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

Our ref: PCS/150948 Your ref: 170021/DPP

If telephoning ask for: Aberdeen City Council Susan Haslam Planning and Sustainable Development Business Hub 4, Marischal College 10 March 2017 Broad Street Aberdeen AB10 1AB

By email only to: [email protected]

Dear Sir or Madam

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts Planning application: 170021/DPP Proposed Community and Sports Facilities, Football Academy, (comprising outdoor pitches, pavilion, ancillary buildings), Stadium (20,000 capacity), ancillary uses, formation of access roads, parking and associated landscaping and engineering works Land at West Kingsford (north of the A944 road) Skene Road Aberdeen AB15 8QR

Thank you for your consultation email which SEPA received on 16 January 2017 and other information you provided on 16 February 2017 which took the form of the Flood Risk and Drainage and Contaminated Land submissions from the No Kingsford Stadium group. We also received further relevant information direct from the developer’s team at Fairhurst on 13, 16, 24 and 27 February 2017. This consisted of an Asbestos Protocol (document 111644: AFC Kingsford Stadium), Gas Mitigation Strategy (Issue 1, dated February 2017), details of the proposed further ground investigations (Schedule of Exploratory Holes, Proposed Chemical Testing Suites and Proposed Exploratory Hole Location Plan), a revised Drainage Assessment (Issue 5 dated 24 February 2017), a revised Flood Risk Assessment (Issue 3, dated 27 February 2017) and further information, in the form of emails, on local groundwater abstractions.

Advice for the planning authority

We have considered all the information made available to us and we ask that the planning conditions in Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 be attached to the consent. If any of these will not be applied, then please consider this representation as an objection. Please also note the advice provided below. 1. Site remediation

1.1 As outlined at the scoping stage the proposed development is located on the Kingsford landfill (licence number WML/N/0020046) and Backhill landfill sites (licence number WML/N/0020047). These sites are currently regulated by us as closed landfill sites under Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994.

1.2 We intend to vary the existing licences to ensure that we directly control potential impacts on the environment and human health from the site, including from the works required to facilitate this development (for the avoidance of any doubt aspects of health and safety, such as risk to construction workers, would not be controlled by us). We propose to control the activities related to the remediation and development of the site via an agreed working plan.

1.3 Based on the information provided in the planning application we can confirm that we consider that in principle a suitable remediation strategy can be put in place to achieve this. It may be the case that other forms of mitigation to those outlined in the application will be required. However this will be determined by additional monitoring and investigatory works required under waste management licensing and we consider it to be the developer’s own commercial risk that all the information to determine a definitive strategy has not been provided at the planning stage.

1.4 As we will directly control how the site will be remediated to make it fit for use as a stadium we are not specifically asking for planning conditions to control this element of the development. However, it is important to ensure that all appropriate remediation works that we control are carried out at the appropriate stage of the development process and that the discharge of any conditions that you may require to cover these elements of the development work in complementary fashion with the working plan which will be subsequently agreed with us through waste management licensing processes. We would therefore very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you (and the developer and your contaminated land colleagues should you or they desire) to agree a suitable timetable for submission of related information and related activities. We would also be pleased to discuss the detailed wording of any related conditions you intend to apply to ensure they do not conflict with the waste management licence, if this would be helpful.

1.5 We highlight that there are statutory requirements which must be satisfied before a waste management licence can be surrendered or revoked. If these are not met then the site will continue to be licensed by us until they are met, including for the duration of the life of the development if required.

1.6 We also highlight that we are aware that there is an adjacent closed landfill site (known as Kingswells Disposal Site) which is not regulated by SEPA. We are not aware of the exact boundary of this site. Advice should be sought from your contaminated land colleagues on potential impacts on or from it, and, if necessary, measures to control these potential impacts should be controlled via planning condition.

2. Flood risk

2.1 The application site lies partly within the medium likelihood (0.5% annual probability or 1 in 200 year) flood extent of the SEPA Flood Maps and may therefore be at medium to high risk of flooding. We have identified the locations in the photos in the further information you sent us on 16 February and these photos have been helpful in verifying the flood extents shown on our indicative maps. 2.2 In view of the local flood risk issues we welcome the submission of a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). We have reviewed the FRA and find the flow estimates to be reasonable and using methodologies that are appropriate for the site and catchments in question. The FRA has identified that the Brodiach Burn and Westholme Drain are predicted to encroach into the site along the Western and Northern boundaries, particularly in the vicinity of the proposed carpark.

2.3 Regarding the three watercourse crossings, Brodiach Bridge, Bishopsdam Bridge, and B9119 culvert, the FRA states that the crossings have capacity for the 200 year flow, but there is predicted to be some backing up of water in the channel upstream of the B9119 culvert. We welcome the inclusion of 50% blockage scenario for the crossings. The FRA states that water levels are sensitive to the potential bridge blockage, and 50% blockage of the Bishopsdam Bridge increases water levels at the site by 0.59m.

2.4 The FRA states that the site will be re-profiled to be set at or above 117.5mAOD, which would provide a generous freeboard of around 4m above the 200 year water levels, and would accommodate any increase in water levels from potential blockage of the watercourse crossings. It appears this level of 117.5mAOD will be achieved through a small amount of landraising. There has been historical upfilling of the site during its former use as a landfill site, and it appears that the main purpose of the re-profiling is not for flood mitigation reasons. We consider the proposal acceptable in this instance.

2.5 From studying the indicative flood extents in drawing 111644/2001, it appears that only a small part of the site will encroach into the functional floodplain, and it is proposed to provide compensatory storage by widening the floodplain in the carpark area. Table 2 of the FRA stated that 707m3 of storage was expected to be lost. From Table 2 it appears that compensation can be provided at each level up to the 200 year event, with betterment in storage at more frequent return periods. This betterment is welcomed.

2.6 The FRA stated that the lower carpark will be designed to flood in events greater than the 5 year return period. We consider that a car park, provided the surface is not elevated over pre-development levels, is not inappropriate in the floodplain and request a condition requiring no land raising of any part of the car park area above the levels identified in plan 111644/2002 Rev B.

2.7 On the SEPA surface water map, there is a low point in the topography in the area of car park 2 where there is potential for water to collect and pond during heavy rainfall events. We consider this to be a surface water drainage issue and in line with SEPA’s Interim Position Statement on Planning and Flooding, we consider the water quantity aspects of surface water drainage to largely be the remit of local authorities to consider in conjunction with Scottish Water.

3. Development drainage

3.1 We welcome the proposal to connect to public foul drainage and to avoid any doubt, ask that this be ensured by suitable condition.

3.2 We also welcome the submission of a revised Drainage Assessment. Due to the scale of the car-parking proposed we will directly control the quality of the discharge of surface water from the site under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Regulations (CAR). Note that under CAR we cannot control quantity of discharge of surface water and hence you will need to consider conditioning this aspect. We are content that the Drainage Assessment demonstrates that adequate treatment can be provided and the proposals are capable of being authorised by us. Since we will directly regulate this element of the development we are not asking for further detail via planning conditions. However we note that the proposals are described as “conceptual” and as a result you may wish to apply a condition to ensure that the design of any final detail is acceptable to you.

3.3 Please note we do not provide planning advice on the water quantity aspect of SUDS or surface water drainage. Comments from Scottish Water, where appropriate, the Local Authority Roads Department and the Local Authority Flood Prevention Unit should be sought in terms of water quantity/flooding and adoption issues.

4. Pollution prevention and environmental management during construction

4.1 We are generally content with the construction pollution prevention and environmental management principles outlined in the submission. We ask that a condition is applied requiring all works to be carried out in line with the submitted Schedule of Mitigation (Chapter 14 of the ES).

4.2 We welcome the proposal for further details and methods to be outlined in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and therefore request a condition is also applied to ensure this submission for each phase of the development. For the avoidance of doubt this should cover elements such as construction SUDS and any waterbody engineering works which do not relate directly to making the site fit for its proposed use (as those relating directly to making the site fit for its proposed use will be directly controlled by us via the waste management licence).

5. Energy

5.1 We note from Appendix A3 that there are currently no proposals to incorporate district heating into the development. In view of our pre-application advice, this is disappointing. Appendix A3 does however state that “An overall Energy Strategy for the proposed development is being developed”. The Planning Sustainability Statement outlines the proposed approach. We ask that a condition is applied requiring the submission of a finalised Energy Strategy which demonstrate how the development complies with Policy R7 of the Local Development Plan, the related Supplementary Guidance and the Online Scottish Government “Planning and Heat” guidance (2015). If the planning authority considers it reasonable to do so they could request this submission prior to determination as it could affect layout.

6. Engineering activities in the water environment, including wetlands

6.1 We are pleased to note that the development does not directly negatively impact on the Brodiach Burn or other related drains in the area. We are supportive of the 12 m wide buffer which is proposed to protect the water features and the related provisional planting proposals. We ask that a condition is applied requiring full details of the finalised riparian habitat proposals to be agreed with the planning authority in consultation with SEPA. The submission should include clear plans and details for morphological improvements (i.e. measures to restore the watercourse to a more natural form), riparian planting (including of wetlands) and management proposals (including for, for example, control of non-native invasive species). This requirement will help compensate for the loss of the man-made pond and MG9 and MG10 wetland habitats on the site. 7. Abstractions

7.1 Roads, foundations and other construction works associated with large scale developments can disrupt groundwater flow and impact on existing local groundwater abstractions. To address this risk we requested at the scoping stage a list of groundwater abstractions both within and outwith the site boundary, within a radius of i) 100 m from roads, tracks and trenches and ii) 250 m from foundations. As there was no information on existing groundwater abstractions in the submission, we requested clarification from the developer. The response email we received from Fairhurst on 13 February 2017 indicates that there is one private water supply within 250 m of the development. We also hold an agricultural abstraction authorisation for a nearby farm which is within 250 m of the development. Both these abstractions are located to the south of the site, on the opposite side of the dual carriageway. The groundwater flow direction within the proposed development site, based on the available groundwater level data, appears to be predominantly to the north/northwest. As a result, and taking into account the local topography, we consider that both abstractions are hydraulically up gradient of the proposed development and as a result the development is unlikely to pose a significant risk to the abstractions.

7.2 We understand that no new private water abstractions are proposed as part of the development; if this is not the case then please re-consult us with details, taking into consideration our previous scoping advice.

8. Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions

8.1 The local authority is the responsible authority for local air quality management under the Environment Act 1995 and therefore we recommend that your Environmental Health colleagues are specifically consulted on this aspect of the proposal.

8.2 We also recommend you consider whether the proposals comply with the Promoting Sustainable Transport and Active Travel policies of Scottish Planning Policy and with relevant local and national policy on greenhouse gas emissions such as the Aberdeen City Council’s Local Transport Strategy (2016-2021) and The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. We highlight that SPP states “Planning permission should not be granted for significant travel-generating uses at locations which would increase reliance on the car and where ….the transport assessment does not identify satisfactory ways of meeting sustainable transport requirements.”

Regulatory advice for the applicant and their consultants

9. General regulatory requirements

9.1 Details of general regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on the Regulations section of our website.

10. Waste management licensing

10.1 As indicated above SEPA will directly control the management of waste on the site via a revised waste management licence. We consider it appropriate to combine the two existing licences to produce a single modern waste management licence and to use the working plan as the method of controlling activities on the combined site. This will be the most convenient approach for all parties. 10.2 We will require significantly more information on the monitoring and mitigation proposals before we would be in a position to agree the working plan element of the licence. Our local regulatory services team in Aberdeen will write to you separately outlining these requirements and hopefully you can meet with them again and discuss this further.

10.3 Please contact Graeme Abel in the regulatory team in your local SEPA office (Inverdee House, Baxter Street, Torry, Aberdeen, AB11 9QA - Tel: 01224 266600) to discuss any of the above waste management regulatory issues.

11. The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR)

11.1 A number of elements of the development such as land raising in the functional flood plain, engineering works in wetland areas, surface water runoff from >1000 car parking spaces, permanent and temporary watercourse crossings, dewatering and the removal of structures are likely to require authorisation under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR). Further details on the full range of activities that require authorisation and the level of authorisation required are available in the CAR Practical Guide.

11.2 The developer should take into consideration the following points when preparing the CAR SUDS application (and when drafting future Drainage Assessments):

 The stone filled filter trench is part of the permeable paving and overall is considered as a single SUDS component. This means only the permeable paving (with high mitigation index) should be included when calculating indices. Further detailed drawings of the permeable paving will be required to support the licence application;

 When using the Simple Index Approach if the total aggregated mitigation index is >1 then the outcome is fixed at “>0.95”. In this scenario, the proposed components are likely to have a very high mitigation potential for reducing pollutant levels in the runoff and should be sufficient for any proposed land use.

11.3 Please contact Mark O’Brien in the regulatory team in your local SEPA office at Inverdee House (contact details above) to discuss any of the above water regulatory issues.

Should you wish to discuss this letter please do not hesitate to contact me on 01349 860359 or [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Susan Haslam Senior Planning Officer Planning Service

ECopy to: Halliday Fraser Munro Planning, [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Disclaimer This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, as such a decision may take into account factors not considered at this time. We prefer all the technical information required for any SEPA consents to be submitted at the same time as the planning or similar application. However, we consider it to be at the applicant's commercial risk if any significant changes required during the regulatory stage necessitate a further planning application or similar application and/or neighbour notification or advertising. We have relied on the accuracy and completeness of the information supplied to us in providing the above advice and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation, or omissions, in such information. If we have not referred to a particular issue in our response, it should not be assumed that there is no impact associated with that issue. Further information on our consultation arrangements generally can be found on our website planning pages.