevated, deck area as proposed would jar with this character.

3.14 As a result, the proposals are deemed to be contrary to Policies POL.E35, POL.E43 and POL.E45 of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) 2007.

Objections

3.15 None

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications Delete as appropriate

Equality Impact Assessment No Strategic Environmental Assessment No Single Outcome Agreement No Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) No Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) Yes Effect on Council’s green house gas emissions No Effect

Strategic/Service Plan No Existing Policy or Strategy No Risk No Resource Implications Financial No People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes

Equality Impact Assessment

PP20120410Item10ADunblane.doc 105

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Single Outcome Agreement

4.3 The recommendation does not apply to any of the objectives of the Single Outcome Agreement.

Other Policy Implications

4.4 Following consideration of the policy implications of this report, the only relevant issue is sustainability, as the proposals will bring part of a vacant Listed Building back into use.

Resource Implications

4.5 Following consideration of the resource implications of this report no relevant issues have been identified.

Consultations

4.6 Historic Scotland: Initial comments – An initial consultation response was received from Historic Scotland. This was prepared prior to their site visit. After the site visit, revised comments were received. The initial comments were as follows. We get the impression that the proposed balcony will have a fairly limited visual and physical impact on the hotel because its primary elevation is to the street. However, the river frontage is a distinctive part of the Conservation Area's character. And therefore this proposal should be given careful consideration.

As well as considering the character of the B-listed hotel, the Council should consider at a site visit whether the proposals will have implications in terms of preserving or enhancing the character of the Conservation Area which is the setting of the hotel.

If the Council is satisfied with the principle of siting a balcony in this location the materials should also be given careful consideration. A dark recessive colour would be appropriate for the metalwork. Although glass balustrading is favoured as being visually recessive the Council should consider whether reflections of the afternoon/evening sun hiting the riverbank opposite will be likely to give the balcony undue prominence.

PP20120410Item10ADunblane.doc 106

After visiting the site, The Historic Buildings Inspector has subsequently advised that his comments were based on initial design sketches for a balcony, seen at the pre-application stage, rather than the application drawings, and that goes on to say ‘Clearly, any structure that sticks out more than a couple of metres will (especially when viewed in this case from the bridge above) have a greater impact on the character of the building on account of its overall scale and the fact it inevitably obscures more of the lower level of the Listed Building beneath it’. He then advises that he agrees with the Council’s Conservation Officer that the wider design will have an adverse impact on the character of the Listed Building.

4.7 Planning & Policy: The comments of the Council’s Conservation Officer have been embodied in the main part of the report at Paragraphs 3.9 – 3.14.

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 Planning Application file 11/00696/LBC. File can be viewed online at

http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/Results.asp?AppNumber=11/00696/LBC

6 APPENDICES

6.1 None

Author(s) Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail

Fiona Murphy Planning Officer 01786 442775, [email protected]

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Kevin Robertson Head of Economy, Planning and Regulation

Date 28 March, 2012 Service 11/00696/LBC Reference

PP20120410Item10ADunblane.doc 107

PP20120410Item10ADunblane.doc 108 109

THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 10(b) ON THE AGENDA

PLANNING PANEL ECONOMY, PLANNING & REGULATION

10 APRIL 2012 NOT EXEMPT

ALTERATION AND UPGRADE TO EXISTING HOTEL TO INCLUDE EXTERNAL DECKING FOR EATING AND DRINKING AT STIRLING ARMS HOTEL, STIRLING ROAD, DUNBLANE, FK15 9EP - MR MAURICE HERON - 11/00670/FUL

1 SUMMARY

2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)

The Panel agrees:

2.1 To Refuse the Application for the following reasons:-

PP20120410Item10BDunblane.doc 110

3 CONSIDERATIONS

The Site

3.2 The building is a Grade B Listed Building, located beside the Stirling Road Bridge, which is a Grade C Listed Building and located within the Dunblane Conservation Area.

The Proposal

3.3 The proposal is to refurbish the ground floor and basement of the hotel, with a temporary wall being constructed at the first floor landing to prevent public access to the upper levels. At ground floor level, two windows on the west elevation are to be converted into doors to give access to a new external decking area, which has an area of 58.5 square metres. The external decking is approximately 12 metres long (plus stairs) with an amended depth of 4.5 metres. Previously the proposal incorporated a decking area of 59.2 square metres. It is a simple metal structure with ash decking and a glazed balustrade with metal top rail. The basement works involved provision of ladies and gents toilets, with the remainder of the area ‘reserved for future development’. The carved panel referred to in the Listed Building description will be retained in a cubicle in the Gents toilets.

Previous History

3.4 The only recent Applications were for the approval of painting and signage in 2003.

Development Plan Policy

3.5 The relevant Policies in the adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) are:-

PP20120410Item10BDunblane.doc 111

(b) Retain existing natural and built features which contribute to the character of the Conservation Area.

3.8 POL.E45: Development which adversely affects the character or the setting of a Listed Building will not be permitted unless strong justification is produced in support of the application.

Assessment

3.9 The refurbishment of the ground floor and part of the basement of this hotel is to be welcomed, although it is disappointing that there are no proposals to bring the remainder of the building back into use at this stage.

3.11 The addition of a narrow, elegantly designed and well-detailed traditional balcony on the side of the Listed Building would be acceptable. Such a balcony should be no more than 2 metres from the face of the building and should be an appropriate addition that reads as part of the building itself (similar to that suggested in the pre-application sketches prepared by the architect). There is an existing garden area on the river bank that could be landscaped and planted to create an attractive outdoor eating and drinking space. This area, either on its own, or in combination with a much narrower and appropriately designed balcony above could provided an alternative solution that would relate well to the character of the building and conservation area. The proposed external decking however is substantially deeper than this and combined with the use of inappropriate materials and detailing would result in a large deck structure that would not relate well to the building, or the bridge and its setting, and would be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area.

PP20120410Item10BDunblane.doc 112

3.14 As a result, the proposals are deemed to be contrary to Policies POL.E35, POL.E43 and POL.E45 of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) 2007.

Objections

3.15 None.

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications Delete as appropriate

Equality Impact Assessment No Strategic Environmental Assessment No Single Outcome Agreement No Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) No Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) Yes Effect on Council’s green house gas emissions No Effect

Strategic/Service Plan No Existing Policy or Strategy No Risk No Resource Implications Financial No People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes

Equality Impact Assessment

PP20120410Item10BDunblane.doc 113

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Single Outcome Agreement

4.3 The recommendation does not apply to any of the objectives of the Single Outcome Agreement.

Other Policy Implications

4.4 Following consideration of the policy implications of this report, the only relevant issue is sustainability, as the proposals will bring part of a vacant Listed Building back into use.

Resource Implications

4.5 Following consideration of the resource implications of this report no relevant issues have been identified.

Consultations

4.6 Service Manager (Environmental Health):

Environmental Health - No adverse comments on the above Application.

Food Section - No objections in principle but concerned about proposed size of kitchen with regard to separation for cross contamination prevention which I will raise with architect. Also there are not detailed drawings re ventilation which may be of interest to planning because if they have cooking range we will ask them for canopy and mechanical extract ventilation which will need to go to a flue/duct up the outside of the building.

4.7 Dunblane Community Council: The Community Council discussed the above application at a meeting. We strongly support the application and ask that the following points be taken into account:

(a) The area under the decking must be maintained in a clean condition.

(b) All historic aspects of the building must be protected such as the Marriage Lintol in any internal alterations.

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 Planning Application file 11/00670/FUL. File can be viewed online at:

http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/Results.asp?AppNumber=11/00670/FUL

PP20120410Item10BDunblane.doc 114

6 APPENDICES

6.1 None

Author(s) Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail

Fiona Murphy Planning Officer 01786 442775, [email protected]

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Kevin Robertson Head of Economy, Planning and Regulation

Date 28 March, 2012 Service 11/00670/FUL Reference

PP20120410Item10BDunblane.doc 115

PP20120410Item10BDunblane.doc 116