21 5

~~ ~ ~

ITo : Planning and Development Committee Subject : PROPOSED COMBINED CYCLE GAS TURBINE (CCGT) GENERATING From : Director of Planning and Development STATION, GARTCOSH Fleming House, 2 Tryst Road, Cumbernauld

Date : 7 August 1996 Ref : C/27

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this Report is to make recommendations regarding a response to the Secretary of State for Scotland on an application by Powergen plc for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct and operate a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) generating station fbelled by natural gas at Gartcosh.

Members will recall from the terms of the previous report of 5 June 1996, that permission was sought to extend the time period for carrying out the Council's statutory obligations in this process until 1 September 1996 to allow a submission to the Secretary of State for Scotland to be made. All matters now having been considered this report forms the basis of that submission.

THE PROPOSAL

1 Powergen plc, formed in 1989 as part of the privatisation of electricity within the UK is at present responsible for the generating of almost one quarter of electricity generated within England and Wales. Powergen is now seeking the permission of the Secretary of State for Scotland to construct and operate a combined cycle gas turbine power station under the procedures of Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

2 The proposal is for the construction of a CCGT power station of 700 MW in two phased developments of equal capacity on the site of the former Gartcosh Steel Works. While the applicant has intimated that construction may be simultaneous, the lack of a definitive commitment raises implications which are considered in detail within Appendix 12.

3 It is envisaged by the applicant that the plant will be cooled using water abstracted from the Monklands Canal using a pipeline yet to be installed. However, the abstraction process is subject to the agreement of British Waterways. Failure to obtain

1 216

adequate supplies of water from the Monkland Canal would lead to the adoption of dry cooling system with consequent changes to the design and appearance of the power station.

4 It is proposed that the fuel to serve the plant will be natural gas, transferred via an underground pipeline from the British Gas National Transmission System at Glenmavis, 3 km to the east of the application site. However, that aspect of the proposal does not form part of the current application.

5 Power will be transferred into the Scottish Power Transmission System which crosses the site. However, it should be noted that consent under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 may be required in respect of any new line works required to connect to that system.

6 Vehicular access to the site is to be taken from Lochend Road in Gartcosh utilising the existing private access which served the former Rolling Mill. The access road leads off the A725 Lochend Road and crosses the M73 motorway.

SITE DESCRIPTION

7 The former Gartcosh Steel Works site is located east of the settlement of Gartcosh. The site, which extends to 86 ha, is bound to the south by the Glasgow to Cumbernauld railway line and to the west by the M73 motorway. Open agricultural land delimitates the eastern and northern boundaries of the site although beyond this, to the north east is the small village of Marnoch. A landfill site, operated by Glasgow City Council is positioned south east of the site, beyond the railway line. (Appendix 1).

8 The site of the former Gartcosh Steel Works was first developed for industrial uses during the late 19th Century when the first Iron and Steel Works was constructed. The Steel Works developed and expanded during the 20th Century benefiting from major investment and redevelopment in the 1950's. New, larger Mill buildings were constructed, going into production in 196 I. Rationalisation of the steel industry in the UK saw the Works close in 1986, when British Steel transferred ownership of the site to the then Scottish Development Agency, now Scottish Enterprise.

9 The former Steel Works site is generally level, the last of the extensive Mill buildings which occupied much of the current application site having recently been demolished. It is proposed that the CCGT power station be located within the south eastern portion of the site. The physical extent of the proposed CCGT power station occupies approximately 18 hectares, or over one fifth, of the former steel works site. As the applicants propose cooling the plant with water abstracted from the Monklands Canal, 2 21 7

the entire Section 36 application area, including the pipeline corridor, extends to approximately 92 hectares.

PLANNING HISTORY

10 In 1988 a planning application was received by Strathkelvin District Council for the erection of a newsprint mill. The application which involved the use of existing buildings on the site was given conditional planning permission on 15 April 1988. Although an extension to the period for commencement until 15 April 1995 was granted, the permission was never implemented and has now expired. In 1994 an application was made by Elm Energy to construct a tyre burning plant on the site. The applicant requested that the application be determined within the statutory period. To accede to this request Strathkelvin District Council were unable to fulfil their obligations in terms of the accompanying Environmental Statement and as a consequence permission was rehsed.

11 Only one firm, Stirling Fibres, is presently located on the site, operating a waste recycling facility fiom the premises to the west of the proposed power station site. It is understood that the lease from Scottish Enterprise allows this operation to continue for a hrther 4 years.

THE APPLICATION AND CONSENTS PROCEDURE

12 Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 requires that a generating station with a capacity in excess of 50 MW shall not be constructed, expanded, or operated except in accordance with a Consent issued by the Secretary of State. As the current proposal is for a Station of 700 MW the development of the CCGT falls to be considered under the Act. Schedule 8 paragraph 7 of the Act provides that on granting the aforementioned consent, the Secretary of State may direct that planning permission for the development shall be deemed to be granted.

13 The application was submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 1 March 1996. As the site, at that time, fell within Strathkelvin District boundary, Strathkelvin District Council as planning authority was formally consulted on the application. Following the reorganisation of Local Government on 1 April 1996, the site and responsibility to respond to the consultation transferred to North Lanarkshire.

14 The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988 provide that the Secretary of State for Scotland shall not grant consent or approval in respect of an electricity application if it falls to be considered within inter alia, annex 1 (Schedule 1) 3 21 8

to the Regulations ie where the heat output of the station is equal or greater than 300 Mw unless account has been taken of environmental information submitted in respect of the proposed development.

15 As Powergen plc propose the construction of a station with a heat output of 700 MW, Regulation 35 requires that the application be accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The information to be provided within the Environmental Statement is specified within Schedule 3 to the 1988 Regulations which in themselves, implement the European Council Directive 85/337/EEC. This information is known as 'the specified information'. (Appendix 2). Paragraph 3 to this Schedule allows by way of explanation or amplification of any specified information, the submission of hrther information.

16 Official guidance on the formation and consideration of Environmental Statements is contained within Circular 13/1988. In particular paragraph 6 states - "Formal Environmental Assessment is essentially a technique for drawing together, in a systematic way, expert quantitative analysis and quantitative assessment of a projects environmental effects, and presenting the result in a way which enables the importance of the predicted effects, and the scope for modifjring or mitigating them to be properly evaluated by the relevant decision making body before a decision is given. Environmental Assessment techniques can help both Developers and Public Authorities identifjring the likely effects at an early stage, and thus to improve the quality of both project planning and decision making."

17 In accordance with the provisions of The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988, the application to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 1 March 1996 was accompanied by an Environmental Statement and Non Technical Summary and copies were submitted to Strathkelvin District Council. Several supporting documents were also received at that time and these are listed in Appendix 3. Whilst not technically forming part of the Environmental Statement, reports 4 and 5, referring to the likely impact of the proposal in terms of the Monkland Canal, were supplied by Powergen plc to Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Wildlife Trust.

18 In summary, the role of North Lanarkshire Council in the application process is as follows -

(a) To form a conclusion on the Environmental Statement, taking into account the views of consultees, and advise the Secretary of State accordingly.

(b) To collate and summarise for the Secretary of State the views of those parties who made representations on the application.

(c) To report to the Secretary of State on his consultation with the Council as planning authority on the Electricity Act application, covering such matters as local land use, economic development and environmental considerations. 4 21 9

19 To assist consideration of the proposal, a party of Council officials and elected members visited an operating Powergen CCGT plant at Killingholme on Humberside.

CONSULTATION PROCESS

20 The consultation process to be undertaken by a planning authority in respect of an electricity application to which regulation 35 applies is prescribed by Regulation 42 of the Environmental Assessment Regulations 1988. In this respect the planning authority are obliged to consult more bodies or persons mentioned in Schedule 4 to the Regulations (Appendix 4).

21 In the intervening period since the publication of the Schedule some adjustments have required to be made to the list of Consultees as a result of Local Government Reorganisation and the creation of both the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage.

22 Whilst the Electricity application (Section 36) was submitted to the Secretary of State on 1 March 1996 and concurrently to Strathkelvin District Council Planning Authority with responsibility for Gartcosh, the impending reorganisation of Local Government dictated that it would be prudent to allow the consultation process to be undertaken by the new authority.

23 Consistent with the requirements of Regulation 42 the bodies noted in Appendix 5 were consulted, each being supplied with a copy of the Environmental Statement. The responses to the consultation process are detailed within Appendix 6 and observation included in the following section.

OBSERVATIONS ON CONSULTATION RESPONSES

AdioininP Authorities

East Dunbartonshire Council

24 The Council has no major adverse comments to make relative to the proposal, other than to point out that there would be a limited visual impact in views from the southern part of East Dunbartonshire. It is anticipated that significant visual impact from the proposal will be limited to North Lanarkshire.

5 220

Citv of GlasPow Council

25 It should be noted that the Council's response is in draft form only. However the main concern relates to the design of the cooling water pump house which would be located within the City boundary. This is likely to comprise a small scale building which be screened successfully, and therefore does not raise any significant planning issue. City of Glasgow Council does not raise any concerns over the ecological impact of the pipeline corridor or the visual impact of the power station itself.

South Lanarkshire Council

26 The response addressed the wider socio-economic issues of the proposal perceived by the Council as affecting both that authority and in a national context. As discussed below, it is not within the locus of North Lanarkshire Council to address these concerns although the response of South Lanarkshire and other respondents would point to the need for a full investigation of such wider issues to be undertaken by the Secretary of State.

27 Comments regarding the use of an important strategic site by an 'intensive low employment use' are seen as critical of the use of a substantial part of the site with a generally low employment return.

28 South Lanarkshire Council recommends that a Public Local Inquiry be held. This is a view which is shared by many of those submitting representations and would provide a forum to explore all the complex issues raised by the proposals.

Other Adioining Councils

29 None of the other Councils consulted, Falkirk, Stirling, and West Lothian, provided any observations in respect of the Environmental Statement.

Scottish Natural Heritage

30 The views of Scottish Natural Heritage reflect concerns in respect of the possible detrimental impacts to the SSSI's of Bishops Loch and Woodend Loch and to the Monkland Canal. The role of the CCGT in terms of the objectives of sustainability is also questioned. SNH also comments on landscape and visual impacts and these are key environmental issues which will be considered fbrther below. Furthermore the organisation's views regarding the insufficiency of information to allow full and proper assessment of the proposals is shared by other respondents.

6 22 1

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency

31 SEPA indicates that the proposal would require to meet pollution control standards which is an operational requirement.

32 The comments of SEPA regarding sustainable development are considered to be pertinent both in a North Lanarkshire context and within a national and UK context. SEPA argues that the proposal cannot be said to comply with the definition contained within the UK strategy published by HMSO in 1994 and in the absence of any overriding need for the facility the matter of sustainability must be a significant factor in the Secretary of States determination of this application.

The Health and Safetv Executive

33 The Health and Safety Executive has not provided any detailed observations but has intimated that its views should be sought when more detailed information is available.

Central Scotland Countryside Trust

34 The observations of the Trust in relation to the inadequacy of the schematic on-site landscaping proposals are shared by many respondents. The Trust suggests investigation of off site planting to mitigate the visual impact of the station would be significantly more effective that the measures proposed. These observations are particularly significant in view of the strength of feeling expressed by other respondents regarding the impact on Drumpellier Country Park.

Kelvin Vallev Countrvside Pro-iect

35 The impact of potential ground disturbance within the pipeline corridor area is considered limited by the KVCP but this view is at variance with the views of Scottish Natural Heritage. The impacts on the ecology of the Canal is considered only superficially by the KVCP but the further investigation suggested has to some extent been undertaken. Implications for the coal industry in Scotland and the wider implications for development are properly the remit of the Secretary of State.

British Waterwavs

36 It is not possible to comment meaningfblly on the lack of agreement between Powergen and British Waterways in respect of abstraction and discharge of water from the Monkland Canal. Clearly there are a considerable number of issues outstanding which Powergen need to discuss with the organisation. The lack of agreement does however contribute to uncertainty regarding the eventual form of cooling to be employed which in turn has implications for the design and size of the plant. In the light of this response it is disappointing that the Environmental Statement provided 7 222

little detail regarding the implications should the favoured water cooling option not be achieved.

37 The statement by British Waterways regarding the absence in the Environmental Statement of details of flora and fauna is considered noteworthy in the light of the response by Scottish Natural Heritage regarding these issues. The issue regarding agreement with British Waterways should be clarified to avoid potentially abortive consideration of issues relating to the pipeline comdor and Canal.

REPRESENTATIONS

38 In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988, the proposal was advertised in the Glasgow Herald on 21 and 28 March 1996 and the Edinburgh Gazette on 29 March 1996. The applicant also undertook a series of public meetings in settlements within North Lanarkshire and Glasgow. As a result of the publicity a number of representations have been received both by the planning authority and directly to the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department. In compliance with Regulation 40 (4) of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988 copies of the terms all representations received by the Scottish Office have been passed to North Lanarkshire Council.

39 A total of some 2160 representations have been received in respect of the proposal. Of this number approximately 2070 comprise pro forma letters of two types, examples as shown in Appendices 7 and 8. The remaining 190 letters can be described as individual. Those letters which are effectively duplicates of those sent both to the planning authority and the Scottish Office have been included only once in these calculations. A list of the parties submitting pro forma letters to North Lanarkshire Council is shown in Appendix 9. The addresses of the parties who submitted a letter of the type shown in Appendix 8 to the Scottish Office have not been provided to the Council. The names and addresses of those who submitted individual letters of representation to the Scottish Office or direct to the Council are included in Appendix 10.

40 The terms of the representations received have been summarised in Appendix 1 1.

OBSERVATIONS ON REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

41 The representations received in respect of the proposal can generally be categorised as falling into two categories relating to socio-economic and environmental issues. The matters raised are of considerable complexity impinging not only within North 8 223

Lanarkshire but a national context. Furthermore the articulate nature of the correspondence and the level of interest generated clearly demonstrates a significant interest in the proposals.

42 In this respect it is clear from the terms of what has been described within Appendix 1 1 that a large proportion of the points address matters over which North Lanarkshire Council has no locus. It would be inappropriate for the Council to comment upon these matters other than to draw attention to the issues raised and request that full consideration be given to their terms.

43 It is considered that findmental issues of national concern include capacity within the electricity generating system in Scotland; the issue of competition; electricity price volatility; energy policy; the stability of the market place and the perceived impact of the plant on the coal industry, and the electricity generating industry. The final issue is also pertinent to the economies of a number of local authority areas throughout Scotland.

44 In terms of the remaining issues, observations are as follows -

Sustainability

Mindful of the responsibility of all for ensuring that developments meeting today's needs should not compromise the ability of fbture generations to meet their own needs, it would be reasonable to concur with the views expressed that gas as a finite resource should be husbanded and managed carehlly and not prematurely depleted. The terms of the response from SEPA (paras 6 - 8) regarding sustainable development address the issues raised. Additionally, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to give consideration to the objectives of NPPG 6 - Renewable Energy as reflected within the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 Review and the likely impact of the proposal in meeting these objectives.

Other Environmental Issues

The suggestion that the Environmental Statement has failed to address all issues raised in terms of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations or indeed specific issues is considered at length in the following section. However, it would be appropriate to comment at this stage on other specific issues raised by respondents -

* The concerns that the CCGT station will, in view of its anticipated height and massing, dominate most viewpoints in and around Gartcosh, Marnoch (Glenboig) and Townhead are considered understandable, particularly given the somewhat restricted on-site landscaping proposed in mitigation. Similarly the potential impact of the station on the general amenity of the Drumpellier

9 224

Country Park area, has led to respondents proposing that enhanced mitigation measures off site would be appropriate.

It has also been suggested the potential impact of the station has been somewhat inaccurately assessed against the impact of the former industrial landscape including the buildings now demolished which formerly occupied the Gartcosh site. The assessment included existing pylons and overhead lines which it has been claimed could be removed. Assessment of the impact of the project within this context is rather artificial, particularly as the site has been largely cleared already.

The claim that the impact of the station will affect the quality of life of many residents is to a large extent a matter of subjectivity. Prior to a decision being taken on whether the development should proceed the utmost consideration should be given to the question of how far the impact can minimised in an attempt to meet those concerns.

The impact of any proposed development on property values is not considered to be a material planning consideration.

Noise levels during the construction and operation of the plant would be strictly controlled by North Lanarkshire Council in accordance with the appropriate British Standard which in this instance is considered to be BS 4142. This may involve the provision of acoustic bunds or screens. Provision would require to be made for the protection of horses at Kingshill Cottages No 3 if necessary.

Representations in favour of the plant refer to the likely spin off jobs which would result, the investment in local businesses and the future of the site in the absence of the project. Whilst these are all pertinent issues, North Lanarkshire Council must consider the future use of the site with a view to securing its most appropriate use. Whilst not setting aside the promise of 35 full time jobs and the increased spending which will result in conjunction with the construction jobs, the site is considered to be one of strategic significance not only within North Lanarkshire but within Scotland. The most appropriate form of development for the site must be carefully considered, and in view of the number of steps required to realise the potential of the site it would be highly inappropriate to look at development on an ad-hoc basis.

It is only now, realistically, that the constraints to development can be removed and as such the longer term future of the site has to be carefully considered. On this basis the needs of businesses which require a site of the size of Gartcosh must be properly assessed.

Site Development

* The views expressed within the terms of pro forma letters submitted to the Secretary of State expressing disappointment at the proposed use of the site in 10 225

terms of both the type of development and the number of jobs created is one which, given the potential of the site, require careful consideration.

* The redevelopment of the entire site has, since the closure of the Steel Works, been encouraged by Strathkelvin District, Monklands District and Strathclyde Regional Councils, in terms of planning policy and marketed by Scottish Enterprise and Locate in Scotland. Of the two potential users of the site, one for a newsprint mill utilising the (now) former buildings failed to come to fruition, whilst the other for a tyre burning plant never obtained planning permission.

ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

45 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application has been assessed in conjunction with the Institute of Environmental Assessment (EA) which provided a qualitative assessment of the Statement. This has, in conjunction with responses of consultees, allowed a quantitative assessment of likely impact of the proposal. The assessment of the Environmental Statement is detailed in Appendix 12. In summary the conclusions are as follows -

* The practice of the EAis to grade Environmental Statements received against a set of criteria. On this measure the report is graded D, that is " Parts well attempted, but must as a whole be considered just unsatisfactory." This is despite the fact that Powergen submitted two supplementary reports to the Environmental Statement on 20 May 1996, in response to initial concerns expressed by a number of consultees.

* Drawing from the above assessment, and the responses of consultees, the fact that the project is to be a design and build scheme following a tender process (a 'turnkey' project) is a major stumbling block to determining impacts at this stage.

* Visual impact - This is likely to be significant although find design will depend on the outcome of the tender process. The impact cannot therefore by properly assessed and likewise the adequacy of mitigation cannot be assessed. However, off-site mitigation is likely to be necessary in addition to the on site mitigation proposed, which is in itself only schematic at this stage.

* Construction phase - The possibility of constructing the station in two phases has implications in terms of noise, disturbance and the validity of the traffic impact assessment which are not addressed in the Environmental Statement. Details are not provided of how existing waste materials on the site will be dealt with during construction.

* Hydrology/ecology - There is incomplete information in the Environmental Statement regarding the effect on the ecology of the Monkland Canal of 11 226

abstracting and discharging water for cooling purposes. There are no detailed proposals to mitigate the impact of the pipeline on drainage channels which feed Woodend Loch and Bishops Loch SSSI's.

* Traffic - The major traffic impacts arise during the construction phase. The traffic impact assessment assumes completion of the development in one phase and indicates that traffic can be accommodated on the road network, subject to minor local improvements at the site entrance. However, the consequences for two stage construction are not addressed and this is a significant omission due to potential increases in existing levels of traffic in the area.

* Noise Pollution - On the basis of information in the Environmental Assessment, unacceptable levels of noise may be exceeded. Although noise levels should be controllable, the Environmental Statement is not definitive on this point.

* Atmospheric Pollution - Although some detailed measurements are absent from the Environmental Statement, SEPA has no objections regarding levels of discharge to the atmosphere.

* Sustainability - The Environmental Statement specifies the advantages of a CCGT station over other forms of generation but does not make a full comparison and, as a consequence, the issue of sustainability cannot be said to have been assessed.

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

DeveloDment Plan Policies and Proposals

46 Statutory strategic guidance for the proposal is contained within the consolidated Strathclyde Structure Plan as approved in 1992. Detailed planning guidance is contained within Strathkelvin (Southern Area) Local Plan adopted in 1983, the Monklands District Council Local Plan adopted in 1981, and the Monklands District Local Plan adopted in 1991. whllst part of the pipeline corridor falls within the City of Glasgow boundary, there is no adopted local plan for the affected area, however the Glasgow Greater Easterhouse Local Plan Draft Written Statement of 1992 is in the absence of an adopted plan, a significant material consideration. Whilst not adopted, the Strathclyde Structure Plan Review 1995 (submitted to the Secretary of State) and the Strathkelvin District Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 1995 also represent material considerations in the assessment of the proposal. The development plan policies and proposals relevant to the application are detailed in Appendix 13. Assessment of the development plan and other material considerations is dealt with by topic area in the following section.

12 227

Policv and Landscape Consideration

47 The development plan in respect of the Gartcosh site is provided by the consolidated Strathclyde Structure Plan and the Strathkelvin District (Southern Area) Local Plan. To some extent because of previous boundary changes the Monklands Local Plan of 1981 also forms part of the development plan for the area, albeit, applicable only to a portion of the site.

48 Strategic guidance in respect of the Gartcosh site is given effect through Recommendation R 54 of the Strathclyde Structure Plan which seeks through the offices of Scottish Development Agency (now Scottish Enterprise), Locate in Scotland and local authorities the enhancement of the site, described as a 'Strategic Industrial Location'. This recommendation seeks to support environmental improvement and renewal action to allow the creation of high amenity estates which includes sites for significant users. The Recommendation covers four locations in the former Strathclyde Region, including Gartcosh. The terms of this recommendation are reiterated as Recommendation R 14 within the Strathclyde Structure Plan Review 1995, and Gartcosh remains as one of four identified locations. Gartcosh is considered

to have l'...... a number of unique assets which could be the basis of development."

49 The Strathkelvin District (Southern Area) Local Plan adopted in 1983 reflects policies formulated prior to the closure of the Steel Works within the site. Policy IND 4 in acknowledging the potential closure of the Gartcosh Steel Works, seeks the co-operation of bodies such as British Steel to make land and premises available for new industry. Policy EPRO 6 of the local plan does not envisage major change within the Gartcosh site. Any hrther development proposals submitted are to be considered on merit and in terms of local planning criteria.

50 The policies within the Monklands District Local Plan of 1981, under which a part of the site falls to be considered again reflect their time of formulation. The policies identifL the area as a site of predominantly industrial character within which there is a presumption in favour of a continuation of industrial use. The sub-division of vacant factories is supported.

51 Outwith the physical construction and setting down area the proposals for the pipeline and its path to be considered within the terms of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991, and the Greater Easterhouse Finalised Draft Local Plan. With respect to the former document the line of the pipeline corridor falls within the designated greenbelt. In addition the applicable policies including NAT 1 and NAT 2 afford protection to SSSI's including Woodend Loch and 'key' conservation sites respectively. Policy NAT 5 contains a presumption in favour of indigenous species. Policies LR 8 and LR 9/7 are more general seeming the enhancement of the Monkland Canal and the Drumpellier Country Park respectively. Policy CU 115 designates a safety restraint area adjacent to the proposed area identified for water abstraction. 13 228

52 The Strathkelvin District Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 1995 recognises the potential of the Gartcosh site for industrial development and also recognises the constraints in achieving this. Policies E1 1 and T 2 reflect the need for the reclamation of derelict land and improved accessibility for the site respectively. Policy DC 11 encourages the establishment of a bio mass energy project (energy crops and waste combustion).

53 Policy EP 10 highlights the importance of nature conservation in considering development proposals. Notes 1 and 5 make reference to studies undertaken by the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Kelvin Valley Trust respectively. In this latter respect the policy indicates a presumption against proposals which would adversely affect a SINC of district importance.

Constraints to the Development

54 It is clear that in policy terms the development plan is, subject to certain conditions, supportive of the industrial development of the Gartcosh site and has since prior to the closure of the Steel Works in 1986 recognised the potential of the site as a strategic industrial location. In physical terms the site's extensive landholding of 86 hectares would, if constraints to development were removed, undoubtedly meet the criteria of a strategic industrial opportunity as defined in the Strathclyde Structure Plan Review 1995. There are however two significant constraints which require to be overcome before the site can be regarded as effective. Firstly, and as recognised within the Strathkelvin District Local Plan (Finalised Draft), is the issue of the current level of dereliction and contamination on the site and the need for remedial measures to tackle this, bearing in mind that environmental improvement leading to the reuse of land and premises is supported by NPPG 2.

55 The second constraint is the absence of direct access to/fiom the M73, to the east of which the site lies. Consistent with Structure Plan Recommendation R 56, Dunbartonshire Enterprise, initiated a feasibility study into the possibility of constructing a motorway interchange and consideration was given to the possibility of a Compulsory Purchase Order to secure the land available for construction. Concurrent with the reorganisation of Local Government those parts of the former Strathkelvin District which became North Lanarkshire, the Lanarkshire Development Agency became the local enterprise company responsible for the site. It is understood that Scottish Enterprise and Lanarkshire Development Agency are conducting a review of policy with regard to the Gartcosh site but this has not been concluded to date.

56 Whilst the Traffic Impact Assessment Statement by the applicants Powergen has confirmed that their occupation of the site would not require the provision of a motorway interchange, the additional traffic generated by the proposal will inevitably impact both on the existing private access, its junction with Lochend Road and the public road network. It is conceivable therefore that the resultant diminuation of available capacity on the above roads and junctions, may require that all fiture developments are dependent upon the provision of an interchange. In the absence of 14 229

available public finance to construct such an interchange the infrastructure costs could be expected to be borne by fbture developers, thus significantly reducing the attractiveness of the site. This would clearly be most undesirable in terms of the inward investment value of and marketability of the site, recognised as possessing 'unique assets'. In this respect it should be noted that Powergen plc have informally offered to contribute fbnding towards the provision of an interchange. The level of fbnding has not been quantified.

Impact of the Proposal on Site Development

57 It is clear that given the terms of representations received in respect of the proposal, the erection of the CCGT is anticipated to both physically and visually reduce the attractiveness of the site. The proposed plant is perceived, rightly or wrongly, by many of those submitting representations to be of a singularly fbnctional appearance and is associated with hazardous processes. Whilst the Environmental Statement fails to provide an assessment of the visual impact of the station on the remainder of the Gartcosh site, Powergen have highlighted the potential for an energy park suggesting that the plant would in fact act as a catalyst for fbrther development. However it is notable that no evidence to substantiate such claims has been submitted. CIearly in such a competitive climate where companies choosing to locate will consider the most attractive sites avaiIable throughout a wide area the presence of a user such as a CCGT is in fact likely to discourage other developers. The presence of the plant would, in view of its appearance, also restrict the standard of physical environment which could be created, irrespective of the mitigation measures adopted.

58 It could therefore be argued that the proposals by Powergen could in land use terms within the North Lanarkshire area represent a development prejudicial to the attractiveness and redevelopment of the remainder of the site. This aspect of the proposal is of particular concern in light of a recent approach of the Scottish Office to all local authorities requesting details of single user industrial sites of up to 30 Ha and sites of major importance defined as extending to 30 Ha and above. This approach has been precipitated by the development by Chungwah Picture Tubes at Newhouse, near Motherwell. Within a North Lanarkshire context therefore Gartcosh provides one of only two industrial sites falling within this latter category, whilst also providing a valuable addition to the former. It is considered that with access to the motorway, this site would be a natural successor to the "enterprise zone" which has some 5 - 6 years of such status remaining.

59 It is clear therefore that the unique assets which the site possesses, as recognised within the Strathclyde Structure Plan Review 1995 will, when the potential is fblly realised, allow Gartcosh to become a valuable Strategic Industrial Location both within a North Lanarkshire and a national context. Whilst the constraints to the realisation of this potential have been recognised, it would be inappropriate not to consider any proposal for development against this potential and indeed on the long term fbture value and role of the site as a Strategic Industrial Location. In this respect the proposal would physically remove some 18 ha of the wider site, which is as referred to 15 230

above not easily replaced elsewhere. The proposals, whilst not specifically requiring a motorway interchange, would do nothing beneficial to achieve the provision of one, whilst also reducing available capacity within the local road network. Furthermore the proposal appears to have no specific locational requirement to be sited within Gartcosh and on no other alternative location.

60 All in all, the proposal must be considered an inappropriate and prejudicial user for the Gartcosh site, significantly diminishing the attractiveness of the site for firther inward investment, compromising the realisation of the potential of the site, whilst providing little in the way of economic benefit to North Lanarkshire. The proposal would therefore under-utilise the unique benefits which the site is acknowledged to possess, the importance of which has been heightened by the recent development of a large part of the Newhouse site by Chungwah Picture Tubes and other investors.

Ecological and Environmental Consideration

61 There is considered to be insufficient information available within the ES to conclude that the impact of the proposals in terms of the environmental protection policies in the development plan, covering areas adjacent to the construction site and within the section of the pipeline corridor in North Lanarkshire, will not result in any adverse impacts. Whilst mitigation measures have been proposed, insufficient research has been provided to assess the overall impact. It is noteworthy that Scottish Natural Heritage have maintained their opposition to the proposals. Similarly, the impact on the ecology and attractiveness of the Monkland Canal cannot, in terms of available information, be adequately assessed. In particular the absence of an ecological report is considered a significant omission.

The Wider Context: Sustainability and Need

62 Sustainability - North Lanarkshire Council has a responsibility to ensure that developments within its area generally fall within the objectives of sustainable development, defined within the 1990 Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" as "living on the Earth's income rather than eroding its capital". In effect, sustainable development, which forms an integral part of the Government's domestic and international policies requires that we should not consume more of the earth's resources than can be readily replaced; that we should not destroy the earth's resources wantonly and that we should ensure that we pass the earth on to fbture generations with its 'Environmental Capital' undiminished by our activities.

63 The above definition of sustainable development was fbrther developed in 'I Sustainable development : the UK Strategy" HMSO 1994 where it was defined as a relative concept - "promoting economic development in such a way as to protect and enhance our environment, now and for hture generations". Sustainability is therefore seen by the government as an attempt to reconcile economic and environmental

16 23 1

objectives, although the emphasis on not compromising the ability of hture generations to meet their own needs at the expense of satisfylng todays needs is clear.

64 One role of an Environmental Statement is to identify potential damage, ensure that any damage is managed and that high standards of development control are met. In this instance the ES fails to address the impacts of the proposal in the context of sustainability of a valuable and finite resource. This is of particular concern in view of representations suggesting that existing gas reserves will within the UK continental shelf be exhausted within a period of 30 years.

65 Scotland, whilst potentially rich in resources of renewable energy, produces only 1% of the UK's power generation by wave, hydro and geothermal heat sources. Whilst both the Strathkelvin District Local Plan (Finalised Draft) and the Structure Plan 1995 Review (Chapter 19) aim to provide a sustainable planning framework, taking account of the terms of NPPG 6 Renewable Energy, the proposal now under consideration would be contrary to those objectives. It would lead inevitably to the consumption of a non-renewable energy resource, in terms of a process that is comparatively inefficient. The proposed CCGT station is only 50 - 54 % efficient whilst gas used at point of use in for example a domestic scale is 97% efficient.

66 If approved the proposal is also, in view of the overcapacity within the electricity generating sector, likely to frustrate aims to increase the amount of electricity being provided by renewable sources, currently being supported through the fossil fuel levy.

67 Need - whilst it is accepted that in normal circumstances there is no requirement on an applicant to demonstrate a need for a proposed development, in this instance, if the detrimental effects of the proposal, particularly in terms of the alleged impact on the coal industry and on electricity generation are accurate, the applicant in this instance should be required to demonstrate an overriding need for the development.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Environmental Statement

68 Drawing from the views of the Institute of Environmental Assessment and consultees, the conclusions on the Environmental Statement are as follows -

- The Environmental Assessment is graded by the Institute of Environmental Assessments as Grade D, that is "Parts well attempted, but must as a whole be considered just unsatisfactory".

17 232

- The fact that the project is to be a design and build, or 'turnkey' scheme is a major stumbling block to determining impacts.

- Visual and environmental impact is likely to be significant and appropriate level of mitigation difficult to assess. It cannot therefore be concluded that the mitigation measures proposed would successfilly address the significant impact of the proposal.

- The implications of constructing the station in two phases are not addressed.

- The impacts on hydrology/ecology are difficult to assess on the information available.

- Traffic impacts can be accommodated if the development is carried out in one phase.

- There is likely to be no significant impact in terms of atmospheric or noise pollution.

- The issue of sustainability has not been addressed.

Representations

69 - There has been a substantial level of representations from the power industry, trade unions, politicians and members of the public.

- Many of issues raised relate to national energy policy in which the Council has no locus.

- Several respondents ask for an Inquiry and this would appear to be the appropriate means of resolving the national views raised.

- Other representations cover issues raised by consultees on the Environmental Statement, such as visual impact and the effect of the proposal on the development of the Gartcosh site.

70 Land Use and Associated Considerations

The development plan has long been supportive of industrial development within the Gartcosh site, recognised as possessing unique qualities to form the basis of development if acknowledged constraints can be overcome. The importance of the site as a Strategic Industrial Location has been reinforced by the recent successfil take up of sites at Newhouse. Industrial development of the site, whilst a clearly stated objective, must be assessed against the likely environmental consequences and its impact on the balance of the site. In particular no proposal should compromise the long term realisation of development and attraction of inward investment within the remainder of the site. 18 233

Having comprehensively assessed the proposal under consideration it is impossible not to conclude that the development of a CCGT as proposed would compromise the hture development prospects within the site, significantly diminishing the physical and thereby the economic attractiveness of the site for inward investment. Clearly this would have implications for the promotion of economic development strategies within North Lanarkshire Council.

In view of the strategic significance of the Gartcosh site, both within a North Lanarkshire and national context, it is considered both responsible and appropriate to consider against the proposals shortcomings whether any benefits would accrue from development and if a specific locational need has been established. It is considered that the economic benefits which would result would also accrue on sites elsewhere and that the applicant has within the submission failed to provide convincing reasons why the CCGT should be located within the Gartcosh site and no other. Clearly, where the site has an intrinsic, long term value in economic development terms because of its unique assets, this is considered a material shortcoming of the proposal.

Furthermore the proposal as submitted fails to satisfactorily address the fundamental issues of sustainability within the wider environment and the adverse impacts on the local environment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

71 It is recommended that -

(1) The attention of the Secretary of State be drawn to the conclusions on the shortcomings of the Environmental Assessment.

(2) The attention of the Secretary of State be drawn to the terms of the representations received, and particularly those issues of national concern which would appear to warrant an Inquiry.

(3) As planning authority, North Lanarkshire Council objects to the proposal for the undernoted reasons -

(i) The proposed development is, in view of its physical appearance and the resultant visual impact in conjunction with the process undertaken, considered to be inappropriate and potentially damaging to the long term marketability of the balance of the Gartcosh site. The proposal would therefore compromise efforts of North Lanarkshire Council in conjunction with other bodies to hlly realise the potential of the site as a strategic industrial location.

(ii) The proposal has not been shown to be consistent with the aims of sustainability within either a local or national context, any economic

19 234

benefits being significantly outweighed by the detrimental environmental impacts of the proposal.

(iii) Insufficient information has been provided to allow the conclusion to be reached that the proposal can be implemented without significant and unacceptable damage to the local environment, including two sites of Special Scientific Interest, local water courses and the Monkland Canal.

(4) A copy of this report and Appendices is fonvarded to the Secretary of State by 1 September 1996 in hlfilment of the Council's role in the determination of the application.

Stanley C Cook Director of Planning and Development

(Contacts for firther information : M Thomson, C Lindsay - 0 123 6 722 13 1 Exts 2408/29 14)

20 23 5

List of Armendices

1 Site Plan

2 Extract from Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988 specifjling information to be provided within an Environmental Statement.

3 Schedule of supporting documents submitted with Environmental Statement.

4 List of bodies to be consulted as prescribed by Regulation 42 of Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988.

5 Augmented list of bodies consulted.

6 Summary of responses to consultation.

7 Example of pro-forma letter of representation sent to North Lanarkshire Council.

8 Example of pro-forma letter of representation sent to Scottish Office.

9 List of parties who submitted pro-forma letter to North Lanarkshire Council.

10 List of parties who submitted individual letters to Scottish Office and North Lanarkshire Council.

11 Summary of representations received.

12 Assessment of Environmental Statement.

13 Development Plan policies.

21 R.rre4us.d frm Old-. Survey .!th th. APPENDIX 1 Scale :. pmm~~tanof the Controller of KUSO. PMRGDJ. GARTCOSH. &on, Coqrapht RDsorv*d N.T.S Ltcente wear : WDIl L

North Lanarkshire Council Bron Way. Cmbarnould G67 1DZ

TII.~IW~Dmus misi FOX oia7- 237

APPENDIX 2

EXTRACT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SCOTLAND) 1988 SPECIFYING INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN AN ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

SCHEDULE 3

Regulations 2, 22,43, 54 and 68

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS

1 An environmental statement comprises a document or series of documents prepared by the applicant providing, for the purpose of taking into consideration environmental information in respect of a proposed development, the information specified in paragraph 2 (referred to in this Schedule as "the specified information").

2 The specified information is -

(a) a description of the proposed development, comprising information about the site and the design and size or scale of the proposed development;

(b) the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which that development is likely to have on the environment;

(c) a description of the likely significant effects, direct and indirect, on the environment of the proposed development, explained by reference to its possible impact on -

A human beings; B flora; C fauna; D soil; E water; F air; G climate; H the landscape; I the inter-action between any of the foregoing; J material assets; K the cultural heritage;

(d) where significant adverse effects are identified with respect to any of the foregoing, a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce or remedy those effects; and 238

(e) a summary in non-technical language of the information specified above.

3 An environmental statement may include, by way of explanation or amplification of any specified information, fkrther information on any of the following matters -

the physical characteristics of the proposed development, and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;

the main characteristics of any production processes proposed, including the nature and quality of the materials to be used;

the estimated type and quantity of expected residues and emissions (including pollutants of water, air or soil, noise, vibration, light, heat and radiation resulting from the proposed development when in operation;

(in outline) the main alternatives if any studied by the applicant, appellant or authority and an indication of the main reasons for their choice, taking into account the environmental effects;

the likely significant direct and indirect effects on the environment of the proposed development which may result from -

(i) the use of natural resources; (ii) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances, and the elimination of waste;

the forecasting methods used to assess any effects on the environment about which information is given under sub-paragraph (e); and

any difficulties, such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how, encountered in compiling any specified information.

In paragraph (e) "effects1' includes secondary, cumulative short, medium and long-term, permanent, temporary, positive and negative effects.

4 Where hrther information is included in an environmental statement pursuant to paragraph 3, a non-technical summary of that information shall also be provided. 239

APPENDM 3

SCHEDULE OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED WITH ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

1 Gartcosh CCGT Facility Environmental Assessment - Chapter 9 Landscape and Architecture - Table of Views.

2 Gartcosh CCGT Facility Environmental Assessment - Chapter 9 Landscape and Architecture - Photographic Viewpoints.

3 Gartcosh CCGT - Traffic Impact Assessment

The undernoted documents were also received from the applicants on the dates indicated -

4 Gartcosh Power Station - An assessment' of the cooling water system purge cooling for the proposed CCGT power station at Gartcosh - Power Technology 20 May 1996.

5 Gartcosh Power Station - Aquatic Ecology Environmental Assessment Final Report - Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull 20 May 1996.

6 Gartcosh Power Station - Assessment of Employment Benefits - PIEDA May 1996.

7 Gartcosh Development - A Report Concerning the Potential Re-development

8 Capacity of the Gartcosh Site - EPCAD April 1996. 240

APPENDIX 4

LIST OF BODIES TO BE CONSULTED AS PRESCRIBED BY REGULATION 42 OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1988

SCHEDULE 4

Regulations 7, 8, 14, 15, 18, 23 to 27, 37, 42, 44, 50, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61 and66

BODIES TO BE CONSULTED

1 Any adjoining planning authority where the proposed development is likely to affect land in their area.

2 The district planning authority where the application falls to be determined by the regional planning authority.

3 The Countryside Commission.

4 The Health and Safety Executive.

5 The Nature Conservancy Council.

6 The regional planning authority, where the application falls to be determined by the district planning authority.

7 The River Purification Authority for the area in which the proposed development is situated.

8 The Secretary of State.

9 For the purposes of Part IV of these Regulations, the planning authority. 24 1

APPENDIX 5

AUGMENTED LIST OF BODIES CONSULTED

Adjoining Planning Authorities Date of Consultation

South Lanarkshire Council 29 April 1996 Glasgow City Council 29 April 1996 East Dunbartonshire Council 29 April 1996 Stirling Council 29 April 1996 Falkirk Council 29 April 1996 West Lothian Council 8 May 1996

Other Consultees Date of Consultation

Scottish Natural Heritage 24 April 1996 The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 24 April 1996 The Health & Safety Executive 24 April 1996 Scottish Office Trunk Roads 8 May 1996 Scottish Office Forth Local Authority Consortium 10 May 1996

Additionally it was considered appropriate to consult with the undernoted bodies.

Scottish Wildlife Trust 24 April 1996 Central Scotland Countryside Trust 24 April 1996 Kelvin Valley Countryside Project 24 April 1996 British Waterways 24 April 1996 Coal Authority 24 April 1996 242

APPENDIX 6

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

Adjoining Planning; Authorities Date of Response

East Dunbartonshire Council 8 August 1996

It is not considered that the proposed CCGT Station raises any issues of significance to East Dunbartonshire, however the response refers to the minor visual impact of the plant.

Glasgow City Council 8 August 1996

The draft response from Glasgow City Council highlights those aspects of the proposal directly affecting the Monkland Canal. It is indicated that the design of the pumphouse, ancillary building and screen fencinghdscaping should be the subject of approval by the authority.

South Lanarkshire Council 28 May 1996

The response from South Lanarkshire Council to the Environmental Statement is restricted to the perceived wider socio-economic issues of the proposal in terms of the wider regional and national context. The authority consider that these aspects of the proposal are inadequately addressed within the Environmental Statement.

In a Lanarkshire Context , the authority raises questions regarding the use of an important strategic industrial location by an "intensive low employment use".

The authority consider that the issues be best examined at a Public Local Inquiry. A copy of the letter sent directly to the Secretary of State amplifies the foregoing concerns, particularly in respect of the anticipated impact on the open cast mining interests within the area and the consequent impact on employment.

Other Consultees Date of Responsecs)

Scottish Natural Heritage 13 June 1996, 19 July 1996

The initial response from Scottish Natural Heritage was of the nature of a holding reply, pending detailed discussions between the organisation and Powergen plc. Initially the concerns of SNH were principally related to the construction and operation of the dual water pipeline from Gartcosh to the Monklands Canal and perceived detrimental impact on the sites 243

of Special Scientific Interest at Woodend Loch and Bishop Loch. A firther significant concern to the SNH was the potential detrimental impact on the Monklands Canal, a site of local nature conservation inherent by virtue of the extraction of water and discharge of heated, possibly polluted, water.

SNH's response indicated that the foregoing concerns may be able to be addressed by appropriate mitigation measures, but insufficient information was available before a full and proper assessment of the application could be made.

The final response from Scottish Natural Heritage maintains the concerns initially outlined, notwithstanding their consideration of all information made available by Powergen plc and following a discussion with the applicants.

The principle concerns of Scottish Natural Heritage may be summarised as follows.

1 Alterations to the hydrological and drainage regime of the site caused by the construction of the power station and dual pipeline may have on the SSSI's of Woodend and Bishop Lochs.

2 Potential detrimental impact to the Monklands Canal, a site of local nature conservation interest. These concerns are based upon the abstraction from and discharge to the Canal.

3 The role of the development within the context of sustainable development.

4 Landscape and visual impacts/mitigation. The maintenance, contingency, accident and commissioning plans for the site are considered inadequate.

Scottish Natural Heritage remit indicates duties to protect and enhance the natural heritage and landscape of Scotland's countryside and to facilitate and promote access to that countryside and its employment. There is a specific duty to identitjl and protect sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Scottish Natural Heritage does not believe that sufficient information has been made available to allow a full and proper assessment of those issues of concern to be adequately addressed. Accordingly, in the absence of information and appropriate mitigation measures Scottish Natural Heritage maintains its objection. The organisation has provided with its submission appendices A and B which provide, respectively, comprehensive details in respect of the areas of concern, and proposed conditions to be applied to any grant of consent.

The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 12 June 1996

Whilst SEPA has not formally objected to the proposed CCGT Station this position is subject to the achievement of standards laid down regarding pollution control. 244

SEPA has also highlighted the issue of sustainable development defined as - "Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of fbture generations to meet their own needs", within "Sustainable Development - The UK Strategy", HMSO 1994. In highlighting this issue SEPA are drawing attention to the wider context of the application, beyond North Lanarkshire. Against the objective of the definition of sustainable development SEPA has indicated that natural gas is a finite resource and part of the worlds' capital. It is considered that long term use of this resource may prematurely exhaust supplies of natura1 gas, preventing its use for other purposes by hture generations.

It is stated by SEPA that the use of resources such as oil and gas by current generation at a rate greater than substitutes for their hture non-availability can be developed, will produce a situation of intergenerational disequity.

The Health and Safety Executive 7 June 1996

The HSE has indicated that it has no comments to make on the Environmental Statement as seen but would wish to be consulted on the major hazard implications of the proposed development when a planning application is received.

Issues regarding the proposed pipeline route and its proximity to a British Gas pipeline are raised. The HSE has indicated that whilst the site itself might be a notifiable installation the Environmental Statement does not provide the necessary level of detail to form a view on this point.

The Scottish Office Development Department 23 May 1996

The National Roads Development has no comments to offer regarding the effects of traffic on the trunk road system resulting from either the construction or the operation of the proposed CCGT.

Additional Consultations Date of Response

The Scottish Wildlife Trust 15 May, 3 July 1996

Whilst the initial observations of the SWT raise general areas of concern the most recent response withdraws an initial objection on the basis of the 2 studies submitted on the impact of water abstractioddischarge on the Monkland Canal and undertakings given to the organisation by Powergen in a letter of 20 May 1996.

Central Scotland Countryside Trust 8 May 1996

The CSCT, whilst describing the landscape panoramas and photomontages accompanying the Environmental Statement as a "thorough and usehl appraisal of these likely impacts", is 245

critical of an assessment which emphasises the currently low or poor quality of the local landscape with reference to power lines, pylons, the remaining buildings on site and a landfill site to the south east, with an inference that such an approach is intended to minimise the impact of the proposal.

The Trust considers that the landscape quality as assessed is far from static, evolving, and that progressive improvement of the landfill site, the removal of the buildings on the site, the removal of the redundant power lines and pylons will, when taken into account, improve the existing landscape and as such lead to the degree of visual intrusion of the plant being somewhat more significant.

The trust fixther considers in this context that acceptance, in its own right, limiting planning to on site boundaries is not commensurate with the extensive nature of the anticipated visual impacts.

The Trust suggest investigation of the use of landform bunds with trees to mitigate close views. This advice is based upon the suggested impact which trees in isolation planted close to a building of the scale proposed can actually exaggerate the bulk of the building by inviting comparison of the visual scales of the trees relative to the structure. Whilst the Trust accept the assertion by Powergen that planting of the entire former Steel Works site would be more significant (although not in fact proposed by Powergen) it is considered that even on such a scale the landscaping would not hlly address the widespread nature of the impact of the facility.

The Trust raise a question regarding the possibility of requiring Powergen to undertake or contribute to a broader programme of landscape planting at locations across Landscape Character Zone 6 - figure 9.5 within the Environmental Statement. This, it is suggested, could create a more effective filtering and screening of significant views.

Kelvin Valley Countryside Project 16 May 1996

The Project considers that, other than visually, the impact of the power station on the surrounding area would be limited. Concern is, however, raised regarding the proposed pipeline to the Monklands Canal in terms of the potential impact on the wetland and scrub areas through which it passes. Suggestions are made regarding the installation works, which if restricted to a suitable time of year (unspecified), would have not too serious an impact on the ground through which it passes. The issue of the impact of warm water on the ecology of the Canal is also highlighted with the suggestion that suitably qualified personnel investigate this issue.

The Project stresses that whilst not objecting to the proposal, consideration be given to the wider implications of development including those for employment and the coal industry.

British Waterways 8 May, 8 July 1996

The initial response from British Waterways, in the form of a holding reply, indicated that the various departments within the organisation were giving consideration to the terms of the 246

Environmental Statement. A more recent response highlights a lack of detail within the Statement with regard to the impact on the Monkland Canal and accordingly, British Waterways has indicated that discussions between themselves, SEPA and Powergen are ongoing.

It also stated that British Waterways will be requesting information from Powergen regarding the likely impact on flaura and fauna of the Monkland Canal.

The Coal Authority 14 May 1996

The Coal Authority response is restricted to a report on coal mining circumstances in respect of the main construction site although reference is made to the pipeline route.

The Coal Authority has confirmed that one mine entry exists within the construction site. However, the Authority is unable to confirm what steps, if any, have been taken to treat the mine entry. There is no known fault or other line of weakness at the surface which is known to affect the stability of the property. The Coal Authority suggest that in light of the mining circumstances appropriate technical advice be sought before any works are undertaken on site. 247

APPENDIX 7

EXAMPLE OF PRO-FORMA LETTER OF REPRESENTATION SENT TO NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL

Address

Date :

Head of Planning North Lanarkshire Council Fleming House Tryst Road CWERNAULD

Dear Sir

GAS TURBINE POWER STATION, GARTCOSH

With reference to the above planning application currently with the Secretary of State for Scotland, I wish to register my objection in the strongest possible terms.

A number of issues have not been addressed by Powergen in their environmental statement or have been inadequately addressed. These include the effects of the proposal on the general amenity of the Drumpellier Country Park area of Coatbridge and in particular the implications of the power station's massive water usage which affects the Monklands Canal and the hinterland of Drumpellier Park.

The analysis of the visual impact on the villages of Gartcosh, Glenboig and the Townhead district of Coatbridge is extremely selective and I believe that the only way for this to be resolved is a full public enquiry.

I trust you will take these objections and initiate the necessary action.

Yours faitfilly

Signature 248

APPENDIX 8

EXAMPLE OF PRO-FORMA LETTER OF REPRESENTATION SENT TO SCOTTISH OFFICE

Address :

April 1996 The Secretary of State for Scotland The Scottish OEce Victoria Quay EDINBURGH EH6 6QQ

Dear Sir

Powergen Application to Construct and Operate a CCGT Power Station at Gartcosh

I write to register my strong objection to the above plans.

The grounds for my objection are first, that the proposed power station will be very unsightly, in part due to its height, and will dominate most viewpoints in and around Gartcosh, Marnoch (Glenboig) and Townhead, adversely affecting the quality of life. It is not appropriate, either, to put a power station so near Drumpellier Country Park, spoiling views of the Campsies and the amenity of one of the few pleasant parts of North Lanarkshire, now enjoyed by many thousands.

There can be no doubt that the power station will adversely affect property values in and around Gartcosh, and that there will be smells and noise which have not been experienced since the steel works was shut a decade ago. Developments such as this shuld be undertaken well away from centres of population.

I also believe that the Gartcosh site offers an opportunity to create far more jobs than the handfbl this development will bring. In fact, I feel that the power station is likely to discourage light industry, service or retail businesses. We had hoped that the regrettable ten year delay in demolishing the steelworks would have produced something better than this.

I hope you will seriously consider these arguments and refuse permission for this retrograde proposal.

Yours faithfilly

Signature 249

APPENDIX 9

LIST OF PARTIES WHO SUBMITTED PRO-FORMA LETTER TO NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL

Occupier Thomas Smith 480 Stirling Road 3 Ben Nevis Way Airdrie Eastfield Cumbernauld

G D Fleming W McDonald 128 Townhead Road 3 Forrestfield Gardens Coatbridge Caldercmix

M McDonald Clifford Large 3 Forrestfield Gardens 6 Lennox Avenue Caldercruix Coatbridge

T S McMillan Chstopher McMillan 87 Hamilton Drive 7 Wood Street Airdrie Airdrie

E A McKinstry H McHutchison 7 Johnston Road 24 Bothwell Place Gartcosh Summerlee G69 8Az Coatbridge

Occupier J Todd 151 West George Street 153 Second Avenue Sunny side Uddingston Coatbridge G71 6BG ML5 2DD

M M McLean Claire Moxen 5 1 Rosebank Terrace 25 Clay Crescent Bargeddie Bellshill G69 7SG North Lanarkshire

E Lindsay A J Buchanan 33 Dunbar Avenue 44 Witchwood Court Old Monkland Townhead Coatbridge Coatbridge ML5 2PP 250

Occupier J Rowney 44 Witchwood Court 13 Bothwell Place Coatbridge Summerlee ML5 2PP Coatbridge ML5

Occupier Occupier 15 1 West George Street 43 Watling Street Sunnyside Uddingston Coatbridge G714DL ML5 2DD

John Greig Mr G Gemrnell 88B Kelso Quadrant 56 Achray Road Coatbridge Condorrat ML5 IQY Cumbernauld G67 4JH

Mrs G Gemmell E Todd 56 Achray Road 40 Quarry Street Condorrat Coatbridge Cumbernauld Lanarkshire G67 4JH ML5 3PU

John L Smith Margaret Gibb 126 Townhead Road 88B Kelso Quadrant Coatbridge Coatbridge ML5 2Hx ML5 1QY

M Baird S Edgar 57 Medlar Road 27 Kildermore Road Abronhill East erhouse Cumbernauld Glasgow G34

Mrs Pauline Edgar C Burnet 27 Kildermore Road 209B Greenrigg Road East erhouse South Carbrain Glasgow Cumbernauld G34

Occupier A Todd 57B Eglinton Street 40 Quarry Street Coatbridge Coatbridge m5 ML5 3PU 25 1

Mr C Hamill Mrs C Hamill 21 Kirkwood Place 21 Kirkwood Place Coatbridge Coatbridge ML5 ML5

Mrs M Robertson J W Fleming 2 Stenhouse Avenue 128 Townhead Road Muirhead Coatbridge Glasgow ML5

Mr J A Armstrong Mrs D Armstrong 21 Katherine Street 21 Katherine Street Airdrie Airdrie ML6 ML6

G Savage Mr J Neill 8 Aberfoyle Street Tannochside Dennistoun Uddingst on Glasgow G71 6PT

J Wotherspoon M McPake 33 Rosehall Avenue 1 Drumpark Street Coatbridge Coatbridge ML5 4HY ML5

Mrs J Neill Occupier Tannochside 6 Barra Drive Uddingston Airdrie G71 6PT ML6 8EF

Mrs M Isdale R W Tulloch 6 Barra Drive 43 Menyston Court Airdrie Coatbridge ML6 8EF ML5

Mrs J A Tulloch James Kerr 43 Merryston Court 4 Manor Drive Coatbridge Airdrie ML5

D Winning Sandra McBride 70 Albion Street 23 Staffa Drive Coatbridge Airdrie ML5

A McBride Alice Shaw 23 Staffa Drive 77 Tantallon Drive Airdrie Coatbridge ML5 252

James Shaw Occupier 77 Tantallon Drive 6 Hatherside Avenue Coatbridge Garrowhill ML5 Glasgow

Alexandra Campbell N Campbell 43 Lochside 43 Lochside Gart co sh Gartcos h Glasgow Glasgow

Mrs J Kelly 0 Smith 2278 Gartcosh Road 17 Naismith Walk Glasgow Bellshill G69 8ER ML4 ITD

M A Smith K Williams 17 Naismith Walk 4 Holmbrae Avenue Bellshill Uddingston ML4 ITD Glasgow

Occupier V McKellie 30 Springfield Crescent 209 Muiryhall Street Uddingston Coatbridge Glasgow ML5

I Fraser GE Smith 207 Muiryhall Street 20 Auchencrow Street Coatbridge East er house ML5 Glasgow G34 OBW

Mr James Finnie Elizabeth Finnie 82 Tantallon Drive 82 Tantallon Drive Townhead Townhead Coatbridge Coatbridge

William Finnie Margaret Rutherford 21 8 Lomond Road 88 Main Street Townhead Dunlop Coatbridge KA3 4AG

Thomas Martin 73 Dochart Drive Coatbridge 253

APPENDIX 10

PARTIES WHO SUBMITTED INDIVIDUAL LETTERS OF REPRESENTATION

INDUSTRY

Scottish Hydro Electric 29/4/96 Scottish Power 26/4/96 Scottish Coal 10/4/96 Monktonhall Mineworkers Ltd 29/4/96 Waverly Mining Finance plc 25/4/96 Russell Coal 23 14196 I H Brown Ltd 12/4/96 Ross Harper on behalf of Mining (Scotland) Ltd 29/4/96 William Grant Mining 23 14196

UNIONS

Unison 3014196 GMB 29/4/96 NUM (Scotland Area) 24/4/96 Fire Brigade Union (Scottish Region) 24/4/96 EMA 19/4/96 Confederation of Coal Producers 15/4/96 AEEU 4/4/96 Kircaldy & District Trades Union Council 16/5/96 STUC 18/4/96

MEP'S

Alex Salmond 23/4/96 Alex Falconer 22/4/96 David Martin 22/4/96

-MP'S

Eric Clarke 26/4/96 Jimmy Hood 25141 96 Michael Connarty 25/4/96 Brim Donohoe 25/4/96 George Robertson 25/4/96 J Allan Stewart 22141 96, 24141 96 Martin O'Neill 3/4/96 Tom Clarke 10/4/96 George Foulkes 16/4/96 254

John Home Robertson 18/4/96 Phi1 Gallie 2 01419 6 Helen Liddell 3014196

NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCILLORS

Charles Gray 30/1/96

LOCAL AUTHORITIES

East Ayrshire Council 26/4/96 South Lanarkshire Council 26/4/96 East Lothian Council 19/4/96, 23/4/96 West Dunbartonshire Council 13/4/96 Renfiewshire Council 7/5/96 Falkirk Council 9/5/96 Fife Council 1/5/96 Midlothian Council 4/4/96 Stirling Council 30/4/96, 8/5/96 Clackmananshire Council 25/4/96

COSLA 2/5/96 Coalfield Communities Campaign 1/5/96

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Miss J Adam 78 Old Gartloch Road, Gartcosh 2 1/4/96 Mr JPark 1 13 Baberton Mains Drive, Edinburgh 22/4/96 Mr D Martin The Georgian Hotel, 26 Lefioy Street, Coatbridge 17/6/96 Mr Y Dutta Southfield, Lennoxtown undated Mr J Park 8 Bridge Street, Muirkirk, Ayrshire 294196 Mr P Hopper 14 Inchwood Loan, Moodiesburn 264196 Mr D Cameron Middle Cottage, East Muirhead, Solsgirth, By Dollar 254196 Mr D Black 1 Whitehill Terrace, Gartcosh 244196 MrK &&am 16 Carrick Place, Camelon, Falkirk 264196 Mr A Samson 4 Deanbrae, Forth, Lanarkshire 254196 Mr M McNeely 14 Hamilton Terrace, High Valley Field, Fife undated Mr J Wilson 39 Johns Terrace Gait, Oakley, Fife undated Mrs A McGuiness 56 Hillview, Oakley, Fife 274196 Mr J Waite 18 Leven Quadrant, Burnfoot, Airdrie undated Mr J B Mullen 68 Blairhill Street, Coatbridge undated Mr T Baird 102 Mariner Road, Camelon, Falkirk undated Mi W Ward 82 Henderson Drive, Muirkirk, Ayrshire undated Mr J Fleming 188 Main Street, Newmains, Fife undated Mr C Lee 10 Hazel Road, Bankrock, Stirlingshire undated Mr J Wallace 8 Smallburn Drive, Muirkirk, Ayrshire 254196 255

Mr W Henderson 3 7 Brankston Avenue, Stonehouse, Lanarkshire 264196 Mr B Elder 15 Garpel Avenue, Muirkirk, Ayrshire undated Mr S Falconer 23 Colthort Drive, Muirkirk, Ayrshire 264f96 Mr M McGuiness 36 Stobie Place, Oakley, Fife 214196 Mr I McGolgan 38 Main Street, Douglas, Lanarkshire 264196 Mr J Murray c/o Howatson, Strutherhead Farm, Strathaven undated Mr R Finlayson Airdsgreen Opencast, Muirkirk, Ayrshire undated Mr T Boyle 3 Riverbank Place, Kilmarnock 264196 Mr W Veitch 80 Mauchline Road, Catrhe, Ayrshire undated Mr P Davidson 26 Middlefield Drive, Muirkirk, Ayrshire 254196 Mr P Cook 5 Gyle Place, Wishaw undated Mr W Madden 35 Greenbraes Drive, New Cumnock, Ayrshire undated Mr W Nelson No Address undated Mr N Reid 16 Burnhead Road, Balloch, Cumbernauld 264196 Mr J Sommerville 14 Deansdyke, Forth undated Mr D Waite 18 Lomond Drive, Burnfoot, Airdrie undated Mr J M Woods 119 Langton View, East Calder, Livingston undated Mr J Hughes 22 Parklands, Coylton, Ayrshire 254f96 Mr A Brown 5 Fir Grove, Craighall East, Livingston undated Mr C Robb 9 Forrest Kirk, Carluke undated Mrs S Rea Rose Cottage, Glenboig Road, Gartcosh undated 256

APPENDIX 11

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

1 Overcapacity of electricitv suuply - There is already considerable overcapacity in Scotland's electricity generation system. The main active power stations include the two AGRs (Hunterston B and Torness); Peterhead operating on sour gas; the two coal fired stations of Longannet and Cockenzie; and a number of hydro electric stations.

The capacity of these stations is such, relative to demand, that the 2 GW Inverkip Station has been mothballed, whilst Kincardine, a smaller station, is also not in operation.

Notwithstanding the planned expansion of the interconnector to England and the possibility of a hrther interconnector to Northern Ireland, existing generating capacity in Scotland is not hlly utilised and there is no likelihood of demand exceeding total generating capacity for the foreseeable future.

2 The construction of the Station will not benefit the Scottish consumer - Whilst introducing competition, consumers would only benefit from if it resulted in lower electricity prices. The generating costs of a new CCGT station lie within the range of 2.3 - 2.6~per kwh. A large coal fired station such as Longannet (2.4 GW generating capacity) is capable of generating electricity at present at around 1.8~per kwh. Costs are likely to fall to around 1.6~per kwh by 1998 because of falling coal prices.

Even allowing for the fitting of desulphurisation equipment at Longannet which would add 0.5~per kwh to the Stations generating costs, the price per kwh would still only be 2. Ip.

Cockenzie, whilst around half the size of Longannet in terms of generating capacity could still produce electricity more cheaply than the CCGT at Gartcosh, if a high factor was utilised.

3 The Station will not benefit the local or national economy - The direct employment effects of the station would be felt during and after construction.

CCGT's are the quickest power stations to build utilising as many do 'off the peg' technology. Powergen would buy the design they wanted and have the necessary staff to assemble it. The construction period will involve a maximum of several hundred workers on site at any one time, the principal benefit being any spending done locally. These jobs will not be permanent.

The 35 permanent jobs are unlikely to have any substantial impact on local prosperity. Furthermore, claims by Pieda that new companies would be attracted to the vicinity of a new power station by the chance of buying cheap electricity is not supported by 257

example at any power station be it coal, gas or nuclear in England or Wales. The liberalisation of the electricity market now means that large companies can negotiate individual deals with a generator or supplier. Under this arrangement, there is no advantage to be gained from having a plant or ofice physically located close to a power station when a company can shop around for the cheapest power available.

4 Ooeration of the CCGT would result in iob losses within coal fired stations in Scotland and the mines that suoplv them - The single biggest impact of the proposed station would fall on jobs in coal fired stations and mines which currently supply them.

Electricity generation in Scotland is dominated by the two commercial nuclear stations, which produce over 40% of Scotland's Power. The present arrangement whereby Scottish Power and Hydro Electric are contracted to buy all the electricity produced by these stations will continue after the recent privatisation. Accordingly, these stations will continue to have first call on the market for the foreseeable future.

Peterhead's sour gas station also pre-empts a section of the market, the contracts ensuring that all its production is sold ahead of any coal station.

The two coal stations at Longannet and Cockenzie are only called upon after the existing nuclear and gas stations. Longannet, the more efficient of the two coal fired stations is used more heavily. The two stations, however, burn approximately 4 - 5 Mt of coal each year.

The proposed new station could not displace nuclear or sour gas in the merit order because of existing contractual agreements, so it would be competing against the two coal stations. Running at base load (ie as near to round the clock every day of the year as possible) each 350 Mw set would displace a million tonnes a year of coal burn at the existing stations.

Powergen would wish to run Gartcosh CCGT at as near to base load as possible in order to recoup its investment in the shortest possible time. If this were to be done, Longannet's load would be reduced whilst Cockenzie which already runs at a very low load factor would become redundant. Cockenzies closure would be certain, resulting in the direct loss of 250 jobs and in addition any local jobs which depend upon supplies to the station and purchasing power of the employees.

The loss of a million tonnes of coal burn (equivalent to 350 MW of capacity at Gartcosh) would also have a major impact on the remaining collieries in Scotland. There are two pits left, Monktonhall, producing around 250,000 tonnes per year and Longannet, next to the power station producing around 2 million tonnes per year. The remainder of Scotland's annual output of around 5 million tonnes comes from opencast sites around the country. Assuming a contraction of 1 million tonnes per year Monktonhall would be the pit most immediately in danger, since it is the smallest producer and a significant part if its market goes to Cockenzie. At present Monktonhall employs 240 men, however, Waverley Mining has plans to double production levels to exploit its large reserves. Not only would existing jobs be lost but 258

the potential for additional permanent employment along with access to millions of tonnes of good quality energy reserves.

Longannet Colliery currently employs over 800 miners and many of these jobs would be at risk even if only one generating set was constructed at Gartcosh. The construction of the second generating set at Gartcosh (ie 700 Mw of capacity) would displace a hrther 1 million tonnes of annual coal burn. This would effectively halve the power station coal burn in Scotland. Scottish Coal and other mining companies could easily supply 2 - 3 million tonnes of coal per year to Longannet station from opencast sources. The operation of the CCGT at Gartcosh could therefore result in the end of deep mining in Scotland with the loss of over 1000 jobs at the two pits alone. In addition the closure of Cockenzie would result in a firther 250 job losses and hrther losses would result from the loss of purchasing power in the economy.

5 CCGT would prematurely deplete gas reserves - At current depletion rates there are just 30 years supply of gas from the UK continental shelf. Gas resources should not be depleted prematurely, particularly when there are 300 years supplies of coal available.

6 Powerpen proposals are anti-competitive - There is no evidence of any deep mined collieries - two of which would close as a result of this proposal - being reopened. If the CCGT station is given the go ahead, the proposal would remove medium and long term competition as coal reserves are sterilised.

7 The conversion of the CCGT would lead Britain to become dependant upon imported fuel within 25 vears - Britain would become dependent upon imported fuel which, if it accounted for just 50% of Britain's gas requirements by the year 2020 would have an adverse effect on the UK balance of payments of S3.3 billion.

8 Price of gas is volatile - Gas prices are heavily influenced by oil prices which are highly volatile. There could be a gas crisis like there was an oil crisis in the 1970's. Large oil multinationals dominate the international gas market and will hold electricity consumers to ransom. Several English power stations have already negotiated gas contracts directly with oil companies operating in the North Sea - not British Gas.

9 CCGT could compromise the development potential of the site - Gartcosh is a prime location for industrial development. At its peak the site sustained 2000 jobs. It should not now be wasted on a project bringing with it just 35 jobs. Moreover, far from being a magnet which would attract other projects the hazardous nature of a CCGT may well rule out other potential users.

10 Powergen is attemptinp to undermine the Scottish companies' capacitv to sell in other markets - Powergen's motive in this application is to undermine the abilities of Scottish Power and Hydro Electric to sell electricity in other like markets rather than 259

secure a significant share of the Scottish market. The impact of this policy would be felt at the Cockenzie Power Station, whose owners have identified it as the most appropriate source of export supply.

11 The Scottish economv would be jeopardised bv anarchv in a so-called free market - Whilst the Scottish Power and Scottish Coal operations can be considered small to medium scale in the UK context, they are of far greater importance within Scotland. The fiture health of the Scottish economy cannot be based upon anti-competitive protection, but neither can it be jeopardised by the anarchy of a so called fiee market. There already exists an agreement whereby Scottish Hydro and Scottish Power must take all of British Energy's Scottish generated nuclear power until 2005. Surely it is inexcusable to open up this market even fbrther especially at a time when the two Scottish companies are preparing no challenge other markets with their most efficiently produced energy, environmentally friendly low sulphur coal.

12 Spending of large sums of public money cannot be justified in the construction of a new unnecessary plant - It is conceivable that Powergen will be able to secure Scottish Office and European fhds for their development at Gartcosh. The impact of this spending will be to displace large numbers of workers in areas of economic disadvantage to less than North Lanarkshire. Moreover, Powergen's share of the market is likely to be seen as a loss leader for them but damage to Scottish electricity generators will far outweigh the financial cost to Powergen.

13 The fill imdications of the proposal require consideration through a Public Local Inauiry.

14 Clackmananshire economv would suffer if the proposal went ahead - Powergen's proposals would result in approximately 300 jobs locally being lost, having the immediate effect of 472 jobs lost within the local economy and some 26m of local incomes. Clackmanan's economy is fragile and heavily dependant upon these traditional employment sectors. Operations at Longannet and Castlebridge would come under significant and immediate threat of closure. Negative impacts in Clackmanan alone would outweigh any positive outcome which may accrue.

15 Negative- impacts of the proposal - The proposal will do little to improve the economic development of the North Lanarkshire area and indeed could undermine employment in other sectors of the Scottish power industry.

16 Present overcapacitv in Scotland needs access to other markets, not increased competition - with present competition only in the smaller of peak demand needs, it can hardly be described as an open market. 260

17 Ar.rmments by Powergen suggest that in the absence of a pool in Scotland there is no competition in generation - There is, however, provision in both the Scottish Power and Hydro Electric Transmission Licences for the eventual development of generation trading arrangements - a Scottish pool in other words.

18 Anticipated up.grade of interconnector to England and Wales and the proposed interconnector to Northern Ireland if unimplemented and the CCGT built would be likely to reduce Scottish Powers coal requirement to the extremely low level of 1 million tonnes per year. At present Scottish Power anticipates an annual coal burn figure in future years of around 5 million tonnes.

19 Investment of E15 - E20m in Longannet complex dependant upon new coal supply contract - The aim of Scottish Coal is to remain the principal supplier to Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro Electric, and to meet their expected level of demand. To this end Scottish Coal has embarked on the first stage of a E15 - €20m investment to access new reserves at the Longannet Complex, extending the life of the mine until 2015 ad. Obviously any final approval of this investment is dependant upon a new long term coal supply contract with Scottish Power. Without investment the mine's reserves will be exhausted by 2000 with job direct losses of 3000 - 6000 in total.

20 Scottish Coal's attempts to maintain continuity in open cast operations would be jeopardised by closure of Cockenzie Power Station, the likely first casualty of a reduction in coal demand.

21 The Dremature closure of Longannet mine would remove the opportunity for Scottish Coal to play a major role in the longer term energy needs of Scotland.

22 Whilst welcoming comDetition. the proposed CCGT will destabilise the market, through the short term subsidising of more expensively produced electricity. This would affect the medium and longer term total cost of electricity to purchasers in Scotland.

23 Adverse impact in local economy of Stirlins - The economies of Clackmananshire and Stirling are closely integrated and the potential job losses in neighbouring Clackmananshire will have a major impact on Stirling.

24 Concerns regardin0- sustainability - The valuable resource of gas requires to be husbanded and managed carehlly and should not be depleted in a rapid dash for gas! The most efficient use of gas is to pipe it to the point of use, where it achieves a 97% efficiency, not use it in a CCGT station where it achieves only a 50% efficiency in the conversion process. 26 1

25 ProPOsal would do nothing for Scottish comDetitiveness - Medium and long term competition would be removed since coal mines once closed cannot be re-opened. Coal reserves would be sterilised and there would be no way back for long term cheap energy.

26 Powergen- have consistently objected and attempted to delay the upgrading; of the interconnector to England.

27 Midlothian Council is deeply concerned regarding the impact on the Scottish Coal industry and the coal field power station it supplies. These industries are vital for a vibrant and viable economy in Scotland. The threat to Monktonhall Colliery and Cockenzie Power Station which it supplies should not be underestimated.

28 The Government has in the recent past recosnised the need for the Electricitv Supplv market to stabilise - This proposal is likely to lead to hrther uncertainty.

29 The private sector coal industw is seeking .to expand - The industry is looking forward to expansion in 1998 and beyond when the major coal supply contracts come to an end. Indeed many firms have been bringing large coal sites into their forward plans to meet the anticipated increased coal burn which is predicted, following interconnector upgrades.

30 CCGT would lead to decimation of our business, (Wm Grant Mining) selling coal to Scottish Power, and other industrial and domestic customers. The proposal would also adversely affect the haulage industry, and service industries in Scotland.

31 CCGT would lead to a substantial reduction of investment in the coal industry - The lead in time required to enquire, investigate and obtain the necessary consents for opencast coal sites and the major expenditure involved in satisGing the planning and environmental demands have meant that the benefits of the recent privatisation of the coal industry have yet to materialise. The reorganisation of supply contracts established by the Government to permit successfd privatisation of the coal industry has meant companies such as our committing itself to a high cost long term investment strategy.

The impact of the CCGT could quite simply cause this investment to cease and could force the company (Russell Coal) to withdraw entirely from the coal industry.

32 CCGT will lead to price increases for the consumer - Electricity in Scotland is very competitively priced due to an existing surplus of low cost generating plant available. Since part of that surplus is supplied to England, that output creates demand pressure on electricity prices for customers south of the border and in turn in Scotland. By 262

displacing existing cheaper coal fired plant, the CCGT would reduce the amount of electricity available to sell to England from coal fired generation. This would lead to upward pressure on prices on both sides of the border. This is precisely the opposite effect to that which competition is intended to produce.

The Powergen proposal would also lead to the Nuclear Energy Agreement being renegotiated.

33 The Environmental Statement has failed to address the issues of increased price to the consumer and the impact on employment, nor has it considered the secondary impacts, such as the threat to investment within the coal industry and other coal fired stations.

34 The present demand for electricity within the UK is not likelv to be met bv the CCGT - The present demand for additional generating capacity is in the southern part of England. This requirement cannot be met by a power station at Gartcosh, since the interconnector capacity is insufficient, even after the proposed upgrading. The station at Gartcosh will simply increase over supply in Scotland. The Environmental Statement again fails to address these issues.

35 The Environmental Statement is inadequate - The Statement produced does not meet the requirements of the 1988 Regulations and the overall impression of the document is that a number of issues have not been addressed in sufficient detail to substantiate the conclusions reached. It is vital that these issues be considered properly. The lack of detail and various omissions, taken together, seriously underestimate the overall effects of the proposals. Aspects of the proposal have been treated so insufficiently in the Statement as to be misleading.

36 In economic terms a modern CCGT station cannot compete with an older coal fired station where all establishment and capital costs have been written off The real objective is to significantly reduce competition in the short term by offering cheap electricity generated by their own current excess gas resources internally transferred at marginal cost. In the medium term with less competition and gas supply being closer to demand electricity prices will significantly increase to allow the relevant return on investment to allow the relevant return on investment.

37 CCGT would lead to the loss in the &8m which Scottish Power currently spend on station running costs at Cockenzie with the attendant reduction of spending in the local economy.

38 The planned investment of &75m in the Scottish electricity industry by Scottish Power could, if postponed or cancelled, result in the Scottish coal industry being at risk. 263

39 The plans for a CCGT have been developed with inadequate consideration of the long term stratev and policy implications for the electricity and coal industries in Scotland leading to uncertainty, the undermining of investment plans in coal fired stations and the loss of the opportunity to continue to produce all export competitively priced coal generated electricity.

40 The proposal is Dremature pending a full study of the strategic and operational implications of the proposal on the electricity and coal industries in Scotland.

41 The proposal would lead to harmfbl economic and environmental conseauences for East Lothian and other parts of Scotland.

42 The environmental conseauences of running down coal fired power stations such as Cockenzie could be verv serious. There is every prospect that the plant and the transmission lines will be left for many years becoming increasingly unsightly. These derelict structures are in prominent locations and would compromise efforts to promote East Lothian for tourism and inward investment, and additionally would reduce the quality of life within many communities. Ash from Cockenzie currently used for filling in lagoons would, if unavailable, lead to serious aesthetic and environmental problems.

43 Loss of markets at Scottish Dower stations could lead to closure of deep opencast mines with the creation of long term problems of site clearance and restoration in conjunction with issues of control of ground water from workings. Whilst these issues will inevitably have to be faced when the structures come to the end of their economic life, that is in most instances some years away, allow problems to be identified and solutions agreed. Premature closure leads to a reduction in the time and resources available with no compensating benefit.

44 CCGT would result in job losses within South Lanarkshire - The displacement of 2 million tonnes of coal which would result from the operation of the CCGT would threaten opencast mining interests in South Lanarkshire, an industry which is expanding at present.

45 CCGT would lead to closure of Cockenzie and jeopardise the future of Longannet stations. The proposal would lead to a diminuation in demand for the opencast coal produced in East Ayrshire and currently sold to the stations above. It is estimated that as a consequence 200 jobs would be lost within the area. Opencast coal and associated haulage are the principal sources of employment in many communities. Unemployment rates in many of these areas are at present amongst the highest in Scotland. There would therefore be a high social and economic cost from the loss of jobs. 2 64

46 The true cost comparison should be between the cost of electricity from the proposed from the proposed new plant and that from the existing coal fired plant it would replace.

47 Site should be able to attract Iona term. hlfilling iobs for the people of Lanarkshire rather than the short term construction jobs that this proposal would bring.

48 The assertion that a power plant emploving; up to 70 people could attract some 5000 &to the site is one which requires some rigorous examination.

49 Consideration should be given to the arguments put at the time Tnverkip power station was being- heralded as a cheap source of power, for cheaper than coal. The station was however affected by the massive oil price increases and has only been used during the 1984/85 miners strike. Fortunately Longannet, Cockenzie and Kincardine Power Stations had not been prematurely closed and the country has been able to survive.

50 Concerns recardinn the environmental aspects of the proposal include the possible atmospheric changes over this area, and the potential health implications, the significant vegetation losses west of Drumpellier Park and the possible changes in water levels, pollution and bacterial content which may affect flaura and fauna.

51 Jobs in the coal extraction industry will be put in jeopardy by the proposals.

52 The noise of a turbine ensine operatiny 24 hours a dav zreatlv troubles me, as does the increase in traffic on rural roads by large vehicles.

53 The proposed CCGT would be an attraction for children and would lead them onto the Gartcosh site to their danger.

54 The small number of permanent iobs created are unlikely to be filled by local people.

55 Environmental Statement has failed to or inadeauatelv addressed a number of issues, namely the effects of the proposal on the general amenity of Drumpellier Country Park area of Coatbridge and in particular the implications of the power stations massive water usage which affects the Monklands Canal and the hinterland of Drumpellier Park. Furthermore, the visual impact on the villages of Gartcosh, Glenboig and the Townhead district of Coatbridge is extremely selective. I consider that the only way to resolve these issues is at a Public Local Inquiry. 265

56 The proposed CCGT will be vew unsightly, in part due to its height and will dominate most viewpoints in and around Gartcosh, Marnoch (Glenboig) and Townhead, adversely affecting the quality of life.

57 The CCGT will adversely affect property prices in and around Gartcosh and there will be noise and smells not experienced since the steel works were shut a decade ago. As such developments like this should be undertaken away from centres of population.

58 It had been hoped that the ten vear delav in demolishing the steelworks would have produced something better than this.

59 Powergen have prepared an Environmental Statement for Powereen. No credible institution would be expected to contain references of a nature likely to expose any weaknesses in its bid to succeed with its primary aim and purpose.

60 Elements of the Environmental Statement are flawed and accordingly the following criticisms are made -

The actual distance from Kingshill No 1 to the plant is 385 metres not 400 metres.

The noise readings given are sparce.

The piling operations have not been accorded any dB reading nor has the Purging noises.

The Statement has been constructed without explanation of how every aspect of BS 4142, 6228 and local plans will be complied with.

Using BS 4142 would result in horrendous noise levels.

No reference has been made to PPG 24 nor World Health Organisation Guidelines on absolute noise limits.

Vehicles movements will lead to the noise levels exceeding 43 dB referred to in BS 4142.

Final form of CCGT is unclear.

Environmental Statement lacking in credible substance.

Plant would lead to loss of attractive panorama to Campsies and beyond, which is now, only after 40 years, available. 266

61 Propertv prices have plummeted already.

62 Concerns re Droximity of eauestrian centre at Kingshill No 3 to the proposed CCGT.

63 Environmental Statement contains a number of inaccuracies and omissions, namely -

Kingshill No 3 is in fact 348 metres from the plant not 400 metres.

No consideration has been given to the location of Kingshill equestrian centre which is actually only 220 metres from the plant.

Decibel limits of 60 dB by Powergen are based on the 400 metre distance which is not accurate.

What special measures would be required to reduce noise emissions at Kingshill No 3?

The ENC target of 43 dB as stated by Powergen could not be met in view of the inaccuracies of information.

No mention has been made of outside activity around the plant especially on the perimeter road.

Night time background readings were taken over a 10 minute period and not from the property. My own report shows a background reading 1dB lower than that obtained by Powergen.

The use of BS 5228 relates to temporary or intermittent works. Surely as the construction phase is some 30 months this Standard is inappropriate.

64 Spin off iobs would undoubtedly result from the plants construction.

65 I would anticipate investing &4-500.000 in my business should the proposal go ahead, employing 5 new permanent jobs for local people. Many other local businesses would anticipate similar or greater investments.

66 The Council must consider the position for the Gartcosh site should this project not go ahead.

67 The privatisation of Scottish Power in 1990 created a vertically integrated company giving a monopoly in generation, transmission and distribution. In England the position is different and there is competition, allowing customers to benefit from lower prices. 267

Domestic customers are forced in Scotland to pay higher prices, as seen in 1990 when increases of 9% were levied.

68 I stronglv support the application for the CCGT at Gartcosh as this would introduce competition in generation in Scotland benefiting domestic customer. A reduction of even 1% in prices would inject some &6m per annum into the Scottish economy. 268

APPENDIX 12

ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT.

INTRODUCTION

The undernoted observations represent the views of North Lanarkshire Council in respect of the Environmental Statement and Non Technical Summary; the Landscape and Architecture Photographic view points and Table of Views to be read in connection with chapter 9 of the Statement; and the Traffic Impact Assessment.

Additional reports were submitted by Powergen on 20 May 1996 concerning hydrologic and water quantity and aquatic ecological impacts of the proposed development. The additional reports, were not requested by the planning authority but provide the further information and evidence relating to environmental statements which regulation 22 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988 provide for. It is not known if this additional information was the subject of firther public advertisement under the terms of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Amendment Regulations S1 1994 No. 2012. It is however known that both the Scottish Wildlife Trust and Scottish Nature Heritage were hrnished with copies of the reports. On the basis that this information may not have been made available to the general public the qualitative assessment undertaken by the Institute of Environmental Assessment has been prepared assessing the ES and further information separately.

The observations herein have been prepared following assessment of the Environmental Statement and the supplementary information undertaken on behalf of North Lanarkshire Council by the Institute of Environmental Assessment. The Institute have in their assessment used Review Criteria and Review Grades developed from original work by Lee and Colley (1990) and based on the legislative requirements of EEC Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental assessment. The grades for each section and the overall grading apply only to the Environmental Statement which is a public document which should contain all the necessary environmental information for decision makers. On this basis, and in view of the lack of additional publicity afforded to the documents submitted on 20 May 1996, the additional material has not been graded.

The review provided by the Institute of Environmental Assessment represents a qualitative assessment of the Statement, which in conjunction with observations obtained during the consultation process, provide a quantitative analysis of the environmental effects of the project. This evaluation meets the objectives stated at para 6 of Circular 13/1988.

The headings used by the Institute of Environmental Assessment will be used for the purposes of this assessment. The headings in bold and the texts in italics are abstracts from the Institute Review Criteria for assessing the quality of Environmental Statements. The Review Criteria and Review Grades have been developed from original work by Lee and Colley (1990) and are based on the legislative requirements of EC Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental assessment, and on current reasonable best practice standards for Environmental Statements 269

produced in the UK. The qualitative assessments are followed by the quantitative assessments. The Renew Grades for the qualitative assessment are as follows -

REVIEW GRADES FOR QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

A Excellent, no tasks left incomplete B Good, only minor omissions and inadequacies C Satisfactory despite omissions and inadequacies D Parts well attempted, but must as a whole be considered just satisfactory because of omissions andor inadequacies E Poor, significant omissions or inadequacies F Very poor, important tasks poorly done or not attempted N/A Not applicable. The review topic is not applicable or relevant in the context of this statement

1.0. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE CONDITIONS

1.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT - ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT - C

The purpose and objectises of the development shozild be explained. The description of the development should include the physical characteristics, scale and design as well as quantities of material needed during construction and operation. The operating experience of the operator and the process, and exaniples of appropriate plant, should also be given.

The development is satisfactorily described. The proposal is for the construction of a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)power station with a generating capacity of up to 700MWe. The ES states that the proposal will be designed in two units, each of 350MWe generating capacity although there is uncertainty whether both units will be constructed at the same time. Although the ES assumes that both units will be built together, the reason for the uncertainty should be explained together with an indication of the determining factors which will finalise the development. This is important as additional impacts, eg. cumulative effects of construction noise, may result from consecutive construction phases.

The ES explains that the contract for designing the power station will only be finalised once authorisations and permissions are agreed and this gives some uncertainty over certain aspects of the project. Nevertheless, the ES indicates the dimensions of structures based on previous experience of designing and operating CCGT power stations, and bases the predictions for air quality and visual impacts on the worst case scenario. The ES states that the preferred cooling method for the power station is low level mechanical 'hybrid' cooling towers which utilise water extracted from the Monkland Canal. However, krther details should be given on the preferred cooling 270

method for the proposal, including the additional flow rates required in the Monkland Canal and the location of the weir.

The ES states that up to 1000 construction workers will be required during the peak period, based on two boiler units being built simultaneously. The ES should also give the number of construction workers required should only one unit be built. * The additional information submitted by Powergen (previously referred to) addresses the lack of information regarding flow rates. Details are also provided regarding the additional flow rates required in the Canal including the requirements for dilution flow.

* The location of the weir is not identified in the additional information. The ES shows that a weir is to be constructed for the development (p22, 424) but the Aquatic Ecology report indicates that a weir already exists (p3, 2.2). This point should be clarified.

* The remaining points are not addressed.

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

Highlighted above and of particular concern with regard to this aspect of the proposal is the lack of detail included by virtue of the project's 'turnkey' (design and build) nature. As the brief by Powergen to construct any station would be the subject of tendering, normally by 3 contractors to design, construct and commission the development it is at this stage not possible to assess in a meaningfbl sense the likely impact of the station on the environment. The ES provides only the broad parameters which are determined by the fbnctional requirements of the plant in conjunction with stated objectives of Powergen to minimise the numbers of colours, materials, finishes and textures of the station. In this respect only previous example are available for detailed consideration. Similarly, the lack of a definitive undertaking to construct the station in one phase has implications in terms of noise, disturbance and dependant upon the delay between periods, the validity of submitted traffic assessment information. The likely impact of these aspects will be considered later in the report.

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION - B

me area of land affected by the development should be clearly shown on a map and the different land uses of this area clearly demarcated. The affected site should be defined broadly enough to include any potential effects occurring away fr.om the construction site (eg dispersal of pollutants, traffic, changes tin channel capacity of water courses as a result of increased siiijiace run off etc).

The site description is good. The site is shown in its local and wider contact on appropriate maps. Features of interest in the vicinity of the site, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SS SI), local wildlife sites and important Wildlife Corridors are clearly identified and the reasons for their designation are briefly explained. The line of the Monkland Canal, from which cooling water might be abstracted, should be 27 1

more clearly marked on a map as its route is difficult to determine on the figures provided. A land use map of the site and surrounding are could also be included.

* The additional information submitted does not provide any extra maps. The above points are therefore not addressed.

QUANTITIVE ASSESSMENT

The shortcomings in the site description do not impinge to any significant extent on a quantitive assessment of the description.

1.3 RESIDUALS - D

The types and quantities of waste matter, energy and residual materials and the rate at which these will be produced should be estiniated. The methods used to make these estimations shozild be clearly described, and the proposed methods of treatment for the waste and residual materials should he identfied. Waste should be quantrfied wherever possible.

Residuals associated with the proposal include potentially contaminated spoil from constructing the power station, and cooling water and gaseous emissions from operating the site. Gaseous emissions from operation the CCGT plant are based on process guidance notes published by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, given as 56g/s of nitrogen dioxide. The ES briefly outlines the nature of possible contamination, although the quantity of this material and potential methods and locations for its disposal are not provided. The ES should five firther details on how contaminated land will be disposed of from the site.

If the preferred method for cooling is implemented, water will be abstracted and returned to the Monkland Canal. The ES estimates the water to be abstracted at a rate of 0.5m3/s, and notes that the effluent will have an increased temperature and a different chemical composition. The ES should give the rate of discharge of the effluent, together with the chemical composition and temperature. This is important to filly determine the potential impacts of the discharge on the canal.

* The additional information addresses the points regarding the temperature and rate of discharge of the effluent. The Aquatic Ecology report indicates that the purge water being discharged into the canal will have a flow rate of around 0.13m3/s, and also states that the effluent will have a temperature of between 7"c and 1o"c above the ambient level.

* Some information is provided on the chemical composition of the discharge ie (the effect that the brocide treatment will have on the purge water.

* The remaining points are not addressed. 272

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

A notable area of concern identified in 1.3 above is the absence of details regarding the quantity of contaminated material identified in para 8.20 of the ES and the potential methods and locations for its disposal. There is, within a site of acknowledged contamination the possibility, already recognised by Scottish Natural Heritage that the treatment or removal could result in further contamination.

Despite statements such as that within para 8.20 that "following detailed intensive investigation, proposals will be formulated for dealing with any remaining contamination of the site" no details are given. Furthermore paragraph 8.115, in addressing indirect impacts states that "there could be local ground water quality implications . . , , . , ...... will be easily mitigated by on-site retention measures". It is understood that the existing site drains into the Bothlin burn, a recognised wildlife corridor which is protected by a number of pollution prevention measures. The ES however fails to provide methodological details to assess the effectiveness of the proposed "on site retention measures". Furthermore the method of dealing with the contaminated land in terms of the quantity, the nature of treatment or a combination of both, is a significant omission is assessing the impacts of this aspect of the proposal. It is of course acknowledged that should the site be developed, these problems will, inevitably have to be addressed however in view of the sites relationship with the Bothlin Bum in terms of on site water management and Gartcosh in terms of impact of vehicle movements to the eventual disposal site the impacts should be addressed.

1.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS - D

A description of the environment as it is currently and as it could be expected to develop if the project were not to proceed. Some baseline data can be gnthered from existing data sources, but some will need gathering and the methods used to obtain the inforntation should be clearly identrfied. Baseline data should be gathered in such a way that the importance of the particular area to be affected can be placed into the context of the region or surrozmdings and that the effect of the proposed changes can be predicted.

The baseline conditions are described using published information. Where these are lacking or incomplete, additional field surveys were undertaken and these are generally well described. The baselinie descriptions of noise, landscape and traffic are good, however the lack of detail regarding the hydrology and water quality of Monkland Canal is a significant omission. The following points should be noted -

(i) The ES does not include baseline water quality or aquatic ecology of the Monkland Canal into which cooling water effluent will be discharged in the preferred method for cooling is adopted. This information should be included in the ES to provide the basis against which potential changes can be predicted. In addition, the ES should provide baseline hydrological information which will be required for calculating the additional flows in the canal. 273

The ES notes the potential for contaminated land on the site and states that fbrther studies are being undertaken. The ES should describe in hrther detail the contaminated land studies which are being undertaken and explain why these are not included in the ES.

The ES gives monthly average NO, concentrations for four locations and averages these to determine the annual average concentration for 1994. The ES notes that kerbside locations were excluded from the analysis, however the ES should explain whether any limit or guideline breaches occurred at these locations. The ES should also explain whether air quality data from previous years is available.

The ES states that ozone was measured in Glasgow City over the period 1983 - 1986 and that ozone levels were good - very good in 1986, based on the Department of the Environment classification scheme. The ES should also evaluate ozone levels for 1983 - 1985.

The ES should include a zone of visual influence (ZVI) of the existing site, in addition to that which is given for the site with the development.

Paragraph 8.82 (p56) indicates that the rank grassland may have a good species complement with hrther survey at a more appropriate time of year. The ES should clari@ whether this survey work, together with that noted for amphibians and invertebrates (paras 8.101 - 102 page 59) will be undertaken.

The additional information addresses the first part of (i) above by providing information on the baseline water quality of the Monkland Canal and the discharge point at Port Dundas, eg temperature, PH, dissolved oxygen levels.

The Aquatic Ecology report states that "currently it would appear that information regarding the aquatic fauna of the Canal is unavailable." Some detail is provided, largely obtained by observation and anecdotal evidence, but it would appear that an aquatic ecology survey has not been undertaken. The comments regarding aquatic ecology in (i) above are therefore addressed, in part.

The remaining points are not addressed.

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

It is disappointing that little original or researched findings are available in respect of the aquatic ecology of the Monkland Canal. In effectively assessing the impact of the abstraction and discharge of water North Lanarkshire Council, along with bodies such as Scottish Natural Heritage are left at something of a disadvantage. Clearly, to assess the key impacts of the project it would be advantageous to possess the information which should form the benchmark against which impact can be evaluated. 274

In the absence of a list of species and fauna, only what can be described as a superficial assessment can be provided, relying on assumptions, inter alia regarding the biological community of the Canal, and canal flow being no less than 0.5m3/s.

The potential impacts in addressing contaminated land referred to in (ii) above have been considered in the preceding section, however the Statement should provide research information regarding the nature and extent of contamination and the scale of it to allow assessment of the relative impacts in respect of its treatment.

As regards (iii) above, North Lanarkshire Council are satisfied that notwithstanding the absence of details regarding specific readings for NO, concentrations that such matters are properly the remit of SEPA and as such will be addressed when an application for an Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) Authorisation is considered, as required under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

In terms of (iv) above the value of the theoretical zone of visual influence within figure 9.3 could have been enhanced by the provision of an existing zone of visual influence of the current site to allow a direct comparison, particularly as a considerable number of those submitting representations have commented upon the impact of the structure of, amongst other areas, Drumpellier Country Park.

The omission identified in (v) above should be addressed by the ES in order to provide a more comprehensive assessment of existing conditions.

2.0 IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF KEY IMPACTS - C

2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS AND METHOD STATEMENT

The methodology used to define the project specrJication should be clearly outlined in a Method Statenient. This statement should include details of consultation for the preparation of the scoping report, discussions with expert bodies (eg Planning Authorip, Environment Agency, JNCC, English Nature, Coirntryside Commission or Scottish Natural Heritage etc) and the public, and reference to panels of experts, guidelines, checklists, matrices, previous best practice examples of environmental assessments on similar projects (ivhichever are appropriate). Consideration should be given to impacts which niay be positive or negative, czmiulative, short or long term, permanent or temporary, direct or indirect. The logic used to identiv the key impacts for investigation and for the rejection of others should be clearly explained. The impacts of the development on himinn beings, jlora and fauna, soil, water, air climate, landscape, material assets, cu ftwal heritage, or their interaction, should be considered. The Method Statement should also describe the relationships between the promoter, the planning, engineering and design teams and those responsible for the ES.

The basis for identifjing the potential environmental impacts of the proposal is the environmental assessment regulations. In addition, consultations were carried out with 27 5

the Strathclyde Regional Archaeologist to confirm there would be no cultural heritage impacts, and with Strathclyde Regional Council Highways Department over the methodology and parameters to be used in the traffic assessment. However, it is unclear whether consultation with other statutory consultees eg Scottish Natural Heritage, was carried out over the scope of the EA. Similarly, although the Scottish Wildlife Trust was contacted for information, it is unclear whether they were able to comment on the scope of the assessment. Consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees, including the public, over the scope of the EA ensures that all their concerns can be fully addressed in the ES. The ES appears to have identified all the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal.

* The additional information states that "It is concluded in line with SEPA that the first potential point of significant effluent impact on the aquatic ecology is at 'Port Dundas"' (Aquatic Ecology Report, pl 1). The additional information should confirm whether consultation with SEPA scoped out potential impacts on the Monkland Canal.

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

North Lanarkshire Council are unaware of the extent of involvement of statutory consultees regarding the scoping of the Environmental Assessment. It is notable however that Scottish Natural Heritage, which has maintained its objections despite being in possession of the ES and supplementary reports has intimated its concern regarding the lack of consultation at an earlier stage in the process. SNH has confirmed that its views were only sought after the ES had been prepared. It is of course conceivable that had SNH been hlly consulted at an earlier stage ie at the scoping stage many of their concerns which are at present unresolved could have been addressed.

Furthermore, it would appear from the terms of consultation response from British Waterways, also indicated as being consulted, that discussions are at present ongoing. British Waterways responded to the consultation by North Lanarkshire Council by indicating that the ES " did not address in very great detail the likely impact on the

Monkland Canal. "

As the proposals impact on the Monkland Canal impinges on so many of the outstanding issues regarding the content of the ES and supporting documents it is considered disappointing that these pivotal matters where not considered in more depth with the above groups. Should the preferred method of cooling be pursued the matters will require to be resolved at a latter stage in any event.

2.2 PREDICTION OF IMPACT MAGNITUDE - D

The size of each impact should be determined as the predicted deviation from the baseline conditions, during the construction phase and during normal operating conditions and in the event of an accident when the proposed development involves materials that could be harmful to the environment (including people). The information and data used to estimate the magnitude of the main impacts should be 276

clearly described and any gaps in the required data identified. The methods used to predict impact magnitude should be described and should be appropriate to the size and importance of the projected disturbance. Estimates of impacts should be recorded in measurable quantities with ranges and/or co fidence limits as appropriate. Qualitative descriptions where necessary should be as fully defined as possible (eg "insigiijkant means not perceptible from more than I OOm distance'?.

The prediction of impact magnitude is based on quantitative and qualitative techniques. Where quantitative predictions are made, the assumptions underlying these are generally explained. The reasoning behind the qualitative predictions is also well described. The predictions for operational noise, traffic and landscape impacts are good, however the lack of quantitative predictions on Monkland Canal is a significant weakness. The following points should be noted -

The ES does not predict the effects of water quality and hydrological changes to Monkland Canal from cooling water discharge. Given that the discharge will be at a higher temperature and of a changed chemical composition, the rate of dispersal of the discharge should be provided, particularly as the ES acknowledges that this will be required to be undertaken in the future. This information is important to determine the environmental effects of the discharge and the increased flow rates required in the canal.

The ES gives a ZVI of the proposed development, illustrating locations where the proposed development might be viewed from. The ES should compare the predicted ZVI of the proposal with a ZVI of the existing site to show how the extent of visibility will change.

The ES should provide the assumptions for the occupancy rate of construction workers' vehicles accessing the site.

The ES notes that steam vents and safety valves will operate infrequently. The ES should quantify the likely occurrence of these events.

* The additional information provided in the form of the Technical Memo, predicts that the temperature of the discharge will fall within the parameters stated in the EU Directive, and the Aquatic Ecology report provides a qualitative assessment of the impacts on aquatic ecology. The points raised in the original review regarding the effects of hydrology and water quality changes are therefore addressed.

* The remaining outstanding points from the original review remain outstanding.

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

The information provided in respect of assessing the effects in respect of aquatic ecology are not based upon any research undertaken. Furthermore, it would appear that an assumption has been made that the effects of discharge on water quality and ecology are not significant because they fall within the parameters of EU Directive 78/659/EEC. It would of course have been preferable to accurately assess the 277

ecological impact on the Canal directly having carried out surveys to establish the habitat. In addition, the report accompanying the ES regarding aquatic ecology contains a number of assumptions regarding matters such as a minimum flow of 0. 5m3/s.

It is appreciated that some beneficial aspects of the discharge of water may result, namely tendency to avoid stagnation by improving flow rates, however, the information prepared for Powergen regarding the impact magnitude must, in light of the assumptions and omissions, be questionable.

Concerns have previously been made regarding the unfortunate omission of an existing zone of visual influence, which in consideration with the existing landscape and architecture submissions accompanying Chapter 9 could have allowed a usefil and objective comparative analysis of views.

Whilst information regarding the occupancy rates of construction workers vehicles have not been supplied the Traffic Impact Assessment has been considered and found to be acceptable. Although there will however require to be modifications to the local road network. Any impacts resulting from assumptions made regarding vehicle occupancy are not in the circumstances deemed to be material in terms of road safety. There could of course be some implications in terms of the amenity of local residents. Of particular importance, however regarding the road traffic implications of the proposal is the possibility that the plant is constructed in two distinct phases over a number of years. Clearly, with increases in traffic flow and the possibility of increased development within Gartcosh the conclusions of the Traffic Impact Assessment will not remain accurate and relevant indefinitely.

The infrequent opening of steam vents and safety valves is a matter over which detailed information should have been supplied. The term infrequent is a subjective one, and such an operation could have implications in terms of the noise produced, thereby affecting residential amenity or other potential businesses within the Gartcosh site.

2.3 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE - C

The signflcance of all those inpacts which remain @er mitigation should be assessed using the appropriate national and internatioiml quality standards where available. Were no sirch standmds exist, the assimiptions and value systems used to assess signlJjcance shoiild be jristij7ed and the existence of opposing or contrary opinions acknowledged.

The significance of the impacts is assessed with relevance to guideline and limit values where these are appropriate, eg air quality and noise. Where qualitative prediction are made, the significance of the impacts is well explained. The lack of quantifiable information on potential hydrological and water quality impacts from discharges to Monkland Canal makes the conclusions on the significance of these impacts difficult to substantiate. The following points should also be noted - 278

(i) The ES states that the environmental noise criteria (ENC) is met at Kingshill Cottages. The ES should note that this is when the ENC is compared with average background conditions. The range of background noise levels at this location suggests that the ENC may be exceeded at certain times and this should be assessed in the ES.

(ii) The ES gives noise criteria for construction noise levels, however the significance of the increases are not described. The effects of this should be explained in the ES.

(iii) The ES describes the significance of visual and landscape impacts at different locations. It would be helpfbl for the ES to clearly outline the criteria on which the significance was judged.

* The additional information provides both qualitative and quantitative evidence to conclude that the discharge will not have any significant effects. Use is made of the parameters contained in the EU Directive (on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement) to judge significance, along with consultation with SEPA. The point from the original review regarding the significance of hydrology and water quality effects are therefore addressed.

* The remaining points in Section 2.5 regarding the original review are not addressed.

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

Whilst the additional information provides both qualitative and quantitative assessments regarding the effects of any discharge this information is flawed as previously indicated.

With regard to the possibility that noise levels at Kingshill Cottages, the nearest residential properties could be exceeded, North Lanarkshire Council would wish to ensure that any noise emitted either from the plant in operation or during its construction is strictly controlled, the standards of BS 4142 being applied. Inter alia a written programme for the monitoring of noise and vibration generated during the construction of the development, specitjring appropriate measurement locations would require to be agreed with the developer.

The lack of detail regarding the impact of increased noise levels is unfortunate, particularly for those living closest to the site, however the measures identified above should control noise created during construction or operation of the plant to within appropriate limits.

The significance of the proposed plant within the landscape is to a large extent one of subjective judgement. Whilst the impact on settlements has been considered to an extent within Chapter 9, the failure to carry this into the zone of visual influence diagram (9.3) is regrettable. The resulting impression is therefore limited to the plants 279

impact on the landscape but not the built up area. In this respect both Gartcosh and Coatbridge are likely to receive the most material change to views currently available.

The text regarding the visual impact of the building within Chapter 9 cannot readily by considered as other that biased toward the development. Statements such as "the relative simplicity of form and generally clean profile will not degrade the perceived landscape quality but provide a focal point within an unexceptional landscape."

Comments have previously been made regarding the lack of detail in terms of the finalised design and finish of the station. Accordingly whilst the developer has used a 'worst case scenario' in order to address the dimensions of the buildings, its actual visual impact remains unresolved. A consequence of the lack of design details and finishes is that the effectiveness of any landscape treatments cannot be assessed. Moreover, the landscaping proposals are themselves somewhat schematic as a result.

Assessments within the Environmental Statements regarding the significance of visual and landscape impacts are as a result of a lack of stated criteria difficult to assess meaningfblly. The objectivity of the Statement is in respect of these matters, which are of particular importance to large numbers of the population compromised.

3 .O ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION

3.1 ALTERNATIVES - C

Alternative sites should have been considered where these are practicable and available to be developed. The niain environn~entaladvantages and disadvantages of these should be discussed in outline, and the reasons for the $nal choice given. mere available, alternative processes, designs and operating conditions shou Id have been considered at an early stage of project planning mid the environmental implications of these outlined.

The consideration of alternatives is variable in the ES. Although alternative sites do not appear to have been covered in the ES, the reasons for choosing the preferred location are clearly explained. The ES refers to other ways of generating electricity, however, the environmental advantages and disadvantages of these should be hrther explained. The ES could confirm that CCGT is the best practical environmental option for power generation eg in consultation with Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate. The ES lists the advantages of CCGT technology; the disadvantages of this should also be given. The ES notes that a dry cooling system would be used if ageement over abstraction from Monkland Canal cannot be reached. The ES should give the dimensions of the dry cooling system and illustrate its appearance.

* The additional information provided does address any of the points above. 280

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

The ES is in respect of the issues of alternatives is rather selective and superficial. Whilst the comparative advantages of a CCGT have been identified relative to the emissions and efficiency of coal fired stations such an assessment omits to consider in any objective sense the disadvantages of a CCGT particularly in a long term perspective, at a macro level.

It is disappointing that the issue of sustainability is not meaningfblly addressed only touched upon. No reference is made to the relative inefficiency of the use of gas to create electricity and the consequent conversion losses arising in comparison with its use for example in the home. The comparative analysis of CCGT against coal fired stations does not unfortunately extend to the gas and coal reserves, or the consequence to the station of an exhaustion of these reserves as anticipated in 30 years.

The lack of details regarding the possible adoption of a dry cooling system must be considered an omission of the ES. Whilst Powergen have indicated their clear preference for a water cooled system, this aspect has always been dependant upon reaching agreement with British Waterways. The terms of the response from British Waterways shows that agreement has not yet been reached and as such greater consideration should have been given to the implications on plant and design by utilising a dry cooling system. The failure to illustrate a dry cooling system or indeed provide dimensions, prevents the impact of the plant from being assessed.

3.2 MITIGATION - C

All significant adverse inyacts should be considered for mitigation and specific mitigation nteasures put forward where practicable. Mitigation methods considered should include modification of the project, compensation and the provision of alternative facilities as well as pollution control. It should be clear to what extent the mitigation methods will be effective. Where the effectiveness is uncertain or depends on assumptions about operating procedures, climatic conditions etc, data shozrld be introduced to just& the acceptance of these asszmptions.

A number of mitigation measures are included in the ES to mitigate potential impacts and these are largely well described. The effectiveness of the mitigation measures is well explained and the residual impacts are also described. Reference is made in the ES to good working practice and relevant guidelines for mitigating the potential impacts of contaminated land, these measures should be described in more detail. Similarly, the mitigation measures to prevent encroachment onto the Key Site (para 8.11 1) and the techniques to prevent adverse impacts on the area of acid grassland/wet heath (para 8.146) should be described.

* The additional information received does not address the above points. 28 1

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

The mitigation measures proposed are considered to concentrate on landscape mitigation, adjacent to the site. This is considered to be at the exclusion of the wider context.

In particular, as previously referred to, the design, dimensions and finish of the building is a source of some concern and as such mitigation measures could have provided -

- constraints on the maximum required heights for the building - guidelines on their massing - constraints on finishes of textures ie that they be non-reflective - lighting, if the site is lit at night, the visual impact is potentially more significant and far reaching than during the day.

Landscape planting - consideration of planting has been limited to the site itself although reference has been made to the potential for landscape treatment within the entire former Steel Works site. It is disappointing that consideration has not been given to off-site planting. In particular the views from Drumpellier Country Park could be more effectively enhanced by planting across landscape character zone 6.

The likely mass of the CCGT is unlikely to be effectively screened by restricting planting to within site boundaries and indeed such planting so close to the building could emphasise the bulk of the structure through the provision of a visual scale for comparison. It is not credible to assume that on site planting will address the widespread nature of the plant, particularly when one considers the anticipated scale of the CCGT and the zone of visual influence.

Notwithstanding the foregoing the landscaping proposals are considered little more than schematic, no doubt in part due to the absence of details regarding the plants design and positioning. As such, meaninghl comment is again not possible.

The ES does not give consideration to landform bunds as a supplementary mitigation measure.

Whilst mitigation measures are proposed for the pipeline route and in terms of the impacts on the Monkland Canal the effectiveness of these measures are difficult to quanti@ in view of the lack of details provided.

A possible mitigation measure referred to in the ES but for which no commitment has been given is the removal of what would become redundant electricity supply lines and Woodend substation which Powergen consider is a matter for Scottish Power. On the basis that Powergen have indicated that additional lines may require to be brought onto the site this aspect of mitigation could prevent an exacerbation of the existing proliferation of overhead wires. 282

3.3 COMMITMENT TO MITIGATION - C

Clear details of when and how the mitigation measures will be carried out should be given. When uncertainty over impact aidor effectiveness of mitigation over time exists, monitoring prograninies should be proposed to enable subsequent adjustment of mitigation measures as necessary.

The ES appears to contain a clear commitment to implementing the mitigation measures described. Many of these measures eg design and colour of the CCGT, will be written into the contracts for designing the plant and therefore will be implemented. The ES refers to the potential for a landscape masterplan being developed for the whole of the Gartcosh site. The ES should explain who is responsible for developing this and the time frame for when it will be completed. Reference is made to regular sampling of the site for potentially contaminated land. The frequency that this would be undertaken and the parameters to be measured should be given. The ES states that landscaping works may provide acoustic screening, it should be clarified whether this will be undertaken. In addition, the ES also notes that separate acoustic screening may be considered, the criteria for its implementation should be given in the ES.

* The additional information provided did not address these points.

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

Whilst the ES identifies a range of mitigation measures there is in many instances an absence of any clear commitment to implementing them. Additionally in some instances a clear commitment exists but the measures to be adopted are vague and unspecific.

With regard to the former, the ES has as stated above identified the potential for a master plan in respect of the landscaping of the whole of the Gartcosh site. There is however no commitment to undertaking this exercise. Similarly qualifications reduce the value of potential mitigations measures such as the possibility of providing acoustic screening. The circumstances when this is to be provided should be given.

A hrther example of unspecific mitigation proposed is found within paragraph 8.147 when addressing the impact of the dual pipeline on the drainage channels which appear to feed the Woodend Loch and Bishops Loch SSSI's. The commitment to mitigation is not reinforced by specific details regarding the measures to be adopted to prevent a detrimental impact on existing drainage channel and thus the SSSI's.

The foregoing comments regarding the lack of specific details to enable assessment of mitigation apply equally to measures regarding the treatment of contaminated land and implications for the Bothlin Burn.

The commitment to limit the design and colour of the CCGT is welcome however the parameters are as yet still rather unclear in view of the absence of agreement with British Waterways and the lack of details on the impact on design etc of dry cooling systems. 283

4.0 COMMUNICATION OF RESULTS - B

4.1 PRESENTATION

The report should be laid out clearly with the minimum amount of technical ternis. An index, glossary and full references should be given and the information presented so as to be comprehensive to the non specialist.

The ES is generally well presented. The ES is logically structured and is supported with good quality maps and diagrams which help to convey information to the reader. The ES largely avoids the use of technical terms and phrases, although the definition of decibel in the glossary is particularly complex and should be simplified. The following minor points should also be noted -

The noise levels given in paragraph 7.17 (p39) do not correspond with those given in Table 7, this should be clarified.

Paragraph 8.38 (p50) refers to a red area on figure 8.3, however this is not shown.

Paragraph 10.4 (p83) wrongly refers to figure 1 1.1, this should be figure 10.1.

Ditches D1 and D2 referred to in paragraph 8.74 (p55) should be illustrated on a map.

Reference is made in the text of the ES to IEA Guidelines (para 10.19 page 87). The full reference should be provided in the list of references given at the end of the ES.

* The additional information does not address the above points.

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

The points above reflect some drafting and accuracy shortcomings of the ES which could lead to uncertainty. The shortcomings are not considered to be significant in terns of quantieing the information therein.

4.2 BALANCE - C

The environniental statement should be an independent objective assessment of environmental impacts not a best case statement for the development. Negative impacts should be given equal prominence with positive impacts and adverse impacts should not be disguised by euphemism or platitudes. Prominence and emphasis should be given to predict large negative or positive impacts. 284

The ES generally provides a balanced and objective assessment of the potential environmental effects of the proposal. The worst case scenario is predicted for most of the impacts which enhances the objectivity of the EA. The lack of quantification and prediction of discharges to Monkland Canal detracts from the objectivity of the ES. The ES lists the advantages of CCGT technology, however the disadvantages should also be provided.

* The additional information provides quantified information and predictions of discharges to Monkland Canal eg flow rates and temperature. This information enhances the objectivity of the ES.

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

Comments regarding the lack of detailed consideration of the disadvantages of CCGT technology, particularly with respect to sustainable development have previously been made, however this omission is considered significant in terms of the the national context in which the appropriate legislation dictates that the matter will be considered.

The information submitted in respect of the Monkland Canal has previously been considered elsewhere but once again the views expressed in this regard are based upon the research finding available at the time of the studies preparation. The assumptions contained therein could be considered to detract from the balance of the reports findings and conclusions.

4.3 NONTECHNICALSUMMARY - B

There would be a non technical summay outlining the main conclusions and how they were reached. The summary should be comprehensive, containing at least a brief description of the project and the environment, an account of the main mitigating measures to be undertaken by the developer, and a description of any remaining or residual impacts. A brief explanation of the method by which these &a were obtained and an indication of the confidence which can be placed in them should also be included

A separate non-technical summary (NTS) is provided which reflects the strengths and weaknesses of the main ES. Maps and diagrams help to set the proposal in context and make the document self contained which should facilitate a wider readership.

* There are no points in this section which the additional information was required to address.

QUANTITIVE ASSESSMENT

As stated above the (NTS) reflects the strengths and weaknesses of the main document and as such must be considered to contain a number of omissions and inadequacies which is unfortunate given the wider readership which the document is aimed at. 285

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY THE IEA

* Gartcosh CCGT Power Station ES * Gartcosh CCGT Facility EA - Chapter 9 - Landscape and Architecture * Gartcosh CCGT Power Station Non Technical Summary

REFERENCES FOR QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

1 Lee N Colley N (1990), Reviewing the Quality of Environmental Statements, Occasional Paper No 24, EIA Centre, University of Manchester.

2 Commission of the European Communities (1985), Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (85/337/EEC), Official Journal of the European Communities, 175, Brussels.

3 Department of the Environment (1994), PPG23 - Planning and Pollution Control, HMSO, London. 286

APPENDIX 13

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Strathclvde Structure Plan

Recommendation 56

Strathkelvin District (Southern Area) Local Plan 1983

IND4 - Industrial Sites (Other Public Agencies) EPRO 6 - Areas Unaffected by Specific Proposals

Monklands Local Plan 198 1

Following a boundary change between the districts of Strathkelvin and Monklands during the mid 1980's an area of land within the south eastern' portion of the site falling within the main construction site transferred to Strathkelvin District. The adopted local plan for that area of the site is the Monklands District Local Plan 1981.

The appropriate policies are as follows -

IND 16 - Identification of Areas of Predominantly Industrial Character IND 17 - Presumption in Favour of Continuation of Industrial Use IND 18 - Sub-Division of Vacant Factories

Monklands District Local Plan 1991

The Monklands Local Plan 1991 provides detailed planning guidance for the development of the pipeline to the Monklands Canal, outwith Glasgow City. The applicable planning policies are as follows -

GB 1 - Restrict Development in the Greenbelt LR 8 - Develop Monkland Canal NAT 1 - Protect S S SI'S NAT 2 - Protect Key Nature Conservation Sites NAT 5 - Encourage Natural Species LR 917 - Develop Drumpellier Country Park CU 1/5 - Safety Restraint Areas 287

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Strathclvde Structure Plan Review 1995

Recommendation R14

The strategic implications of NPPG6 are also of relevance.

Strathkelvin District Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 1995

I2 - Development Opportunities DCll - Renewable Energy E1 1 - Rehabilitation of Derelict Land T1 - Strategic Road Improvements EP10 - Nature Conservation

Glasgow City Council Greater Easterhouse Plan (Draft) 1992

c3 - Presumption against developments which affect areas of wildlife importance.

National Planning Policy Guidance 2 - "Business and Industry" The Con solidat ed St ruc t u re Pian 288 ~~ ~-~ ~

S t rat hc I y d e 's R54 It is recommended that the Scottish Development Agency, in consultation SPU2 Promotional with Locate in Scotland and appropriate local authorities, gives priority to (su percedes Package the enhancement of the strategic industrial locations contained within R18) Schedule 9 B and gives support to environmental and renewal action to allow the creation of high amenity estates which include sites for signifi- cant users.

R55 It is recommended to the Secretary of State that he enables the resources SPU2 available from asset disposals in the New Towns to be committed to maintaining the momentum of industrial development up to and after wind-up.

R56 It is recommended that the Scottish Development Agency in consultation SPU2 with Locate in Scotland and appropriate local authorities, gives support to further studies with a view to bringing forward industrial opportunities at

Springburn Gartcosh Kilmarnock (Search Area)* Robroyston* *Potential High Amenity Estates.

IND 5 A Proposals for a large industrial development outwith the Regional supply SPRl of major and medium industrial sites or any other development not in SPRl DL accordance with Policies IND 4,5 and 6 shall require to be justified SPR2 against the following criteria: SPR2 DL

(a) Economic Benefits

(b) Infrastructure Implications; and

(c) Environmental Impact. Written Statemen? 89

Strathclyde is well provided with a range of good quality Strathdyde’s Promotional Package industrial estates, which have proved attractive to incoming high technology industry. these circumstances, and having Strategic Industrial Locations with High Amenity In Accepted by Locate in Scotland and the SDA regard to the Council’s strategy of urban renewal and regeneration, the Structure Plan emphasis has been on the Type of Site Proven Potential continued improvements of such locations. Recommenda- tions R54 and R55 give effect to this approach. Single User Cockhill Erskine (2) Carrickstone Johnstone’ Faulds Park NEsafeguarding does not apply specifically to high (Policy IND 6) amenity estates, but the Council’s intention is that the industrial development opportunities in these locations High Amenity Peel Park Cartsburn should not be prejudiced. Policy JND 7 (through Schedule Estates Westfield/ Vale of Leven 9B) and Recommendation R49 on Page 42 recognise the Orchardton Linwood (part) , Warrix/Oldhall Cambuslang“ need to safeguard significant industrial development Inchinnan Princes Dock opportunities in 21 strategically significant locations Shaw Farm North Alderston which (together with the promotional package opposite) West of Scotland Springhill Farm . offer the most attractive prospects for future investment. Science Park Darnley (Policies IND 6 and IND 7 Schedule 9B)

In addition, there are four other locations at Springburn, Other Strategically Significant Locations

~ Robroyston, Gartcosh, and Kilmarnock where local planning has identified potentially marketable industrial development Type of Site Proven Potential opportunities which, if confirmed, would warrant safeguard- Single User Newhouse Major NPG Sites ing through Policy IND 7. Recommendation R56 recom- Hunterston mends SDA support for the necessary technical studies. Progress at Inverclyde (Enterprise Zone), the Vale of Leven, Cambuslang” Medium Size Sites and hchinnan confirms the practicality of a policy of Braehead enhancement at locations with potential. Lynn (Dalry) Warrix (Policies IND 4 and 5) The development opportunities recognised through Policies NI 4,5,6 and 7 offer an appropriate range of opportunities Estates Clydebank Approved by for incoming industry, having regard to such prospects. Business Park Secretary of State However, it is recognised that particular industries may have Goodyear special requirements not adequately provided by these Queensliel Eastern Queenslie locations. Policy IND 5A provides the criteria against Righead/Bellshill which such proposals will be judged. Newhouse Whistleberry Road North Cardonaldl Hillington (Policy IND 7 Schedule 9B)

Locations for Springburn further study Gartcosh Robroyston”’ Kilmarnock”’

‘Potential location not yet safeguarded through Policy IND 6 “There are opportunities at Cambuslang to provide both a significant user site and a high amenity estate. There is no conflict between these provisions. “*Potential high amenity estates

lb . 1

.. 292 MONKLANDS DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN 1981 32

In general, applications for non retail commercial develop Ind 16 lhe Proposals Maps identify areas where \he pre- rnents in these areas will be favourably considered where dominantly industrial character will generally be retained. the proposals comply with the policies and proposals In this Plan. dnd 17 In the event of re-use or redevelopment of existing Jndustrial premises and/or land within the areas designated Ind 13 Within those parts of Airdrie, Coatbridge and the by Policy Ind 16, the presumption will be for the inaustrlal villages designated on the Proposals Maps as being suitable use to be continued. Only where this is not practicable for for 'General Urban Uses,' the following policies will apply: freesons of structure, condition, unsuitability of the building (A) The areas will be considered as ' General Urban Areas' or mineral instability or where the Interests of good land use where the principle of mixed uses will be accepted. planning mitigate against continuation of industrial use will other uses be considered for the site. (B) The District Council, in conjunction with Stralhclyde Regional Council and the Scottish Development Agency, will lnd 18 Within the area designated by Ind 16, the District give consideration to the development of small factory units Council wilt consider favourably proposals for the sub on suitable vacant sites In order to provide greater oppor- Uivlslon of vacant factories to provide premises for small tunities for local employment. firms, provided that adequate car parklng and senicing (C) Where considerations of access, plot size, built form facllltles can be included within the site, and provided that and amenity can be met, the District Council will consider amenity considerations can be met. favourably planning applications for the erection of a house ind 19 In relation to commercial establishments wishing to a small workshop with a workshop or for the erection of locate on Industrial estates, the District Council will operate within an existing residential plot. a pollcy that only wholesale or dislrlbutional outlets will be (D) The District Council will normally consider favourably permitted. No retail commercial outlets will be permitted any planning application which would result In the increase on industrial estates. or maintenance of employment in these areas provided that the amenity of the surrounding area would not be adversely Ind 20 The District Council will take and encourage others affected. to take measures to improve the operating conditions and environment of existing industrial areas. Ind 14 Within those areas designated for untidy industrial particular, It the intention of the District Council, uses on the Proposals Maps, the District Council wit1 not In is as finance becomes available, to designate Industrial Improve enforce strict planning standards for industrial develop ment Areas (1.1.A.'~)~ within those areas shown on the ments. The exception to this will the treatment of be Proposals Maps, and to make use of the other powers boundarier and screening areas. It is intended that these included in the inner Urban Areas Act (1978). areas should accommodate essentlal but untidy Industrial uses such as scrap yards and vehicle repair yards. 5.2 Proposals and Recommendations Ind 15 Within the secondary core areas drfined in Policy 5.2.1 Further to the policies above, the sites listed below lnd 12 and within the proposed Industrial Improvement represent areas that are considered by the District Council Areas, the District Council will encourage the provision of to be suitable for industrial development. Therefore, there witable accommodatlon for small firms In both manufac- will be 8 strong presumption in favour of any detailed in- turing and service sectors, either through the development of dustrial dsvelopment proposals put forward for any of these new premises or the rehabliitation of older buildings. sites. 5.1.7 Although this document puts forward policies and ...... _,_ ..._.-_.__L_...._.. - .... .-.-.- ...... -- proposals for the development of new industrial sites, the ...+'...... : ..I. * .i vast bulk of local employment will continue to be provided by existing firms in existing industrial areas. Therefore, the ... District Council believes that it is vital to maintain and im- :. . $. ;: . . ' 7...... prove these areas. The following policies are put forward ... -2. with this aim in mind. '

Coatbank Slreet, Coatbridge-Advance Units provided by Monklands District Council Ind 21 in response to Policy Ind 2. the District Council proposes that the foliowing sites should be developed for Chapelhail Industrial Estate where industrial lnduttrlal purposes during the Local Plan period (subject to character is to be maintained the sites proving capable of development) : ..- Monklands District Local Plan 1991 THE COUNTRYSID&?3

NAT4 Encourage Nature Conservation The District Council will ensure that its working practices include design principles and management techniques which promote the conservation of wildlife and will encourage other managers of land and in particular the Regional Council to adopt similar practices.

NAT5 Encourage Natural Species

There will be a presumption in favour ofthe use of indigenous trees, shrubs and plants in landscape, amenity and rehabilitation schemes.

NAT6 Exploit Conservation Value

The District Council recognises the value of both SSSIs and "Key" sites and will give consideration to their sensitive inclusion in Heritage Trails, Long Distance Footpaths and Recreational proposals where appropriate.

The District will develop:

1)District Nature Reserve at Greenfoot Quarry, Glenboig.

2) District Nature Reserve at Witchwood, Coatbridge. ,

GBl Restrict Development in Green Belt

Within areas designated as Green Belt no development will be permitted except for:-

a) New houses for full time workers in connection with forestry or agriculture where the applicant:-

(i) can show that a new house on the site proposed has the support of the Forestry Commission or Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.

(ii) can show that there is no house, building plot, or building suitable for conversion available nearby or within a nearby settlement.

(iii) is willing to enter into a Section 50 Agreement to restrict future occupancy of the house to a full time forestry or agricultural worker.

(iv) is proposing a development which conforms to the District Council's design guidance.

b) Non residential developments in connection with forestry or agriculture .

c) Uses requiring a rural location:-

(i) to avoid nuisance to neighbours (e.g. animal boarding kennels) (ii) since they need large areas of open space (e.g. riding sbbles,or golf courses).

d) Areas identified as having substantial development potential:- 2.9~p'KECOUNTRYSIDE Monklands District Local Plan

(11 Drumpellier Country Park - Leisure and Recreation Use (2)Luggie Water - Businessuse

(3)South Chapelhall 8 - Hotel GB2 Restrict Development in Countryside Around Towns Isolated developments in the "Countryside Around Towns" shall not generally accord with the Local Plan unless there is a specific locational need. Proposals for development within the area shall require to be justified against the following criteria: (a) economic benefit (h) specific locational need (c) infrastructure implications (d) environmental impact Wi+in this area, sites identified as having substantial development potential are:

1) Forrestburn Reservoir - Leisure, Recreation and Tourism 2) Hillend Reservoir - Leisure, Recreation and Tourism GB3 Protect Prime Agricultural' Land There shall be a general presumption against:- (i) Development or fragmentation of prime quality agricultural land (defined by DAFS as Grades ll 2 and 3.1 land, or where an alternative exists on Grade 3.2 quality land)

(ii)Soil stripping operations (unless such operations are a prerequisite of work on approved mineral operations or other approved developments) . GB4 Reduce Area of Gre'en Belt

.To recommend to Strathclyde Regional Council that they confirm in the next Structure Plan Review the exclusion of the eastern half of Monklands District from the Green Belt, and its inclusion in the Structure Plan Policy area for

"Countryside Around Towns". -4 REI Support Rural Economy To take active steps to support the rural economy of Monklands District by:- a)Encouraging the growth of appropriate rural enterprises b) Identifying and promoting rural development opportunities c) Encburaging i-mprovements to the rural landscape d) Encouraging improvements to rural services '

1 1.1 Monitoring

The District Council will note all applications affecting SSSIs each year. The target is to prevent any development that will adversely affect an SSSI. Monklands District Local Plan ' LEISURE AND RECREATI096

2. Cliftonhill Park, Coatbridge - Upgrade to all seater stadium, combined with other leisure, recreation or "business use" or redevelop the existing site for housing -&or business use and provide stadium on a new site. LR6 Develop Facilities for Golf The District Council will support the development of further golf course facilities. In particular:-

1. An 18 hole Municipal Golf Course at Gartlea, Airdrie. . 2. Deleted. 3. A 9 hole private Golf Course at Dunalastair, Chapelhall, in association with other commercial developments. LR7 Develop Network of Long Distance Paths The District Council will protect former railway lines, canals and other routes from inappropriate developments and will construct the following network of long distance paths:-

1. The North Calder Path (Strathclyde to Bathgate : Viewpark to Forrestfield section 1.

2. The Monkland Canal Path (Bargeddie to Calderbank : The Bargeddie to Drumpellier Section).

3. Ballochney Railway'Path (Summerlee to Bo'ness : Airdrie to Longriggend Section).

4. Monklands/Kirkintilloch Railway Path (Summerlee to Kirkintilloch : Coatbridge to Glenboig Section).

5. Greengairs Railway Path (Airdrie to Palacerigg Country Park : Airdrie to Greengairs Section). I.K8 1)evelop Monkland Canal

The District Council will develop the Monkland Canal as :-

a. a leisure and recreation facility b. a transportation link between leisure and recreation and tourist facilities and town centrejresidential areas along its length The priori ties for upgrading are:

1. Blair Bridge to Cuilhill - remove obstructions and environmental improvement 2. Summerlee to Blair Bridge - reconstruction 3. Calderbank to Sikeside Road - dredging and environmental improvement 296 LEISUREAND RECREATION I Monklands District Local Plan

4. Coatbank Street to Locks Street - reconstruction 5. Fountain Cross to Sikeside Road - reserve line for reconstruction

LR9 Develop Drumpellier Country Park The District Council will further develop Drumpellier Country Park as a major outdoor leisure and recreation facility. In particular it will:-

1. Draw up a comprehensive Management Plan for the Park 2. Extend the Pursuit Centre to provide dual purpose display aredcgnference area 3. Acquire Drumpellier Home Farm and associated fields to develop an Equestrian Centre, Interpretation Centre, Urban Demonstration Farm and other accommodation

4. Improve access to the Monklands Canal west of the Home Farm viaduct for coarse fishing 5. Deleted 6. Reconstruct the Crannog on Lochend Loch 7. Carry out tree planting between Gartcosh Road and the M73 8. Relocate two fairways and greens further away frbm Woodend Loch SSSI 9. Provide Car Park at Woodend Loch

I,K10 1)evelop Leisure and Recreation in the Countryside

The District Council will promote the development of suitable leisure and recreation uses in the countryside. In particular, it will encourage:-

1. Further development of Hillend Loch for water based pursuits, and the surrounding land for equestrian puisuits.

2. Further development of Forrestburn Reservoir area for leisure.

1.H 1 1 Improve f’u blic Open Space

The District Council will protect existing public open space from inappropriate development and will upgrade existing large areas of public open space. In particular it will:-

1. Provide synthetic, all weather pitch at Kirkwood.

2. Provide Public Open Space at Petersburn.

3. Provide Public Open Space at Souterhouse Road, Coatbridge. I P *q "HE COUNTRYSIDE Monklands District Local Plan

FOR1 Encourage Forestry The District Council, in association with'the Central Scotland Countryside Trust, will encourage forestry:-

a) as part of integrated farming/forestry developments b) to improve the environment and amenity of the settlements c) to help define the "edges" of settlements and reduce problems of the "urban/rural fringe" d) to improve the appearance of road and rail corridors within the District e) to rehabilitate derelict sites of mineral workings f) as Community Woodlahds FOR2 Encourage Tree Planting Schemes The District Council will encourage tree planting through:- a)Tree planting schemes .in District Council parks b) Landscaping conditions on planning consents c) Planting trees in verges and pavements in towns and villages FOR3 Tree Preservation Orders

The District Council will :- a) Designate appropriate areas for protection by Tree Preservation Orders

b) Encourage the production of Management Plans where Tree Preservation Orders have been designated

c) Protect those trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders, unless removal is required by an agreed Management Plan.

The following site is proposed for a Tree Preservation Order:-

1) Rochsoles, Glenmavis Management Plans are proposed for all existing and proposed Tree Preservation Orders. NATl Protect SSSIs

The District Council will not allow development within or adjacent to SSSIs that would threaten their integrity or character. Designated SSSIs are:- 1) Woodend Loch 2) Longriggend Moss 3) North Bellstane Plantation 4) Lady Bells Moss NAT2 Protect "Key" Nature Conservation Sites The District Council recognises the Nature Cohservation value of "Key" conservation sites and will consult with the Nature Conservancy Council and other interested bodies over proposals affecting these areas. r 298 Monklands District Local Plan THE COUNTRYSIDE &-

NAT4 Encourage Nature Conservation The District Council will ensure that its working practices include design principles and management techniques which promote the conservation of wildlife and will encourage other managers of land and in particular the Regional Council to adopt similar practices. NAT5 Encourage Natural Species There will be a presumption in favour ofthe use of indigenous trees, shrubs and plants in landscape, amenity and rehabilitation schemes. NAT6 Exploit Conservation Value The District Council recognises the value of both SSSIs and "Key" sites and will give consideration to their sensitive inclusion in Heritage Trails, Long Distance Footpaths and Recreational proposals where appropriate. The District will develop:

1)District Nature Reserve at Greenfoot Quarry, Glenboig. 2) District Nature Reserve at Witchwood, Coatbridge. , GBI Restrict Development in Green Belt Within areas designated as Green Belt no development will be permitted except for:- a) New houses for full time workers in connection with forestry or agriculture where the applicant- (i) can show that a new house on the site proposed has the support of the Forestry Commission or Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.

(ii) can show that there is no house, building plot, or building suitable for conversion available nearby or within a nearby settlement. . (iii) is willing to enter into a Section 50 Agreement to restrict future occupancy of the house to a full time forestry or agricultural worker. (iv) is proposing a development which conforms to the District Council's design guidance. b) Non residential developments in connection with forestry or agriculture . c) Uses requiring a rural location:-

(i) to avoid nuisance to neighbours (e.g. animal boarding kennels)

(ii) since they need large areas of open space (e.g. riding stables. or golf courses). d) Areas identified as having substantial development potential:- Monklands District Local Plan COMMUNITY SERVICES AND UTILITE!$$

CEMl Improve Cemetery Provision- The District Council will improve existing cemeteries and provide the following: 1. St. Josephs, Dykehead Road - extension 2. Coatbridge - new cemetery 3. Glenmavis - reserve for future extension Within the Local Plan, the.District Council makes mention of various safety restraint areas which constrain development as follows; CUI Safety Restraint Areas All planning applications within the following types of Safety Restraint Areas shown on the Proposals Maps will be subject to special scrutiny including possible referral to the Health and Safety Executive, the Regional Council, Scottish Office, British Gas or British Telecom:

1. Health and Safety Notification Areas: No development will be allowed within Health and Safety Notification Areas without the agreement of the Health and Safety Executive.

2. Trunk Road Notification Areas: No development will normally'be'allowed within 67m of any Trunk Road without the approval of the Trunk Roads Authority. 3. Gas Pipeline Safety Zones: There will be a general presumption against development within 400m of high pressure gas pipelines, unless the development is opposed by neither the Health and Safety Executive nor British Gas and is otherwise in accordance with this Plan.

4. Radio Transmitter Approaches: Any development proposals within radio mast approaches may be subject to referral to British Telecorn for advice.

5. Landfi'll Gas: No development shall be permitted within 250m of either operational or completed land-fill sites unless it can be demonstrated by way of suitable scientific investigationqthat the site in question is not producing, and issunlikely at any time in the future taproduce, any,potentially dangerous gases. The availability of various utilities and services is an essential component of any development. In the overwhelming number of cases the existing utilities and services have been able to cope with these developments. However, it is recognised that at Longriggend, the limits of drainage capacity have been reached. The District Council therefore puts forward the following policy. UTI Utilities and Infrastructure

The District Council in considering any development proposals will not refuse planning permission solely on the grounds of current lack of infrastructure. However it should be noted that in the Longriggend Water Catchment Area adequate sewerage facilities are not generally available. 300 STRATHCLYDE STRUCTURE PLAN REVIEW 1995

Non industrial development MARKETABLE INDUSTRIALLAND

In some cases there may be opportunities for non industrial IND 1 development on marketable industrial land, for example where the supply is more than adequate. Policy /ND IA sets The Regional Development Strategy requires a ten year out the criteria against which such proposals are to be judged. supply of marketable industrial land to be maintained in each sector of the Region or the Conurbation. Shortages and New Demands IND 1A Although the overall Regional supply of marketable industrial land is satisfactory, there have been shortages in some sectors Non industrial development proposals on marketable of the Conurbation, or within specific Districts, of locations industrial land shall require to be justitied against the which offer qualitative advantages or a better distribution of following criteria, development opportunities. It is considered that further release

is not at present required, other than in Kyle and Carrick. (a) the scale, distribution and quality of the marketable , Poky /ND 2 gives effect to this requirement. land supply, and vacant industrial floorspace, within each sector of the Region or the Conurbation, IMPROVINGTHE QUALITY OF THE LAND SUPPLY FOR BUSINESSAND INDUSTRY (b) prospective rates of land take-up over a ten year period, The quality and effectiveness of the land supply is a key issue. Investment in the existing'land supply and the reuse (c) the shortfall in marketable industrial land identikd in and recycling of existing urban land, which offers positive Policy IND 2, and attributes such as accessibility, is essential if further greenfield release is to be minimised. The role of the LEC's is critical in (d) the need to safeguard strategically signficant locations this regard. for industrial use.

MARJCETABK In general not enough emphasis has been placed on the ADDITIONSTO THE MARJCETABK LAND SUPPLY creation of attractive opportunities from the existing sites, io compete on equal terms with the current portfolio of IND 2 peripheral, and frequently greenfield, sites in the Region and in consequence reduce the need for further greenfield release. The Regional Development Strategy requires additions to . the marketable industrial land supply in the following A sustainable opproach requires increased empiwsis on the locations, as shown on the Key Diagram, creation of attractive, accessible [by road and public transport], urban locations in the Inner Conurbation. Location for General Industrial and Business Use Recommendatioi! t? 74 reflects this and identifies the immediate priorities. Kyie and Cam'ck 10 Hectares (approx)

IMPROVINGTHE QUALITY OF THE LAND SUPPLYFOR BUSINESSAND INDUSTRY

R14

It is recommended to Scotfish Enterprise Nafional,Local Enterprise Companies, and Local Authorities that they should give priority to improving the quality of the land supply for industry and business, through environmental and renewal action, and investment in infrastructure,as indicated in Schedule 6. '95 30 1 SCHEDULE7 SURPLUSINDUSTRIAL LANDBY DISTRICTOR SCHEDULE6 : INDUSTRIALAND BUSINESS LAND SUPPLYPRIORITIES FOR AC~ION CITY SECTOR(POSSIBLE SCALE OF TRANSFER TO (A) LOCATIONS OTHER USES)

Location Action Required Relevant Authorities - - LEClDistrict Sector Total (hectares) so SRC - Glasgow NE 6.2 Rothesay Dock, and Strategic access, land recovery Glasgow NW 11.3 Clydebank Riverside, environmental enhancement Clydebank Glasgow N 60.2 Glasgow E 42.6 Robroyston, Infrastructure Glasgow SE 100.6 environmental enhancement Glasgow SW 13.5 . Damley, Glasgow Strategic access, Glasgow W 0.0 environmental enhancement Glasgow C 9.4 Glasgow 243.8 . Springhill Farm, Site access, land recovery si environmental enhancement Dumbarton 47.8 CambudanyHamilton Environmental enhancement Bearsden 0.0 Farm, Glasgow Clydebank 0.2 Strathkelvin 45.9 Whistleberry Corridor, Environmental enhancement Hamilton Cumbernauld 14.4 Dunbarton 108.3 Strutherhill IE, Hamitton Site infrastructure, ~~ ~- environmental enhancement lnverclyde 6.7 Waterfront, lnverdyde Site infrastructure, Eastwood 0.0 environmental enhancement Renfrew 45.1 Renfrew 51.8 Chapelhall Brickworks Land recovery, snvironmental enhancement Kyle and Carrick 9.1 Lirrwood, Land recovery, Kilrnamodc 13.0 Renfrew snvironmental enhancement Cunninghame 49.8 Cumnock 0.0 Westerhill Rd, Strathkelvin Strategic access, snvironrnental enhancement Ayrshire 71.9

- Vale of Leven Environmental enhancement Motherwell 88.2 . Dumbarton Monklands 74.3 . Inchinnan (former invironmental enhancement Hamilton 19.4 tyre plant), Renfrew East Kilbride 1.o Ctydesdale 10.4 Southaag, Kilmarnock :nvironmental enhancement Lanarkshire 193.3

(B) LOCATIONSFOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION Argyll 0.0

Springbum SmTncrYDE Gadcosh Provan Gas Works (incl RRh) 669.1 College Goods Yard

'Local Plans should continually review all nonmarketable elements of the supply having particular regard to the transfer opportunities identified above. In DistnctdSectors where the marketable supply exceeds fen year demand prospects then review of this element of the supply may also be appmpnate. Kel leWUUit3 LI ICl LJY 302 - .. I '95

NATIONALPLANNING Poricr

'The development of In August 1994, the Scottish Office published its National renewable energy Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy (NPPG 6) and an resources should be accornponying Planning Advice Note 45. In NPPG 6, it is within a framework, provided by national stated that Structure Plan policies should: policy and development plans, which seeks to define, in relation to other straiegic priorities, search areas accomodate the for renewable energy developments, objectives of both economic development and conservation. In safeguard areas considered suitable for such projects from particular, development developments which would inhibit their subsequent plans should aim to exploitation and which could be accommodated elsewhere, safeguard sensitive environmental features while guiding define areas where, because of environmental and other developers to locations considerations, renewable energy developments are likely where renewable energy to prove difficult to reconcile with other policy considerations, developments are likely to be permitted...". set the framework for Local Plans including priorities for "Structure Plans should development control. include policies which express regional council's strategy for The NPPG a.lso specifically pinpoints Strathclyde in terms of, renewable energy developments. This the identification and accommodation of areas for large strategy should make scale wind-farm development and, - positive provision for renewable energy developments in so far an evaluation of the potential from waste incineration as this is compatible and landfill gas. with other environmental interests." In the wider strategic context, the development of renewable from NPCO 6 energy resources has been a key theme in the UK nRomowablo Energy", (seowisb oftic., 1994). Government's Environmental Policy 'This Common Inheritance', published in response to the Brundtland Commission Report 'Our Common Future' [ 1987) and the European Commission's 'Fifth Action Programme on the Environment'. Renewable energy was accepted as a key element in the reduction of global pollution and global warming at the Rio Summit in 1992.

Wi ndenergy Turbine. 303

kunonswlP To *or Minimise Pollution,

Ienewcble energy is a major new planning issue. Its , reducing the reliance upon non-renewablefossil iuels and !eveloprnent in Straihclyde could contribute significantly to the consequent air pollution, ie Plan's aims of a sustainable pianning framework by: utilising natural resources, for example wind and water, itre ng t hen ing the Reg i o na I Economy, which do not produce waste products.

orovicing employment opportunities, pcrriculariy in the emoier rural areas utilising the Region's naturally sustainable

bringing into positive use degraded agricultural land on Mid-Wales: Wind Farm. he urban hinge,

reducing CO2 emissions.

Diagram 19.1 UK Wind Resources 304 F STRATHKELVIN DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN (FINALISED DRAFT) 1995 F E POLICY I 1: EXISTING BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY E The District Council will support the development Of vacant or under-utilised land or premises within existing business and industrial concerns provided that the proposals are not incompatible with the E existing uses and satisfy local planning criteria. In this latter respect any potential change in the character of an area will require to be assessed in terms of Policy EP12(v)or Policy EP13 to safeguard the environment. E

POLICY I 2: DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES E

The District Council will endeavour to facilitate a range of commercial and industrial opportunities at a E variety of locations throughout Strathkelvin. In some instances the District Council will provide financial support for development and in other cases funding will be from private or other public sources. E Wherever possible the District Council will welcome the opportunity to negotiate a joint development E agreement to ensure the most efficientprogress towards the creation of employment .

The opportunities are as Follows:

BISHOPBRICCS Status Potential

Lowmoss : Recently constructed premises Light industry (4 x 2301112) (Class 4). f Huntershill Way : Vacant site owned by Scottish Light Industry E Enterprise (0.1 ha.). (Class 4).

St. Mungo Street : Cleared site for redevelopment. Light or general Planning permission granted for industry. workshop units (ZGOm2). (Class 4 and Class 5).

Note: Alternative proposal for nursing home (see Policy C4: Local Health Facilities)

Westerhill Road : A site of 18 hectares of land in Prestige location on the edge mixed ownership. of the countryside adjacent to E the Glasgow/Edinburgh rail E link and next to the line of the proposed Bishopbriggs Relief Road. The site is in mixed ownership and part of the site (heroil distribution terminal) is likely to require decontamination. E

A master plan is required E which should have particular regard to the following: a) Provision of accommodation for a range of business and industrial accommodation comprised of Class 4/Cl& 5 business/industrial units. b) Reservation of part of the site bra high amenity prestige development c) Provision of a new rail halt with associated park and ride - 38 - facilities (see Policy T5). 3 1305-

POLlCY DC7 : POLICY DC 10: FLOODING 3 ROADS AND PARKING FACILITIES When assessing any application for proposed 3 The District Council will generally apply the roads and development the District Council will take account 3 parking standards recommended by the Regional of the potential for flooding and will impose Council in the current edition of ‘Guidelines for conditions to alleviate potential flooding problems. 3 Development Roads” when considering planning it will be the responsibility of the developer to applications. implement any conditions in this respect. Where an applicant cannot demonstrate that measures will be In some instances where a proposal is likely to taken to protect existing development from floods generate particularly high volumes of traffic, higher that may occur as a result of proposed 3 parking provision may be required. development the District Council will consider this 3- justification to refuse planning permission. POLICY DC8 : CYCLING FACILITIES 3. POLICY DC11: RENEWABLE ENERGY 3- Where appropriate the District Council will require provision to be made for cyclists, for example cycle The District Council recognises the importance of 3 paths within new developments. renewable energy sources and technologies and will generally support renewable energy developments 3 POLlCY DC9 : METHANE where these can be achieved in an environmentalty 3 acceptable manner. Much of the southern part of Strathkelvin is affected 3 by the natural Occurrence of methane gas. Within this In particular, the District Council will encourage 3 area any planning permission related to the renewable energy projects involving the recovery of construction of new buildings will be subject to the landfill gas and will safeguard those remaining following condition: landfill sites, not presently allocated, from any form of development which would hinder such projects. Before any construction work is commenced 3 on site, written confirmation shall be The District Council will also encourage biomass submitted to the planning authority to the energy projects (energy crops and waste 3 effect that no gas seepage has been combustion) and considers that the Gartcosh 3. detected on site. Alternatively, or if it is not industrial site offers potential for the establishment possible to satisfy the planning authority that of a biomass energy plant (see Policy I 2). no gas is present, confirmation will be 3 required to the effect that the constructional There will be a general presumption against details are such as to ensure that gas will not windfarm developments which would adversely 3 enter into the structure by means of seepage. affect environmentally sensitive areas such ds the Campsie Fells Regional Scenic Area (see Policy When assessing any application for proposed EP1 l), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (see Policy development either on or within 250 metres of a EP1) and sites of Importance for Nature landfill site, whether operational, awaiting restoration Conservation (see Policy EP10). or restored, the District Council will have due regard to any appropriate codes of practice or current technical advice.

HERITAGE h ENVlRONMEM ( MMLopMwl coma poucILs 1

J 306

POLICY T1: consent has lapsed, construction is STRATEGIC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS scheduled to commence in 1997/98.

The general objective of the District Council is to To some extent the situation has been improve the movement of through traffic by the complicated by the suggestion in creation of a new sub-regional road network related Strathclyde Structure Plan that land to the to M80 Stepps by-pass and an eastward extension, east OF Bishopbriggs be released for the Bishopbriggs relief road, the Kirkintilloch link residential development (see Policy H3). road and an interchange on M73 at Cartcosh. It is recognised that the road line may alter somewhat from the route given Completion of this network will reduce adverse outline planning permission. The District environmental impact caused by heavy traffic flows Council hopes that, whatever the finally through many towns and villages in Strathkelvin agreed line, the Regional Council will and benefit economic growth. continue to give high priority to the construction of the relief road. The current situation is as follows: The first phase OF the Kirkintilloch link road M80 Stepps by-pass was completed in 1992. is complete (the town centre relief road) and the remaining section received outline The extension of the motorway to the east planning permission in 1'990. Construction of the Stepps by-pass linking with M80 at has been deferred until after 1998 and the Haggs is likely to follow one of two routes completion of the road could have which have been the subject of a study implications in terms of residential commissioned by The Scottish Office. The development in the vicinity of Woodilee. off line route (green route) preferred by The (see Policy H3). Scottish Office extends the Stepps by-pass north east to the south of Twechar, north of Note: Whilst acknowledging financial constraints Drumgrew Bridge, and onwards to pass on the roads programme, the District between Croy and Kilsyth, crossing the Council will continue to emphasise the Kelvin Valley and continuing eastwards to need for the early construction of the Haggs. This would be a dual 3 lane motorway Bishopbriggs Relief Road and the throughout its length.This option would Kirkintilloch Link Road as both these also require M73 to be extended schemes are of paramount importance to northwards to meet M80 at an interchange the continuing process of urban renewal in close to Drumgrew Bridge. As an alternative, Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch. tbe on line route (red route) would involve the by-pass continuing eastwards passing to There is not a formal proposal to construct the north of Chryston and Moodiesburn. an interchange in the vicinity of Cartcosh After merging with M73, the line would linking M73 with the local road network coincide with the existing A80 through but the District Council supports the Cumbernauld which would be upgraded concept of a new junction. On completion, to dual 4 lane motorway standard. a new interchange would provide significant economic development and Bishopbriggs relief road received planning environmental benefits. (see Policy I2- permission in 1986 and, although this Note and Policy El 1).

/ - A0 - i POLICY El 1 : REHABlLfTATlON OF DERELICT LAND E The District Council will continue to pursue its objective OF rehabilitating derelict sites with the ultimate intention of eliminating all features that detract from the wider environmental quality of Strathkelvin. To ensure that F rehabilitated sites are put to good use an acceptable hture.land use is indicated in each &e. E Note : The implementation process is dependent on finance from a variety of public and private E sector sources. In particular the District Council will seek continued support From Scottish Enterprise and the Dunbartonshire Enterprise Company. E

Derelict land requiring rehabilitation: E

BISHOPBRICCS : Meadowbum Quarry: Residential development.(see Proposal H2 (infilled) Meadowburn (west),Bishopbriggs). E. E 'Although planning permission hm been granted in respect of the eastern part of the site, poor ground E conditions could delay or frustrate implementation. E Should it become apparent that housing development is unlikely, the District Council will E re-assess the future of the land in terns of use. E Cadder Quarry : Recreational potential particularly in respect of the adjacent Forth and Clyde Canal. (see Policy TO2). E E Crofthead Quarry : Tree planting. (infilled) (see Policy E14). E

Wilderness : Infilling for agricultural or woodland use. E E An ongoing project being undertaken through the private sector. E € E E E

- 18 - E 19 -

GARTCOSH : Drumcavel Quarry: Infilling for agriculrural or woodland use.

A long tern project in view of existing pemissions for the further extraction of surface mineral deposits.

The District Council will seek to secure the phased restoration of quarry workings. (see Policy EP5 - Note and Policy EPG).

Land associated with: Restoration of land for industrial/commercial uses. former steelworks (see Policy I 2).

This is a major project and would be given impetus by approval of a new motorway interchange. (see Policy TI):

KlRKlNTlLLOCH : Woodilee : Decontamination of former gas works for industrial use. (see Policy I 2).

Former colliery : Removal of colliery buildings and waste for (St. Flannan’s) agricultural or woodland use.

LENNOXTOWN : Land adjacent to nailworks : Decontamination for residential and industrial use. at Station Road (Whitefield) (see Proposal HZ and Policy I 2).

MOLLINSBURN : Former colliery : Removal and regrading for agricultural or woodland (Bedlay) use.

! An ongoing project being undertaken through the private sector.(Partlywithin the area of Monklands ! District Council). ! MOODIESBURN : Former colliery : Removal of colliery waste and buildings for (Auchengeich) agricultural or woodland use or, possibly, limited industrial use in terms of the existing adjacent ! commercial concern.

I MUIRHEAD : Former brickworks: Removal of waste material and upgrading for ! (Heathfield) agricultural or woodland use.

I There are no current proposals for action and the process could be a long term objective.

STEPPS Former colliery : Removal of waste material and regrading for use (Cardowan) for residential, industrial and commercial purposes. (see Proposal H2 and Policy I 2).

An ongoing project being undertaken through the private sector.

HERITAGE & ENMRONMENT QMPROVEMLNl POLICIES ) PROPOSAL EP9 : SPECIAL CONTROL AREAS (PROPOSED)

In addition to the special control areas listed in Policy EP8, the District Council proposes:

- an extension of the Colston Drive/Kirkintilloch Road, Bishopbdggs special control area south wards to include properties previously in Glasgow prior to a boundary change at this location.

- the designation of a special control area at Millerston in the vicinity of Station Road.

- the designation of a special control area at Bankhead Road, Waterside.

In all instances directions under Article 4 will be sought to remove certain categories of permitted development rights.

POLICY EPlO : NATURE CONSERVATION

When considering development proposals, the District Council will have regard to land which is of importance 3- in terms of nature conservation. In this respect the District .Council will consult with relevant statutory and 3 voluntary organisations as appropriate.

3 Note 1 : The Scottish Wildlife Trust has undertaken a survey of wildlife corridors and habitats in Strathkelvin and the District Council will take account of the relative value of sites as part of the overall assessment of development proposals. 3 Note 2 : In order to safeguard flora and fauna Lenzie Moss and Heathfield/Clamkirk Moss were both 3 specifically protected from development under the terms of the preceding local plans. The District Council will maintain this protective policy. (see Policy El 3 in respect of Lenzie Moss). ' 9 Note 3 : High Moss, Bishopbriggs and Frankfield Loch, Stepps are other locations of recognised 3 nature conservation value and both areas are adjacent to land covered by significant development proposals (see Proposal H2). In both cases the District Council will apply 3. controls on any new development to safeguard nature conservation interests.

3- Note 4 : Merklands Nature Park, Kirkintilloch will be utilised for educational purposes and possible 3 other recreational uses (see Policy LR1) but at all times the District Council will protect the nature conservation value of this area. 9 Note 5 : The Kelvin Valley Countryside Project, Nature Conservation Strategy has identified numerous 3 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SING)and Important Wildlife Corridors (IWG) throughout Strathkelvin. There will be a general presumption against development which 3 would adversely affect a SINC of district importance. The District Council will also take into 3 account the relative vdue of other SING and lWG when considering development proposals. 3 3 3 HERITAGE a ENVIRONMEN' 3 ( PROTECTlON POLICIES ) 3 3 310 39 - c 1 BISHOPBRIGCS 1 status Potential I Westerhill Road : d) A phased programme of (continued) development. 1 e) Provision of structurd planting to accord with a phased 1 development programme. 0 Retention and extension of 1 structure planting along the eastem periphery of the site . 1 between the development 1 area and the proposed road line. 8 Note: The District Council considers that the optimum results will be achieved by the joint !I marketing of the site by the various owners.

3 GARNKIRK 3 (Near Muihead) 3 Woodhead Road : Outline planning permission granted Light or general (a) for offices and workshops. industry. (Class 4 or Class 5). 3 (Offices: 4 x 225mZ Workshops: 2 x 200mZ 4 z x 300m2 6 x 50mz). D Woodhead Road : Vacant and underused site General industry. 3 (b) ' (9.9 ha). (Class 5).

4 Note 1: Access to the sites in Woodhead Road would be improved if the local improvements contained in Policy T2 were to be implemented by constructing a new junction between A80 and Woodhead 3 Road. 3 Note 2: Future development will require to be set within a woodland landscape structure in keeping with 3 the rural setting of this industrial area. 3 GARTCOSH

3 land adjacent to M73 : A site of 94 hectares that comprises In addition to the newsprint of vacant land and disused steel mill the site has potential for 3 works. Part of the site has detailed for a range of other industrial planning permission for the uses. The District Council 3 establishment of a newsprint mill. would be prepared to The balance is in the ownership consider proposals involving 3 of Scottish Enterprise. general industry (Class 5), 3 (see Policy El 1). special industry(C1asses 6-10) and storage or distribution 3 (Class 1 1) and suigeneris uses uxnptible wi~tke use dasses 3 (see note 1). 3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 4 3 z CARTCOSH status Potential -i Land adjacent to M73 : In addim, the site offers potential t for the development of a biomass energy plant (seePolicy DCl I). I

Note: The attraction of this site would be significantly increhsed by the construction of an interchange in c the vicinity linking M73 to the local road nework. (see Policy T1). The District Council believes that a new interchange would benefit the environment of Cartcosh by allowing direct motorway access for traffic generated through industrial development.

KlRKlNTlLLOCH

c Southbank : Continuing development of Southbank Light and general industry c Business Park. the first phase of . and offices (Class 4 and Class 5) c which is complete. A total of 3.7 ha. t is available for industrial / business development. The District Council E

and Dunbartonshire Enterprise c reached agreement with a developer t leading to the submission of an c outline planning application. t An integrated development is c anticipated to co-ordinate the use of c vacant land in various ownerships. Development of the business park will permit the extension of Donaldson Street westwards to land allocated for housing. ' E (see Policy T2 and Proposal H2). € The overall development will also include the treatment of the south bank OF the Forth and Clyde E Canal from Townhead westwards. This could include residential E development from Townhead to Donaldson Avenue, the construction of E a new police station and court (see Proposal C9) and integration E into the business park west of Donaldson Avenue. High quality of design is particularly required along the canal frontage. (see Policy T02). E

A footbridge across the canal to provide a link with the Northbank E Road vicinity is also proposed. (see Policy TZ). E

Woodilee : Vacant land (3.4 ha.) likely to General industry or storage. E require decontamination being (Class 5 or Class 1 1) and sui formerly a gas works. generis uses compatible with E Access from Kirkintilloch link road. these use classes (see note 1). E b - 40 - POLICIES, PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS POLICY c 1 Collateral uses on established farmlands will be given sympathetic consideration where such uses are shown to be necessary for maintaining the viability of the farm unit and its landscape form.

POLICY c2 Glasgow City Council will seek improvement and management of woodlands, and access to them through the Kelvin Valley Countryside Project.

POLICY c3 There shall be a prcsumption against Developments which adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the undernoted areas of wildlife imporlance:- Hogganfield Park; Frankfield Loch; Cardowan Moss; Gartloch Flood; Bishop Loch and Commonhead Moss/Baillie Moss.

POLlCY c4 Glasgow City Council and the Greater Glasgow Health Board will jointly prepare a development brief regarding the redevelopment of the Gartloch Hospital site.

POLlCY c5 Glasgow City Council will prepare a design guide for new housing in the countryside lKrmitted within the krms of the Local Plan's Green Belt Policies.

POLlCY C6 Glasgow City Council will allow new housing within Cuilhill Village only as permitted within the terms of the Local Plan's Green Belt Policies. .. POLICY c7 Glasgow City Council will co-operate with the Education Department in providing environmental education in schools serving the area, while continuing its programme of employing Countryside Rangers.

POLICY C8 Glasgow City Council will co-operate with the Kelvin Valley Countryside Project in the identification of sites for community improvement schemes and the fostering of environmental education.

POLICY c9 The opportunities for improvement to the landscape and the environment identified on the Landscape Map C2 shall be accepted in principle in order that a state of readiness is achieved for the directing of any funding that may become available. Landscape proposals will be designed and implemented in accordance with the principles set out in TABLE C1.

139 31 3 N P P G 2 - BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

ensure that they can continue to be marketed with confidence. Planning policy should continue tosafeguard the investment already made and seek to meet future demand (see paragraph 57).

21. In looking to the future, the Secretary of State expects planning authorities to safeguard the high environmental qualities of these New Town sites and to steer development requiring lesser quality to other sites. Vacant and Derelict Sites

22. Vacant and derelict sites are wasted resources and Government policies are directed at bringing them back into use. The Scottish Vacant Land Survey shows that many vacant or derelict sites are intended for new industrial or business activity. Industry and business have a wide range of needs which cannot all be met on rejuvenated sites, but the aim in the longer term should be to increase the supply from this source by investing in environmental improvement. Local plans can identifythe development opportunity provided by such sites, taking into account any habitats which have regenerated naturally. The use of vacant and derelict sites, including the rejuvenation of former industrial areas, relieves pressure on sites elsewhere, particularly those which may be suitable for other uses such as housing.

23. The Government's programme of land renewal is operated by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and delivered largely through the LECs working in conjunction with planning authorities. They are able to combine their derelict land, environmental improvement and economic development powers to ensure maximum environmental and economic gain including benefits which accrue indirectly to nearby sites. Those schemes which combine these factors should generally merit priority, although a project which provides purely environmental benefits may be desirable in its own right. Protecting the Environment and Sustainable Development

24. This Common Inheritance" points out that economic growth is not an end in itself butis a means to live better and fuller lives. The challenge is to integrate the conservation of the environment'with growth in national, regional and local economies and with the provision of land and premises for industrial and business development.

25. The Government supports the principleof sustainable development. 'This Common Inhentance' states it ....."means living on the earth's income rather than eroding its capital...... It means handing down to successive generations not only man-madewealth (such as buildings, roads and railways) but also natural wealth, such as clean water, good arable land and a wealth of wildlife". The planning system controls development (man-made wealth) which takes place on the land (a natural resource), it assesses the impact of that development on other natural resources, and it is therefore a means for deciding what natural and man-made wealth is passed on to future generations. The principle of sustainable development is now incorporatedin legislation (The Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991).

26. Responsibility for the environment is not solely the preserve of central and local government. Businesses can undertakedevelopment responsibly and use natural resources according to sustainableprinciples. This in particular means recognisingthe environmental as well as the social and economic benefits and costs. Over the next decade more than ever before, careful attention to environmental issues is going to make good economic sense for business and industry.

NPPG2: Business and Industry 8'