Public Document Pack
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid
Customer Services Executive Director: Douglas Hendry
Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD
12 June 2019
NOTICE OF MEETING
A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on WEDNESDAY, 19 JUNE 2019 at 11:30 AM, which you are requested to attend.
Douglas Hendry Executive Director of Customer Services
BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. MINUTES
(a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 15 May 2019 (Pages 3 - 26)
(b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 22 May 2019 (Pages 27 - 36)
(c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 27 May 2019 (Pages 37 - 48)
(d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 3 June 2019 at 2.00 pm (Pages 49 - 60)
(e) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 3 June 2019 at 2.20 pm (Pages 61 - 62)
(f) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 3 June 2019 at 2.40 pm (Pages 63 - 66) 4. SSE GENERATION LIMITED (VIA SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSENTS UNIT): ELECTRICITY ACT SECTION 36 CONSULTATION RELEVANT TANGY 4 WIND FARM: TANGY WIND FARM, KILCHENZIE, ARGYLL AND BUTE (REF: 18/02014/S36) Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services (Pages 67 – 108)
5. THE TRAIL FAMILY: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE, OPEN SPACE AMENITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING: LAND EAST OF HERMITAGE ACADEMY, SAWMILL FIELD, HELENSBURGH (REF: 19/01070/PAN) Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services (Pages 109 – 114)
6. COSTING THE PLANNING SERVICE IN SCOTLAND 2018 Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services (Pages 115 – 138)
7. PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES PERFORMANCE REPORT Q4 2018- 2019 Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services (Pages 139 – 146)
REPORT FOR NOTING 8. UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISION Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services (Pages 147 – 148)
Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee
Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Rory Colville (Vice-Chair) Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Mary-Jean Devon Councillor Lorna Douglas Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor George Freeman Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair) Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Jean Moffat Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor Richard Trail
Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392 Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the TAYINLOAN VILLAGE HALL, TAYINLOAN, ARGYLL on WEDNESDAY, 15 MAY 2019
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Lorna Douglas Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor George Freeman Councillor Richard Trail Councillor Graham Archibald Hardie
Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance and Risk Manager Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader – Planning Peter Bain, Development Manager - Planning Marc Brown, The Scottish Salmon Company – Applicant Elaine Whyte, Clyde Fishermen’s Association – Consultee Calum Elliot, Clyde Fishermen’s Association – Consultee Ed Tyler - Objector
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Mary-Jean Devon and Jean Moffat.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. SCOTTISH SALMON COMPANY: RELOCATION AND ENLARGEMENT OF EXISTING MARINE FISH FARM (CURRENTLY COMPRISING; 12 NO. 80 METRE CIRCUMFERENCE CAGES AND FEED BARGE) BY RE-EQUIPMENT WITH 12 NO. 120 METRE CIRCUMFERENCE CAGES AND FEED BARGE: EAST TARBERT BAY, ISLE OF GIGHA (REF: 18/01561/MFF)
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. He then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Governance and Risk Manager to identify all those present who wished to speak.
PLANNING
Sandra Davies gave the following presentation on behalf of the Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services:
This application is for the relocation of an existing marine fish farm off the north east side of Gigha at East Tarbert Bay.
The new farm would be located approximately 280m to the east of the existing farm. This slide shows the proposed farm in red and the existing farm in blue. It should be Page 4
noted that the existing farm would be removed should permission be approved. The fish farm to the south is the existing Druimyeon Bay fish farm. This is also operated by the applicant and would remain.
The new farm would have 12, 120m circumference cages. The existing farm has 12, 80m circumference cages. This slide shows the position and layout of the existing farm compared to the proposed farm. A feed barge is also proposed at the southern end of the cage grouping. The new fish farm would be approximately 280m to the east of the existing fish farm. It is proposed to increase the maximum stocked biomass from 600 tonnes to 2,500 tonnes. In planning terms the relocation of this site has been viewed as a new fish farm and an EIA report accompanies the planning application. There has been a long standing fish farm at East Tarbert Bay with permission originally being authorised under the crown estate leasing process in 2001.
In terms of Local Development Plan designations, the site lies off land defined as countryside which in turn confers ‘undeveloped coast status’. The site does not lie within any landscape or historic environment designations.
A series of slides showed the following –
plans submitted showing the proposed arrangement of cages. a plan and an elevation of an individual pen. a plan showing the netting above the water along with the bird net support poles around the outside of the pen. elevations of the proposed feed barge which will have the appearance of a boat moored off the south end of the fish farm. a photograph from a viewpoint in Gigha showing the existing fish farm. The new farm would be located 300m to the east of this. a visualisation of the proposed fish farm. a photograph of the Druimyeon Fish Farm which is located to the south of the proposal. a photograph showing both the existing and the Druimyeon Fish Farm
The Scottish Government’s National Marine Plan and Scottish Planning Policy both support the expansion of marine fish farming where it can take place in environmentally sustainable locations. This is subject to it not exceeding the carrying capacity of the water body within which it is to be located and where it does not give rise to significant adverse effects on nature conservation, wild fish, historic environment or other commercial or recreational water users.
There are a number of LDP policies which are relevant to this proposal and these are detailed in the planning report. Supplementary guidance policy SG LDP AQUA 1 relates specifically to marine fish farming. This is a criteria based policy and the proposal has been assessed against each of the eight elements of this policy. In terms of visual and landscape impact, the EIA Report has included a Seascape and Visual Impact Assessment with five selected viewpoints. Members have looked at some of these viewpoints on the site visit yesterday.
There would be limited inter-visibility with both local and coastal character areas and visual receptors due to screening from potential receptor locations by foreground topography and trees. Page 5
The EIA report concludes that that the proposed development would either be screened or viewed at a distance and that the change would not be perceived as being significant. Officers would agree with this view and SNH has not raised any concerns.
The second topic listed in policy AQUA 1 relates to isolated coast and wild land. There is no wild land in the vicinity of the proposal. There is some isolated coast on the islets around Gigha however it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant effect on these areas.
In terms of the historic environment, there are no historic assets which would be affected by the proposal.
Point 4 of this AQUA policy relates to priority habitats and species and designated sites for nature conservation. The proposal has raised a number of issues in relation to this point.
In terms of Priority Marine Features or PMFs, Burrowed Mud and Horse Mussel Beds have been identified in the vicinity of the site. The Burrowed Mud is not considered by SNH to be a high quality example of this PMF and any impacts on this would not be significant.
The Horse Mussel Beds are located to the north of the site. SNH has concluded that the risk of any significant impacts occurring on areas of horse mussel bed would be low. Some of the proposed moorings could overlap with horse mussel beds and a condition is therefore proposed which will require the applicant to use drop down video to avoid the moorings impacting on any of these areas.
There are also a couple of European protected sites which have required consideration in relation to this proposal. The site is located within the Sound of Gigha proposed Special Protection Area selected for its qualifying interest of wintering great northern diver, red-breasted merganser, eider and Slavonian grebe. As this is a European Site a Habitat’s Regulations appropriate assessment has been undertaken and this can be found in Appendix C of the planning report. This has concluded that subject to mitigation the proposal will not have a significant impact on the qualifying interest of the proposed Special Protection Area.
The second European site which may be affected by the proposal is the Inner Hebrides and Minches Special Area of Conservation which has been selected for its qualifying interest in Harbour Porpoise. While the proposed site is not located within this designated area, the boundary lies only 1.5km to the north of the site. In these circumstances, there is still the potential for significant effects to occur. A further Habitat’s Regulations appropriate assessment has been completed and this can be found in Appendix B of the report. The potential risks from fish farming have been identified as being:
Potential entanglement in equipment; Risk of auditory injury; and Disturbance. The first two are not considered to be significant, however, concern has been expressed by SNH that cetaceans could be disturbed through the use of Acoustic Page 6
Deterrent Devices or ADDs for short. Harbour porpoise are known to be sensitive to the frequencies of sound that ADDs emit. In response to this the applicant has submitted an ADD Deployment Plan. This plan outlines an appropriate decision making process that will ensure that ADDs will not be activated continuously. With this plan in place SHN has advised that they are comfortable that this will avoid the risk of ADDs resulting in any significant disturbance to harbour porpoise. A further nature conservation issue relates to potential impacts on a nationally important population of a protected species. The details of this species has been kept confidential in order to protect them. SNH initially objected to this application unless conditions were put in place to mitigate the potential impacts on the population. Following discussion between the applicant and SNH, a confidential addendum to the proposed Environmental Management Plan has been agreed and the objection has been withdrawn.
Wild fish interactions also fall within this section of the AQUA policy. This involves both containment and risk of escapes and sea lice management. In terms of the risk of escapes, the applicant has advised that there have been no reported escape incidents at the Gigha sites in the time that they have been managed by them. An Escapes Contingency Plan has been submitted in support of the application. This document details the measures to be taken to reduce the potential risk of escape events.
The spread of sea lice is probably the most contentious issue that we deal with when considering salmon fish farm applications. Wild fish interests consider that increased numbers of lice on farmed salmon may correlate with increased numbers of lice on wild salmon which are located within the same water body. It is also asserted that there is a correlation between the increase of farmed salmon and the decline of wild fish. However, this is not a definitive cause and effect link as there are other factors which may be contributing to the decline of wild fish including climate change, river modification and commercial fishing as well as naturally occurring sea lice. A development such as this will therefore inevitably pose some additional risk to wild salmonids. It is therefore necessary for decision makers to conclude, on a risk basis, whether after the application of mitigation, the risk attributable to the operation of a particular farm, both in isolation and cumulatively with the operation of other farms within the influencing distance would be acceptable.
The East Tarbert site benefits from being:
Only associated with one other farm in the area which is also in the applicant’s control; These two farms will be operated synchronously with each other; This is not an area where a confined water body presents an enhanced risk; The site would be operated in accordance with an EMP which would provide reassurance that if the operator were not able to control lice levels, then measures would be imposed in accordance with the escalating response provided for in the EMP; Taking account of the above, it is considered that with identified mitigation in place and an EMP in effect, the enhanced threat posed to wild fish interests would not be such as to warrant the refusal of the application.
Point 5 under the AQUA policy requires that consideration is given to the ecological status of water bodies and the biological carrying capacity. This site is located within Page 7
‘uncategorised’ waters under Marine Scotland’s Locational Guidelines. This indicates better prospects for fish farms being acceptable in environmental terms given the open situation and depth of water with unconstrained water exchange. SEPA is responsible for controlling water column impacts through the CAR licencing process and an application for this development has been submitted and I understand it has been approved since the planning application has been submitted. Commercial and recreational maritime use is a further consideration under the AQUA policy. The location of this fish farm does not raise any significant issues in this regard.
Point 7 refers to effects on amenity in terms waste, noise, light and odour. Access to the site will be taken from the existing shore base at Highfield on the Isle of Gigha. As a feed barge is proposed for the re-located fish farm, there will no longer be a need for boat based canon feeding resulting in a reduction of boat based activity around the site. There are no dwellings in close proximity to the site with the closest one being some 1.2km away. It should also be noted that the relocated fish farm will be approximately 300m further away than the existing farm which is to be removed. In terms of waste, a Waste Management Plan has been submitted and this is considered to be acceptable.
Underwater lighting is proposed as per previous practice and navigation lights are required. The impacts on amenity are considered to be within acceptable limits. The final consideration under policy AQUA 1 is economic impact. No adverse impacts of significance have been identified in terms of commercial fishing or recreational boating.
The site currently supports 10FTE staff working between the two fish farm sites. If the current proposal goes ahead, one additional post would be created. This application has attracted 19 objections including one from John Finnie MSP and 17 expressions of support.
The points of objection are summarised in the report and these include issues including disturbance to cetaceans, wild fish interactions particularly relating to sea lice, nature conservation designations, amenity issues and economic issues for local fishermen.
The expressions of support relate to the economic benefits fish farming brings to the local area. Gigha Community Council is also supportive of the application. The Community Council believe that the island has benefitted from employment that the fish farming industry brings. In addition, without fish farming it is considered that there would be no or limited provisions available on the island such as fuel. The proposal is being recommended for approval subject to 13 conditions. I note that in the report you have in front of you condition 13 has merged into the reason for condition 12. This is just a typo and would be corrected should permission be approved.
Taking account of the above it is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to conditions. Page 8
APPLICANT
Marc Browne gave a presentation on behalf of The Scottish Salmon Company (SSC). He advised that he would address the economic benefits of the project, health and welfare of the fish and the environmental aspects.
He commented on the Company’s commitment to their communities. He advised that there were currently 10 full time members of staff employed on Gigha, with over 230 employees across Argyll and Bute. He said that they were committed to modern apprenticeships, with 14 enrolled in 2018 bringing their total to 38 across the business. He advised that a new employee would be starting on Gigha on 10 June 2019 with him and his family relocating from Scarborough. He confirmed the wife of this gentleman was a teacher and that she had secured a teaching job at the primary school from 24 July 2019. Mr Browne advised that £12m was spent with over 125 suppliers in Argyll and Bute and that the SSC sourced over £112m worth of supplies over 650 Scottish suppliers, representing more than 75% of all procurement in 2018. He also advised of the Company being an active member of the community with the local team joining forces with the local community to support the Gigha Surgery and Gigha Trust to raise funds for a defibrillator on the island, raising over £2,500. Gigha Primary School had also won the SSC competition for end of term Winter Show – a full day workshop with a National Theatre in Schools Producer and a £500 donation towards the cost of the production.
Mr Browne confirmed that the SSC were committed to the health and welfare of their salmon and that they had a dedicated biology team including a veterinarian and biologists and independent third party veterinary support. They had comprehensive Veterinary Health Plans in place and site staff and harvest teams were trained in biology and welfare.
He referred to the various sea lice control measures they had at their disposal – cleaner fish, sea lice counts, functional feeds, fresh water, hydro-licers, and co- ordinated treatments. He advised that understanding the biology and monitoring performance was key to improvements in the health and welfare with good husbandry practices focusing on fish health. He said there were daily fish inspections by site staff and biologists with regular monitoring and reporting. He advised that the staff were trained on the different life stages of sea lice. Referring to cleaner fish which, he said, were a natural and sustainable alternative in the control of sea lice, he advised that 90% of their cleaner fish were farmed lumpsuckers and 10% were wild caught ballan wrasse from sustainable sources. He indicated that the target was for 100% of their sites to be stocked with cleaner fish by 2019. He then referred to hydro-licers which used low pressure water to remove sea lice from the salmon. He advised that this reduced the lice burden without medicines which was better for the environment. He advised that the sea lice were filtered and destroyed and that they currently had two hydro-licers in operation. He advised that they had also recently invested in freshwater treatments primarily for AGD/gill health but these could also be used for sea lice. He advised that the fish were transferred into a wellboat containing fresh water and that the quality of the water was continually monitored to ensure fish welfare throughout. He stated that they had a dedicated team of nutritionists working with leading feed suppliers to source the best quality of feed with vitamins and minerals to support immune systems and disease resistance. He advised of a new generation of functional feeds focussing on skin healing and mucous production. He referred to a graph showing the evolution of sea lice Page 9
management practices over the last 3 years which showed an increase in spend and an increase in natural practices.
Turning to the environmental aspects, he advised that they had a dedicated Site Development and Compliance Team which focussed on environmental monitoring and Compliance Assessment. He referred to the development of bespoke Environmental Plans which have already been approved by Argyll and Bute Council. He also referred to research and investment in net cleaning machines, oxygenation, Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs), nets, etc.
He referred to their analysis of consultee responses in respect of this proposal and pointed out that there had been no objection from the majority of regulators. He advised of discussions they had with SNH which led to the removal of their initial objection.
Referring to the 19 objections and 17 expressions of support, he commented that they believed their Environmental Management Plan would be robust in managing the concerns raised by the objectors. He referred to the management and mitigation put in place to address concerns and that any impacts would be regularly monitored
He referred to the report published by The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee of The Scottish Parliament which highlighted issues relating to fish health and sea lice as being key concerns and he listed the number of tools at their disposal to address these concerns which formed part of the management of their entire site.
He confirmed that the site would be operated in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan and that the confidential addendum was very prescriptive.
CONSULTEES
Clyde Fishermen’s Association
Elaine Whyte advised that she had regular contact with the Scottish Salmon Company and that she was in favour of fish farming. She said that on this occasion there appeared to be a problem with communication in respect of this proposal. She advised that from what she had heard and seen today it was her opinion that an increase of this size to the fish farm would be a problem not just for the members of the Fishermen’s Association but also for creel boat operators. She advised that the impact for creel boats would be severe. She referred to being part of SEPA’s Steering Group which has been set up to look at proposals for the future regulation of finfish aquaculture. She advised that the setting up of a new framework was currently underway and that it would be her preference if the Committee waited until the Steering Group’s findings and recommendations were published. She referred to SEPA’s interim position on the environmental standards that they will apply when assessing new applications to discharge or increase volumes of infeed sea lice medicine containing emamectin benzoate. She also talked about tidal implications and testing that had been carried out in Shetland. She advised that testing should have been carried out on Loch Fyne but this did not go ahead. She confirmed that the Association did want to see fish farming but would advise that the Committee should wait until SEPA had set out their new recommendations. Page 10
Calum Elliot advised that he had a fishing boat and that this was the first time he had seen a diagram detailing the expansion of the fish farm. He also believed there had been a breakdown in communication. He said that he could not speak for everyone but it was his opinion that the location of the fish farm would be very close to scallop grounds. He advised that friends of his, for 6 – 8 months of the year, worked as creel fishermen and that this location was the only sheltered water. He advised that he believed that the West Coast Inshore Fishery Group would also object to this expansion. He said that he would be willing to open up a dialogue in respect of different plans. He also recommended waiting until the recommendations of the SEPA Steering Group were known.
OBJECTORS
Ed Tyler read out the following presentation from himself and 3 other objectors.
Just over a week ago, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services reported that: “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.” That is why this planning application is important, in its own small way, like many others.
Councillors will be aware that earlier this month what was described variously as ‘thousands’ or ‘hundreds of tonnes’ of fish died suddenly at a salmon farm in Loch Fyne. Whichever is right, it is a sharp warning that all is not well with the farmed salmon industry. The industry itself admits that fish deaths are a problem.
The cause of this loss was apparently a ‘suspected algal bloom’, itself the result of the recent ‘warm water temperatures’. Councillors will be aware that there is a generally acknowledged problem with global warming, which needs to be tackled.
Perhaps these events should be welcomed as a timely, last minute warning this region. It is not too late to avoid making matters worse by permitting large scale expansion of fish farming around our coasts. We could set an example to the rest of Scotland.
During the deliberations of a recent Holyrood committee investigating the industry, John Finnie MSP called for a complete moratorium on the expansion of fish farms until the many problems affecting the industry were better understood and adequate regulations put in place to avoid them. These problems are widely acknowledged and there is an accepted precautionary principle supposedly operating in the industry: Practices should not be permitted until they are known to be safe. This principle wisely requires that we do not wait until damage is done before we start trying to prevent it getting worse.
John Finnie was something of a lone voice in the discussions, but he was right. To claim that a precautionary principle operates is simply untrue, but the Scottish government makes this claim.
It is well-known that the Scottish government is a strong supporter of rapid expansion of fish farming, for the benefits it brings to the economy. This is understandable, but the problem is that this policy was formulated some while ago and we are living in times when the context for such decisions is changing very fast Page 11
indeed. They might feel a little less comfortable with their policy were they to revisit it now, but these things take years to reverse.
It is known that Argyll & Bute council have a policy predisposing them to develop the fish farm industry. Why would they not? They are following a national government lead and they have a responsibility to nurture the economy of the region. The reason they should not is that they have a responsibility to conserve the health of the seas surrounding Argyll & Bute and that conflicts with the short term economic benefits.
‘Fouling the nest’ is a phrase which comes to mind. What future is there for Argyll & Bute economically or otherwise if it allows pollution of the seas, with damage to all manner of species? Fish farms will not continue to prosper and tourism will be gone. Will that be a prosperous community in any sense at all? We should always look to the long term.
It is known that a number of new fish farms are in the development phases at this moment. Near Ardentinny, near Bute (I believe) and near Cumbrae (not in Argyll & Bute). That’s just the ones we happen to know about in the southern part of the region. There is an apparent desire to expand quickly before tighter regulations are imposed. This is commercially understandable, but not sensible.
Protections in place in the planning process are not adequate. Too much weight is given to Scottish Natural Heritage, statutory consultees, who are too easily disposed to overlook certain dangers. They make objections and raise concerns, only to withdraw them after offers of precautions which they must know are neither reliable nor adequate. They too, of course, have a predisposition to support fish farm expansion unless there are compelling reasons not to. This too is the wrong way round. They would better protect the natural heritage if they opposed expansion unless there was clear evidence that it was safe. There is not. It is unhelpful and inconsistent of SNH to recommend the Sound of Gigha for designation as a Special Protection Area and then give tacit support to this application.
In addition, regarding the SNH submission, it seems deeply unsatisfactory that so contentious a matter should involve a significant confidential section. Can councillors reassure me that they are familiar with the contents of Annex A? It is hard to have confidence in planning procedures which are not open to the public. SNH represents the Scottish natural heritage, which belongs to the Scottish people and the councillors who decide this application also represent the Scottish people. Why should they be held in ignorance?
It is better to listen to the evidence of the RSPB. They are an independent organisation and they can openly say that expansion of fish farms is dangerous to the species they represent.
The government enquiry into fish farming did not recommend a moratorium. Even if they had, they would not have had the power to implement one without government support, which is unlikely to have been forthcoming, given the economic and political pressures. But Argyll & Bute councillors effectively have that power locally and should use it. Page 12
I ask councillors here today to set aside higher level political pressures and policies. To set aside short term economic considerations. To set aside party political allegiances and make a decision which makes sense for the future of our seas.
Dennis Archer (co-convenor, Argyll & Bute Green Branch, SGP) Anne Archer Ed Tyler Carina Spink
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Redman referred to holding surgeries on the island of Gigha and that the main concerns which came up were employment opportunities for young people, depopulation and the declining school roll. He asked the Applicant if they could provide more detail on how they feel this application would benefit the Gigha economy and the wider Kintyre peninsula. Mr Browne advised that the expansion of the fish farm would be good for the sustainability of long term jobs. He confirmed that this proposal would lead to job creation with a new employee starting next month. He confirmed that this person was moving to the area from Scarborough with his family and that his wife would be taking up a teaching post in Gigha Primary School. He referred to employees who have joined the company as operators and have stayed for quite a number of years. He said these people moved into the area for these types of roles. He also referred to the company supporting local businesses.
Councillor Hardie referred to the Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board objecting to this application and asked the Planning Officer how much weight was given to such an objection. Mrs Davies confirmed that as a statutory consultee this objection was given great weight. She referred to Marine Science Scotland who were also consulted and gave advice on aquaculture matters. She referred to conflicting comments and where there was tension between consultees Planners had to balance the views and come to a recommendation. She pointed out that Planners were of the view that the Applicant had put in place significant mitigation measures to address any concerns consultees may have.
Councillor Colville sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that they did not have plans at the moment to expand the fish farm at Druimyeon Bay.
Councillor Colville read out the following from the report of handling “A development such as this will therefore inevitably pose some enhanced risk to wild salmonids and it is therefore necessary for decision makers to conclude, on a risk basis, whether after the application of mitigation (lice treatments and the application of Environmental Management Plan obligations) the risk attributable to the operator of a particular farm, both in isolation and cumulatively with the operation of other farms within influencing distance, would be likely to be such as to warrant refusal of permission in terms of adverse impacts upon wild salmonids”. He commented that it was a concern to him that if this application was granted today what was to stop the Applicant coming back in a year’s time to double that fish farm. He asked the Applicant if he could give any guarantee that this was not on the horizon. Mr Browne confirmed that they take account of cumulative impacts. He referred to risk management and mitigating measures and also to the enhanced mitigation SNH have requested. He advised that in terms of the management of sites there was synchronisation in terms of treatments. He said that it would be incorrect for him to Page 13
say what the long term plans were and pointed out that the fish farm at Druimyeon was at its maximum consent.
Councillor Colville asked the Applicant if he could give an example of fish farms in close proximity to each other. Mr Browne advised that there were quite a few fish farms close together in Shetland. He said the proximity of a site was not the issue.
Councillor Colville referred to working close to the coast line a number of years ago where he had witnessed a sea filled with dolphins and porpoises coming down through the Sound of Gigha. He said that they had travelled down the coast and then 30 minutes later could be seen travelling back up the coast. He said that he still regularly saw dolphins but not the same numbers as before. Councillor Colville also referred to having concerns about the confidential report and confidential agreement with SNH. He said that he could not understand why this needed to be confidential. He then referred to page 27 of the report of handling and the points made about how ADDs will be used to deter seal attacks. He asked the Planning Officer why the confidential report was not available to the Committee. Mrs Davies explained that sometimes planning received responses from SNH which contained confidential annexes. She referred to a hydro scheme where there was an eagle’s nest that required protection. She advised that SNH had confidentially made Planning aware of the eagle nest as they did not want the general public to know if its existence and risk it being meddled with. She advised that she would be happy to give the Members of the Committee a confidential briefing on this annexe.
Councillor Colville referred to the proposed length of time an Acoustic Deterrent Device (ADD) would be employed and asked the Applicant what evidence they had that these ADDs would not affect porpoises or dolphins. Mr Browne explained that he has worked in the marine environment for a number of years and that the use of ADDs was fundamental to deter seals. He referred to anecdotal information from sites where ADDs were switched on and where porpoises were still observed. He confirmed that their ADD plan had been approved by SNH. He referred to several modes available to them and that they used the patrol mode. He said that they predicted no disturbances. He referred to the company doing lots of work in the background to validate models. He referred to the Harbour Porpoise and pointed out that the location of the fish farm was on the fringes of the Special Area of Conservation. He said that ADDs do not have a significant effect on Harbour Porpoises and Dolphins. He advised that the ADD would only be switched on as and when required and switched off when not.
Councillor Colville referred to the use of double nets. He asked if these would do away with the need for ADDs. He asked why they were not used just now. Mr Browne advised that the supply chain in the short term was an issue and that he believed that they would become available in time. He advised that they were costly at the moment and needed to be tested out to see if they would be as effective as ADDs.
Councillor Colville sought and received confirmation from Planning that a recently approved onshore fish farm was not operational at the moment. Mrs Davies confirmed that this fish farm was taken into consideration in the assessment of this application.
Councillor Colville referred to impacts on the historic environment. He commented that if this had been a land based application then he would be in no doubt that Page 14
Historic Environment Scotland would have insisted on an archaeological survey. He referred to the site visit the day before and said that this did not tell them anything about what was on the sea bed. He sought comment on this. Mrs Davies confirmed that they took advice from Historic Environment Scotland in respect of any known wrecks and that in respect of this application there were no known wrecks in close proximity to the fish farm. She advised that this issue did not come up so much in this area.
Councillor Kinniburgh referred to the confidential report and asked Councillor Colville if he wanted to pursue this further. Councillor Colville referred to the Committee being the decision makers and that it was up to them whether or not to grant an application. He questioned how they could do this without this further information.
Councillor Freeman advised that he saw no reason to pause the meeting.
Councillor Forrest confirmed that she would like the meeting to be paused so that the Committee could have a private briefing.
Councillor McCuish asked why the public could not see the report.
Councillor Freeman pointed out that if the Committee were to get a briefing this would require moving the exclusion of the press and public which, he said, he had not seen done before at a public hearing.
Councillor Kinniburgh referred to the confidential aspect of the report and for Members to reach a decision it may be important for them to receive this information. He said that if Members wanted to pursue this and receive more information from Planning Officers on the confidential aspects the intention would be to exclude the press and public in order to receive this information.
Mr Jackson advised that the Planning Officers have advised that the confidential aspect of the report relates to a protected species. He asked if Members would be satisfied with the explanation why SNH do not want that information in the public domain if it was confirmed by Planning that there was nothing further in the report that would be required to be known in order to reach a decision.
Mrs Davies explained that this confidential report related to a protected species and that SNH would have objected to this application if suitable mitigation measures had not been put forward by the Applicant. She confirmed that the Applicant has put these measures in place that that SNH were happy with these.
Councillor Trail confirmed that he was happy to accept the assurance of the Planning Officer. He said that he did not think a confidential briefing would add anything to his understanding.
Councillor Currie said that the fact that the Committee were being asked to put a condition on this permission in respect of the confidential issue made him feel uncomfortable. He said the Committee were being asked to agree to a condition but they did not know what it applied to. Mrs Davies explained that the Environmental Management Plan was prepared in accordance with the conditions recommended in the confidential addendum. Page 15
Councillor Kinniburgh commented that there appeared to be mixed views from Members. He suggested continuing with the hearing in the meantime and if it became apparent that this was still and issue then it could be discussed again.
Councillor Trail referred to the tools available to the Applicant to control sea lice. He asked how these tools were used. He asked if the company made use of them all at the same time. Mr Browne referred to new SEPA regulations which have come into force and have reduced infeed medicines across the sector. In relation to how they are used, he said this was looked at on a case by case basis. He explained that the infeed medicine was given as a prophylactic treatment when the fish were first put in the sea. He said that at some point at the beginning of the cycle cleaner fish were stocked (a combination of wrasse and Lumpsucker). He advised that if things became an issue they also used bath medication and hydro-licers as and when required.
Councillor Trail sought and received confirmation from Mr Browne that the Company were on course to stock all their sites with cleaner fish by the end of this year. Mr Browne said that they have been entrenched with SEPA about the sector plan and that they were looking to reduce medicines across the board.
Councillor Currie referred to wild salmon. He asked if he was right to say that over 20 million salmon leave the River Dee but only 4 million return or survive. He asked if he was right to say that the reason for these deaths to wild salmon was not just down to sea lice and that they were also due to climate change and other factors. Mr Browne advised that east coast fisheries have noticed a decline over decades and the decrease in population has been down to a number of issues such as over fishing and habitat degradation. He said there was no simple cause and effect for any type of impact and that it had to be looked at holistically. He advised that they tried to manage issues and if there were risks they had mitigation in their plan.
Councillor Currie said he realised and appreciated the importance on inshore fishing in this area. He noted that there has been a fish farm at this location for a number of years and he referred to the expansion of this by 480m. He asked the Clyde Fishermen’s Association why this proposal would be so detrimental to the fishermen. Ms Whyte said that in terms of the creel boats there were 12 men that fished in that area and that if this proposal went ahead then 12 men were going to be impacted quite severely. She referred to the increase in biomass from 600 to 2500 tonnes and said that this increase was massive. She advised that this would lead to an increase in medicines or an increase in lice risk if they could not treat them. She also referred to lorries carrying chemicals up and down the road and questioned how the roads infrastructure was going to cope. She advised that their fishermen were starting to report on fish mortalities due to the number of dead fish they were picking up. She said that this was nothing to do with the Scottish Salmon Company as far as they knew but there was an issue of fish mortality which was a concern. She referred to working with the SEPA group to regulate the industry better. She commented that she believed fish farms did support local employment but asked the Committee to wait until SEPA gave their recommendations. She asked the Committee to give it a few months before making a decision.
Councillor Colville sought and received confirmation from Mr Browne that they had been granted a CARS licence from SEPA. He said the mechanism to move forward with this site had been approved. He confirmed that SEPA have reduced the infeed Page 16
medicines they are regulated to use. He confirmed that they had other tools to manage this issue.
Councillor Freeman said that he did not recall any application or report before referring to a confidential report or annexe that the Committee have not had privy to. He asked Planning if this had happened before. Mrs Davies said she could not recall when this had happened before and that the only case she could think of was the one which concerned the eagles. Mr Bain confirmed that they had the confidential annex on file and this could be made available to Members on request.
Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Planning that they could tell the Committee what the protected species was but only in private.
Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Planning that cumulative impact was taken into consideration during the assessment of fish farm applications.
Councillor Freeman asked what the current sea lice levels were at the current fish farm sites on Gigha. The Planning Officer and Applicant advised that they did not have this information to hand.
Councillor McCuish referred to the Clyde Fishermen’s Association advising that they believed this application was premature due to pending legislation from SEPA. He asked them to comment on the fact that SEPA had already granted a CARS licence for this fish farm. Ms Whyte advised that SEPA have given the fish farm its backing, allowing it to proceed to the next stage. She referred to the importance of all stakeholders being consulted as, she said, it was very important that everyone’s voices were heard as part of this process. She referred to the creel fishermen and what they put back into the economy.
Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Ms Whyte that she had attended a meeting of the steering group a couple of months ago and that they were likely to meet again in the next month or two. She expected they would report on their findings in a few months’ time.
Councillor Douglas sought and received confirmation that no one from SNH was present at this hearing. She referred to a previous hearing concerning a Wind Farm where SNH had objected to the proposal because the proposed wind farm was on the edge of a National Scenic Area and would impact on the visual amenity of human life. She pointed out that SNH were now supporting this proposal which was just over 1 km from a Conservation Area, which, she said, would have multiply impacts on non-human life. She commented on the fact that the Committee were having to make a decision based on risk rather than science. She asked when the SEPA report would be ready and, if science was just around the corner, why they were not waiting for this. Mrs Davies replied that SNH looked at various criteria when assessing an application including European Protected Species. She advised that at the previous hearing their concern was with the visual impact of the wind farm. She said that for this proposal they looked at the visual and landscape impacts and had no concerns but they did have concerns in other areas.
Councillor Douglas questioned why SNH saw the visual impact on humans being of more importance that the environmental impact of other species. Mr Bain advised that the SNH position was based on the assessment of expected impacts on qualifying interests and whether these impacts were national or international and if Page 17
there was satisfactory mitigation. In this instance they were happy to support the proposal subject to mitigation because of its proximity to European Designated sites. He said it was about quantifying the impacts of a designation.
Councillor Douglas questioned, in the absence of science, why they were not waiting for the science and how scientific would it be. Mr Bain said that it has been suggested by third parties during the course of discussion that Members should exercise their Precautionary Principle and refuse planning permission because some impacts of the development were uncertain. He reminded Members that Scottish Planning Policy sets out that “Planning authorities should apply the precautionary principle where the impacts of a proposed development on nationally or internationally significant landscapes or natural heritage resources are uncertain but there is sound evidence indicating that significant irreversible damage could occur. The precautionary principle should not be used to impede development without justification. If there is any likelihood that significant irreversible damage could occur, modifications to the proposal to eliminate the risk of such damage should be considered. If there is uncertainty the potential for research, surveys or assessments to remove or reduce uncertainty should be considered”. Mr Bain said that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee have advised that whilst there was a lack of definitive scientific evidence of the various factors that were contributing to the decline of wild salmon stocks that a precautionary approach should be taken in order to minimise the potential risk to wild salmon stocks wherever possible. He advised that the Scottish Government have responded by giving an undertaking to develop strengthened arrangements based on best available science and have established a Technical Working Group which has been tasked with developing a practical framework for assessing the level of risk posed to wild fish interests and which aims to prepare proposals for public consultation in June 2019. He confirmed that, in the meantime, the Scottish Government have advised that Marine Scotland will expect an Environmental Monitoring Plan to be delivered as a condition of any consents for marine aquaculture planning applications. This Plan will stipulate that an effective monitoring regime should be put in place and will detail what its key components will be. The Plan will be used to inform adoptive management of the site. This approach will not only provide a strengthening of the protections in the planning process in the short and medium term but is also a mechanism to inform the longer term determination of a regulatory framework which is to be part of a staged approach to building a long term set of arrangements to fill the current regulatory gap.
Councillor Douglas asked the other interested parties the same question.
Ms Whyte referred to the testing which took place in Shetland. She advised that a National Marine Plan was something that should be looked at. She referred to the production of queenies at the Gigha Sound in the past. She referred to the Markham project. She advised that she was not against the development but felt that at this time fishing associations were saying it was important to have a moratorium.
Mr Browne said that they have been entrenched with SEPA and at the moment there has been no change in legislation and the current approach remains the same. He advised that simplifying of the CARS licence process was being looked at. He commented on the need for Environmental Plans and monitoring. He advised that there was nothing from a conservation point that SEPA or SNH were concerned about. He advised of the SSC undertaking robust environmental surveys based on science and based on fact from thousands of data on known impacts. He stressed Page 18
that they had to abide by standards and that they were a regulated business and that the impacts were known. He advised that in terms of the CARS licence process, SEPA would be rolling out a new licensing process from the end of this month. He advised that Marine Scotland, SNH, the Council and SEPA could come back to them if they were not acting in compliance with their Plan. He said that he believed there would be very little impact on 12 individual creel fishermen as a result of the extension.
Mr Tyler advised that he believed the Committee should observe a precautionary principle and wait until the report was published.
Councillor Colville sought and received confirmation from Mr Bain that the Habitats Regulations Appropriate Assessment set out at Appendix C of the report of handling was prepared by a professional planner of the Council who was informed by input from SNH on the environmental impact. Councillor Colville commenting on there being a lot of technical information about birds and asked how this was arrived at. Mrs Davies advised that this was through assistance from SNH. She said that they looked at the potential effects on protected areas and following advice from SNH and the Applicant, Planning came to a conclusion on that.
Councillor Colville commented that it was his understanding that shortly with new regulations these types of applications would no longer come to the Council but instead go to Marine Scotland as at the moment the Council were only concerned with the protection and wild salmon and wild stock. He asked it that was correct. Mr Bain advised that they were still waiting to find out what the Scottish Government’s decision on aquaculture would be.
Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from Ms Whyte that when she talked about the IFG objecting to the proposal, she was referring to the West Coast Inshore Fishery Group. Councillor Kinniburgh pointed out that in the report of handling it stated that there had been no response from this Group. Ms Whyte advised that she had spoken to them yesterday and that this was because they had been unable to access the data. Mrs Davies confirmed that they had received no consultation response from the Inshore Fishery Group. She advised that all the information has been in the public domain throughout the consultation process.
Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from Mrs Davies that there was a typo in the wording of condition 7 and that this would be amended.
SUMMING UP
Planning
Peter Bain advised that during the course of the morning Members have heard arguments seeking both to support and oppose not only the proposed development, but also debating the sustainability of aquaculture as an industry.
Notwithstanding the ongoing national debates on the current state and future of salmon farming in Scotland, he said that fin fish farming remained a legitimate activity which was promoted by the Scottish Government in recognition of the economic and social value that the industry brought to Scotland through the provision of jobs in rural areas, investment and spend within communities and stimulation of economic activity in the wider support chain. Discussion was had Page 19
about the appropriate application of the Precautionary Principle today and reaffirmed the Scottish Government’s position that it was not appropriate to impose a moratorium on aquaculture development at this time.
In reaching a decision today he reminded Members of the requirements placed upon decision makers by Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act to determine all planning applications in accordance with the provisions of the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. He advised that in the case of aquaculture development the principal local development policy consideration was SG LDP AQUA 1 which set out the various criteria which required to be taken into account in the determination of this application.
He confirmed that in this instance it was the recommendation of Officers that the proposed development was consistent with the provisions of SG LDP AQUA 1 in that it did not give rise to significant landscape, seascape or visual impacts and that its effects upon habitats, species and nature conservation would be acceptable subject to mitigation.
He pointed out that the proposals for sea lice management contained within the Environmental Monitoring Plan provided measures to address elevated sea lice levels should they occur.
He advised that the proposal also complied with other relevant policies of the Local Development Plan and there were no material considerations, including those matters raised by consultees and third parties, to indicate that the effects directly attributed to the proposal upon the receiving environmental would be of such significance that they would merit planning permission being withheld.
Accordingly, he advised that it was commended that the application currently before Members be granted planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out within the report of handling and subject to the amendment of condition 7 to address a typographical error.
Applicant
Marc Browne advised that there had been no objections from statutory consultees apart from the Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board. He said that the development had a robust environmental plan to ensure standards were met. He confirmed that they looked forward to working with the local community and the people that came today to support them going forward.
Consultees
Clyde Fishermen’s Association
Elaine Whyte confirmed that they were in support of salmon farming when working with the fishermen. She advised that there should be testing here like there was in Shetland. She commented on there being a lot of self-regulation here. She advised that the creel fishermen may not be members of the IFG or have access to emails. She acknowledged that the information about this proposal may have been in the public domain but she questioned how many fishermen would have been aware of it. She referred to the impacts on wild fish in other areas. She acknowledged that Page 20
development was great for this area as it would support jobs but said it was about co-existence and working with partners.
Objector
Ed Tyler referred to Councillor Douglas’ questions about the SNH’s decision making process and said he agreed that it was a big problem when looking at a special protection area and having it fall short by 1.5 km. He advised of talking about a highly mobile species – the bottle nosed dolphin – which travelled up and down the west coast of Scotland. He commented that the dolphin would not recognise the line where the Special Protection Area was. He questioned why the proposal did not have a significant impact. He referred to horse mussel beds and pointed out that these were very close by and very important habitats. He referred to the acoustic devices that deter seals and advised that there was a lot of evidence about the accumulation of these. He referred to comment about dolphins and porpoises using different frequencies and said that he would like more testing done on this and would like to see if they did have an impact on dolphins and porpoises as they saw their environment through sound. He asked how it was known that these devices did not cause them stress. He said that they could get severely stressed by sound. He then pointed out that the issue of escaped salmon had not been mentioned today. He referred to farmed salmon interbreeding with wild salmon and suggested that because farmed salmon lived in cages they were genetically different from wild salmon and did not have the ability to migrate to spawning grounds. He said that may have been one of the reasons the Salmon Fishery Board were objecting. He said that escapees were a problem within the salmon industry. He advised that he appreciated the measures being taken to control sea lice. He referred to the cost issue and the sharing of hydro-licers and asked if they had enough. He commented on the SSC’s aspiration to have cleaner fish in place across all their farms and asked if they would be in sufficient numbers to make an impact.
The Chair established that everyone had received a fair hearing.
DEBATE
Councillor Redman thanked everyone for their contributions. He referred to holding numerous surgeries on Gigha and at Tayinloan and that one item came up time and time again – the quality of jobs for the younger generation. He advised that there was a need to support the rural economy and he said that a development like this would help that. He referred to aquaculture being a booming industry in Argyll and that he did not have an issue with supporting this application in line with the Planning Officer’s recommendation. He said that there had been large waves of support on the island of Gigha including support from Gigha Community Council and business owners on Gigha.
Councillor Taylor advised that it had been interesting to hear of new developments. He said that he would put aside visual impact as it was not an issue in this instance. He referred to the focus being on the environmental impact and that for him the depth of understanding lay beyond the Committee. He commented on SEPA having granted the CARS licence and that SNH would work to ensure the Environmental Plan was adhered to. He advised that given the approval by other regulators he was content to see this development go ahead and taking account of the economic benefits he was happy to support this application. Page 21
Councillor Freeman referred to a lot of comments made about the confidential annexe but said that he would put that aside as it would make no difference to him whether it referred to a red nosed mullet or a pink tailed harrier. He commented on those representations made by the local community of Gigha being in support of the proposal along with support from the Community Council. He referred to viewing the site yesterday, which raised no concerns for him. He pointed out that there were already developments on the site and that he was quite happy to see the enhancement of these sites go ahead. He confirmed that he had no concerns with the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor Currie said that he found it difficult to understand what was said about some partners having little consultation or knowledge of this application. He commented that this application had been validated a long time ago and he had noted from the comments received that people had submitted their comments in July and August last year. He said that it was nearly a year ago since this application first sat on the table and that it was high time it was decided on. He referred to page 16 of the report of handling and asked who in their right mind could argue against the reasons for approval. He suggested that it would be extremely difficult to find a competent motion to refuse this application. He referred to the material considerations and economic aspects of this proposal and said that because of what he had seen in other areas and on Gigha, where developments like this had made a positive contribution to the local area he would have no hesitation in supporting approval of this application.
Councillor Hardie confirmed that he had listened to all the arguments and after visiting the site he was convinced there would be minimal environmental impact. He advised that it would be good for the economy and he was happy to support the application.
Councillor Colville said that he was very pleased that his concerns about dolphins and porpoises would be adequately addressed and that he had no hesitation in supporting the application.
Councillor Trail thanked Mr Tyler for coming today and being the sole representative putting the case forward against this application. He advised that he shared his enthusiasm for the natural world and the care of animal species but he did not share going rogue on policies and expert advice. He commented that the Committee were lay people and that they relied on others to give them advice. He advised that the Committee had to abide by planning policy and planning law and so he would vote for approval of this application.
Councillor Douglas thanked everyone for their presentations. She said that she had a real problem with this proposal. She advised that she was not against the development of economies and fish farms and that she realised their value to rural areas. She advised that her concerns were about the environmental issues. She said that she would find it very difficult to go against planning to refuse when SEPA and SNH have no objection. She asked if a condition could be added so that when the new scientific evidence/recommendations were available at the end of June these could be incorporated into this fish farm.
Councillor Forrest advised that she also had concerns about the environmental issues and that she would be keeping an eye on that. She said the Committee had to rely on the current advice and that currently she would struggle to find a motion to Page 22
refuse. She advised that with some reservations and balancing the risk of economic development, she would support this application today.
Councillor MacMillan advised that he had nothing else to add. He confirmed that he agreed with his colleagues and would support this application.
Councillor Kinniburgh confirmed that he had sat and listened to all the presentations today and that they had all been very interesting. He said that he agreed with the majority of his colleagues that there were no reasons to go against the recommendation. He advised that the conditions were there to protect against the issues discussed today. He referred to concerns about horse mussels and pointed out that condition 10 was there to protect any damage to horse mussels. He advised that all these conditions were there for a reason and that he believed that some of the issues raised today would be addressed by these conditions.
Councillor Redman moved support of the application and this was seconded by Councillor Taylor.
Councillor Douglas asked if she could put an amendment forward requesting that a condition be added to take account of the findings of the report when it came out.
Mr Bain explained that her amendment would not be competent as a planning condition had to be precise and certain and that you could not add a condition about something that may happen in the future.
DECISION
The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons:
1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 5/7/18 and the approved drawings:
General Location of Proposed Development; Location Plan showing surface equipment of existing sites and proposed site location; Location Plan showing existing East Tarbert Bay location and proposed East Tarbert Bay location; Location Plan showing proposed development location only; KNN-01-0299 Rev 1; T4003D120/48/BNSP; MGL2x6TSSC ETB (1); KNN-02-0370 rev 4; Grid Layout Plan GFE_SM_SSC_350_GA_00001 rev A 1of 3; GFE_SM_SSC_350_GA_00001 rev A 2of 3; GFE_SM_SSC_350_GA_00001 rev A 3of 3; Admiralty chart extract showing proposed development; Schematic diagram showing proposed development.
unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Page 23
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
2. The stocking of the site shall not exceed a maximum biomass of 2,500 tonnes.
Reason: In order to restrict production to that assessed for the purposes of this application in the interests of managing wild fish interactions.
3. Notwithstanding the details provided with the Escapes Contingency Plan contained within Annex 6 of the EIA Report, gillnets shall not be used for recovering escaped fish during the period from mid-August to mid-May in any year (which is the over-wintering period which encompasses all pSPA qualifying species).
Reason: In the interests of the conservation of the qualifying species of the pSPA.
4. No anti-predator nets shall be used at the development hereby approved.
Reason: In the interests of the conservation of the qualifying species of the pSPA.
5. The new fish farm shall not be brought into use until the existing fish farm has been permanently de-equipped and the Crown Estate lease surrendered. The decommissioning of the existing fish farm and the installation of the fish farm hereby approved shall only take place between the beginning of June and the end of August in any year.
Reason: In the interests of the conservation of the qualifying species of the pSPA.
6. The code of conduct laid out in Table 32 of the EIA Report for boat movements shall be strictly adhered to during the construction and operational phases of the development.
Reason: In the interests of the conservation of the qualifying species of the pSPA.
7. Sea lice management shall be operated fully in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan and the confidential Addendum dated November 2018, July 2018 contained within Annex 11a of the EIA Report.
Reason: In the interest of the protection of wild salmonids.
8. The development shall be carried out and operated in accordance with the mitigation measures identified in the EIA Report. Section 7 of the EIA Report provides a summary of all mitigation measures proposed.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development can be installed and brought into use without causing significant environmental effects. Page 24
9. Any deployment and use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADD’s) at this site shall be in accordance with the ADD deployment plan dated August 2018 included in the supporting information accompanying the application submission, or such alternative as may be agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. In the event of ADD deployment, the operator shall maintain a log which details:
- a. the model and specification of any ADD deployed at the site; - b. the dates and durations of ADD operation; - c. the prompt for use (manual or auto sensor) - d. details of any predation events; - e. other anti-predation measures deployed at the time of ADD use; - f. details of person(s) responsible for maintaining the log.
The log shall be maintained available for inspection on request by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to avoid disturbance of harbour porpoise and to maintain the favourable conservation status of this species within the Hebrides and Minches candidate Special Area of Conservation and to avoid disturbance of other marine mammals in the interests of nature conservation.
10. The moorings required for the fish farm hereby approved shall be attached using drop down video to allow them to be micro-sited to avoid any areas of horse mussel.
Reason: In order to protect this Priority Marine Feature.
11. In the event that the development or any associated equipment approved by this permission ceases to be in operational use for a period exceeding three years, the equipment shall be wholly removed from the site thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that redundant development does not sterilise capacity for future development within the same water body.
12.In the event of equipment falling into disrepair or becoming damaged, adrift, stranded, abandoned or sunk in such a manner as to cause an obstruction or danger to navigation, the developer shall carry out or make suitable arrangements for the carrying out of all measures necessary for lighting, buoying, raising, repairing, moving or destroying, as appropriate, the whole or any part of the equipment.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
13.The finished surfaces of all equipment above the water surface, excluding the feed barge, but inclusive of the surface floats and buoys associated with the development hereby permitted (excluding those required to comply with navigational requirements) shall be non-reflective and finished in a dark recessive colour in accordance with colour schemes to be agreed in advance of development commencing in writing by the Planning Authority (by way of BS numbers or manufacture’s specifications) unless otherwise agreed in advance in Page 25
writing by the Planning Authority. The feed barge shall be finished externally in a colour scheme which has been agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority and shall be maintained as such thereafter unless any variation thereof is subsequently agreed in writing.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
Having moved an Amendment, which failed to find a seconder, Councillor Douglas asked for her dissent from the foregoing decision to be recorded.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services dated 7 November 2018 and supplementary report number 1 dated 15 May 2019, submitted) This page is intentionally left blank Page 27 Agenda Item 3b
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on WEDNESDAY, 22 MAY 2019
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Graham Archibald Hardie Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Mary-Jean Devon Councillor Jean Moffat Councillor Lorna Douglas Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor George Freeman Councillor Sandy Taylor
Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Angus Gilmour, Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services Peter Bain, Development Manager Howard Young, Area Team Leader – Bute & Cowal and Helensbugh & Lomond Tim Williams, Area Team Leader – Oban, Lorn and the Isles Arlene Knox, Senior Planning Officer
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest and Richard Trail.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. MINUTES
a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 April 2019 at 10.30 am was approved as a correct record.
b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 April 2019 at 2.00 pm was approved as a correct record.
c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 April 2019 at 2.20 pm was approved as a correct record.
d) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 April 2019 at 2.40 pm was approved as a correct record.
e) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 April 2019 at 3.20 pm was approved as a correct record. Page 28
4. ARGYLL HOLIDAYS: USE OF LAND FOR THE SITING OF 40 NO. HOLIDAY CARAVAN PITCHES, FORMATION OF ACCESSES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS: HUNTERS QUAY HOLIDAY VILLAGE, HUNTERS QUAY, DUNOON (REF: 18/02596/PP)
The Area Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report and advised of a late objection received from Bronwen Hosie who was reiterating her previous objection submitted in respect of this application. The proposed development of 40 new caravan stances will involve ‘medium scale’ tourist development within the Countryside Zone as identified within the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. As the proposal has attracted a substantial body of representations both for and against and give the material considerations associated with this application, it is recommended that a discretionary hearing be held prior to the determination of this application.
Decision
The Committee agreed to hold a discretionary pre-determination hearing at the earliest opportunity.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services dated 9 May 2019, submitted)
5. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ON BEHALF OF LUC: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR PROPOSED WIND FARM: AIRIGH WIND FARM, SOUTH WEST OF TARBERT (REF: 17/02484/S36)
The Committee agreed at their meeting on 17 April 2019 to continue consideration of this application in order to give Members time to seek advice on the terms of a competent Motion to justify not raising objections to this proposal.
The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee of a late objection received from the South Knapdale Community Council asking Argyll and Bute Council to withhold their support and that the Energy Consents Unit does not grant consent to the Airigh Wind Farm project. She read out the reasons for the Community Council’s objection to this proposal. She then read out a response to this from the developers which stated that the Developers did not feel the representation was reflective of the consultation effort which went into the proposed development. The Developers did not feel the representation was reflective of the views of the wider community,
In conclusion, having considered the additional consultation response received from South Knapdale Community Council, it is considered that their objection adds weight to Officers’ recommendation that the Council object to this proposal and consequently there is no change to the recommendation to object to this proposal.
Motion
To agree to object to this proposal for the reasons detailed in the report.
Moved by Councillor David Kinniburgh, seconded by Councillor Alastair Redman Page 29
Amendment
To agree not to object to this proposal for the following reasons:-
1. Landscape impact is minimised given that the site sits lower in the landscape due to the surrounding topography and as such it does not have a significant impact on the Upper Forest Moor Mosaic and the Rocky Mosaic character types.
2. The location of the proposed wind farm is distant from visual receptors and as such the impact is minimised by this separation and as such it does not have a significant adverse visual impact on the appreciation of South Knapdale.
3. The distance from existing wind farms is substantial which minimises the cumulative impact that can be perceived. Given that the proposed wind farm will sit in a bowl it will not extend the cumulative visual impact from Kintyre into Knapdale.
4. Given the compact footprint of the proposed development site, the variable height of the turbines nevertheless creates a homogeneous grouping which can be assimilated into the landscape having regard to the proposed layout of the turbines, it is considered that this clearly lessens the visual impact and does not give a jumbled appearance. As such, it is also considered that this is therefore fully acceptable in landscape terms, particularly from the viewpoint at Gigha North End which is approximately 14 km away.
Given those views, the PPSLC agrees to raise no objection on the basis of being consistent with the specified policies and guidance in the Local Development Plan.
Moved by Councillor George Freeman, seconded by Councillor Lorna Douglas.
The Motion was carried by 8 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly.
Decision
The Committee agreed to object to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. Significant Adverse Effects on the appreciation of South Knapdale Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ).
Argyll and Bute Council will resist any development in, or affecting, Areas of Panoramic Quality where its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape unless it is adequately demonstrated that any significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community wide importance. Argyll and Bute Council will also resist renewable energy developments where these are not consistent with the principles of sustainable development and it has not been adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, whether individual or cumulative. Page 30
The proposed wind farm would be located within the Knapdale Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ). There is no detailed assessment of the special qualities of the APQ in the Environmental Statement. The Environmental Statement presumes that the APQ is ‘designated for its outwards looking views’. Despite the applicant’s rebuttal stressing the strategic nature of the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, their landscape consultants appear to rely on the information provided in this study rather than providing a detailed assessment of the special qualities of the APQ. This is contrary to the guidance on local landscape designations set out in Scottish Planning Policy and the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, third edition. There is no citation for this designated landscape although its key qualities are likely to comprise:
Fragmented rocky coasts and a varied seascape which includes the narrow confined West Loch Tarbert as well as the more open sea basin bounded by Knapdale, Gigha, Islay and Jura The diversity of landscapes including knolly coastal fringes richly patterned with woodland, pockets of farmland, wetland and largely traditional buildings and backed by undulating forested slopes and open well-defined hills. The landscape has a secluded timeless quality, accessed only by a single-track road and sparsely settled, contributing to the specialness of this APQ. Dramatic views west from the APQ over the sea focussing on Jura and Islay but also views to the APQ particularly from the south where the intricate coastal fringes, forested middle ground and open high hills, including the shapely Meall Reamhar, are seen scenically juxtaposed with West Loch Tarbert and the sea. The wider setting this scenic landscape provides to the Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA)
The proposal would be visible from west Kintyre, the northern part of Gigha (additional Viewpoint 15) and (extensively) offshore. Views from these areas tend to focus on the arresting profile of Jura but south Knapdale forms part of an extensive scenic panorama of little developed coast, settled fringes, forested and open uplands. It is considered that the proposal would be likely to incur significant adverse impacts on the appreciation of the Area of Panoramic Quality in views from parts of North West Kintyre, from West Loch Tarbert and other offshore areas (principally from the Islay ferry but also from recreational sailing craft).
The foregoing environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected direct or indirect benefits which a development of this scale would make, including local economic benefits and the achievement of climate change related commitments.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal will have significant adverse impacts on the Knapdale Area of Panoramic Quality Page 31
contrary to the provisions of SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs); SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape; Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; and LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan; Scottish Planning Policy (2014); The future of energy in Scotland: Scottish Energy Strategy (December 2017); Onshore wind policy statement (January 2017); SNH Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance (August 2017); and Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, SNH and Argyll and Bute Council (2017).
2. Significant Adverse Strategic Cumulative Landscape Impact
The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, whether individual or cumulative.
The Srondoire and Allt Dearg wind farms are located within the Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT. While these developments are prominent in views from the north and east in the Lochgilphead/Loch Fyne area, they are barely visible from the south-west. The proposal would introduce wind turbines into a scenic landscape (Knapdale) where there are currently no wind farms unlike the Kintyre peninsula which is also seen in the view.
The south Knapdale area between the high ridge of Stob Odhar to Meall Reamhar and West Loch Tarbert and west to the Kilberry area (and abutting the NSA) has a distinctive and scenic character which is unaffected by large scale development. While the richly scenic diverse coastal fringe of South Knapdale would not be dominated by this proposal (due to distance and partial/intermittent screening), the sense of this area being undeveloped and remote (principally appreciated in views across West Loch Tarbert, the NW Kintyre coast and the sea) would be significantly diminished. The expansive and highly scenic panorama of the south/west Knapdale area and the islands of Islay/Jura contrast with the nearby Kintyre peninsula where wind farm development is a key characteristic. While wind farms could potentially be accommodated in this part of Knapdale without widespread significant landscape and visual impacts arising (due to the sparse settlement and less complex landform and vegetation cover of hill slopes) it is also important to keep the most scenic parts of Argyll and Bute free from development given the extent of wind farm development accommodated elsewhere. The scenic quality of the area is recognised by the APQ designation. Page 32
The foregoing environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected direct or indirect benefits which a development of this scale would make, including local economic benefits and the achievement of climate change related commitments.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse strategic landscape impact contrary to the provisions of SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs); SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape; Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; and LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan; Scottish Planning Policy (2014); The future of energy in Scotland: Scottish Energy Strategy (December 2017); Onshore wind policy statement (January 2017); SNH Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance (August 2017); and Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, SNH and Argyll and Bute Council (2017).
3. Layout
Argyll and Bute Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, whether individual or cumulative. Argyll and Bute Council will resist development with poor quality or inappropriate layouts.
It is considered that the layout of turbines at variable levels leads to an unsatisfactory ‘jumbled’ appearance evident in views from the south-west. In particular, from Viewpoint 15: Gigha North End, the layout of the wind farm is unsatisfactory with turbines appearing muddled, which contributes to an adverse impact despite the viewpoint lying some 14km away.
The foregoing environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected direct or indirect benefits which a development of this scale would make, including local economic benefits and the achievement of climate change related commitments.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the layout of the turbines is unacceptable contrary to the provisions of SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs); SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape; Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 – Supporting Page 33
the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan; Scottish Planning Policy (2014); The future of energy in Scotland: Scottish Energy Strategy (December 2017); Onshore wind policy statement (January 2017); SNH Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance (August 2017); and Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, SNH and Argyll and Bute Council (2017).
(Reference: Supplementary report number 2 dated 4 April 2019 and supplementary report number 3 dated 20 May 2019, submitted)
6. CREAG DHUBH RENEWABLES LLP: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR PROPOSED WIND FARM AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE, WITH OVERALL GENERATING CAPACITY EXCEEDING 20MW: UPPER SUCCOTH, STRACHUR, PA27 8DW (REF: 19/00599/PAN)
The Senior Planning Office spoke to the terms of the report. A Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) seeks to notify the Planning Authority of a prospective major planning application to construct a wind farm and associated infrastructure, with an overall generating capacity exceeding 20 MW. The site is located over 1km to the northeast of the village of Strachur. The wind farm would be located on the slopes of Creag Dhubh, 484m AOD at its summit, and partially below Creag an t- Suidheachain, in an area of commercial forestry and open moorland. The report summaries the policy considerations against which any future planning applications will be considered, as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. It is recommended that Members consider the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of this PAN in order to allow these matters to be considered by the applicants in finalising any future planning application submission.
Decision
The Committee agreed that the following issues should be taken into consideration by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission:
a) Repairs and improvements to the Roads infrastructure.
b) Cumulative Impact.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services dated 1 May 2019, submitted)
7. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR MULTI STOREY CAR PARK: LAND WEST OF THE GUARD BUILDING, H M NAVAL BASE CLYDE, FASLANE (REF: 19/00707/PAN)
The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. A Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) seeks to notify the Planning Authority of a proposed permanent multi-storey car park comprising ground level plus four and a half parking decks which will provide 680 standard parking spaces. The proposed development will aim to assist in alleviating the increase in car parking required to support the delivery of the Clyde Infrastructure Programme at HMNB Clyde. The proposed site is located within the existing HMNB Clyde complex at Faslane and will, if Page 34
constructed, be set within an industrial scale complex where large scale buildings are already in existence. The proposed development site is within a designated Strategic Business Location in the adopted Local Development Plan 2015. The report summaries the policy considerations against which any future planning applications will be considered, as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. It is recommended that Members consider the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of this PAN in order to allow these matters to be considered by the applicants in finalising any future planning application submission.
Decision
The Committee agreed that the following issues should be taken into consideration by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission:
a) The installation of Electrical Charging Points.
b) The inclusion of an Active Travel/Green Travel Plan.
c) Traffic Management going into and out of the base.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services dated 3 May 2019, submitted)
The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following 4 items of business on the grounds that they were likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
8. ADVERTISEMENT & SIGNAGE POLICY TECHNICAL WORKING NOTE - UPDATE
Consideration was given to a report proposing proactive enforcement measures to be taken in respect of unauthorised A Board signage identified by Officers following surveys undertaken of Argyll and Bute town centres.
Decision
The Committee agreed the recommendations detailed in the report.
(Reference: Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services dated 9 May 2019, submitted) Page 35
* 9. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - REFERENCE 16/00076/ENAMEN
Consideration was given to Enforcement Case reference 16/00076/ENAMEN.
Decision
The Committee unanimously agreed that action be taken by Officers as determined by the Committee and to recommend to the Council that a supplementary estimate as required be made available to support any action to be taken.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services dated 2 May 2019, submitted)
10. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - REFERENCE 18/00016/ENFMON
Consideration was given to Enforcement Case reference 18/00016/ENFMON.
Decision
The Committee agreed to the recommendation in the report.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services dated 7 May 2019, submitted)
11. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - REFERENCE 11/00292/ENOTH2
Consideration was given to Enforcement Case reference 11/00292/ENOTH2.
Decision
The Committee agreed to the recommendation in the report.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services dated 7 May 2019, submitted) This page is intentionally left blank Page 37 Agenda Item 3c
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the STUDIO THEATRE, CORRAN HALLS, THE ESPLANADE, OBAN on MONDAY, 27 MAY 2019
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor George Freeman Councillor Jean Moffat Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor Roderick McCuish
Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Fiona Cameron, All Under One Banner Group – Applicant Neil MacKay, All Under One Banner Group – Applicant Hugh O’Neill, Roads Authority – Consultee James Jackson, Roads Authority – Consultee Inspector Mark Stephen, Police Scotland – Consultee Iain MacKinnon, Environmental Health - Consultee Campbell Cameron, Supporter Councillor Kieron Green, Representee Councillor Elaine Robertson, Representee
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Rory Colville, Robin Currie, Mary-Jean Devon, Lorna Douglas, Audrey Forrest, Graham Archibald Hardie, Sandy Taylor and Richard Trail.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: PUBLIC PROCESSION NOTIFICATION (F CAMERON, GRANTON-ON-SPEY)
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. He then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Head of Governance and Law to identify those who wished to speak.
The Committee were advised that one of the supporters, Mr Campbell Cameron, had submitted his representation over the weekend by email. They were asked to consider whether or not they wished to admit this late representation into the process. The Committee agreed to admit Mr Cameron’s late representation into the process and allow him to speak at the hearing.
APPLICANT
Neil MacKay spoke on behalf of the All Under One Banner (AUOB) Group. He advised that the Group had submitted notification some time ago of their intention to march and he confirmed that this is what they would be doing. He said that they believed totally in the interests of not just the people in Oban, but all Scottish citizens that this march should go ahead. Page 38
He confirmed that he was aware of objections submitted and that the key concern was disruption to traffic. He pointed out that it had previously been estimated that 2,500 people would attend and that they would like to lower that figure to 1,700 in accordance with information they have received on social media. He explained how they had arrived at that figure using a formula which was tried and tested. Based on responses received (879 going and 2,200 interested) they expected that two thirds of those identified as going would attend and that half of those interested in attending would attend, which brought the total to approximately 1,700 people. He advised that he believed this reduction would be in the capacity of the various infrastructures in Oban. He said that this would greatly reduce the estimates of any disruption.
He pointed out that the duty of care lay with Police Scotland and the local authority to ensure that appropriate measures were taken and appropriate policing responses were taken to ensure that the general public were notified that this march would take place. He added that if people were given enough advanced warning this would allow them to either avoid the town altogether on that day or reschedule the time they planned to travel to the town. He advised that the various authorities had a duty of care to citizens to take appropriate traffic calming measures, including employing appropriate police resources.
He referred to concerns expressed that the march could cause traffic queues to extend into the national speed limit zone and advised that it was the various authorities’ responsibility to make sure appropriate signage was in place.
He referred to concerns about emergency vehicles being unable to pass through the march and he confirmed that they had a very experienced steward team and first aid team and that there would be no problem with an emergency vehicle being prevented from passing through the march. He referred to a recent march in Glasgow which was attended up to 100,000 people and that they had no issues with that. He confirmed that their emergency team would be able to manage the crowd and attendees and that there would be no risk at all, no damage to public property and no risk to the local community. He advised that no negative impact was anticipated at all. He suggested that the financial injection into the local economy would be greatly welcomed by local businesses.
He then referred to concerns about the car park and fees. He stated that the Group would not be paying the fees and that was a fact. He pointed out that fees have been waived for other organisations in the past so they should also be waived for this Group.
He said that this would be a very positive event for Oban and the local community and that it was in the best interests of the Scottish people which, he said he imagined the committee would support.
Fiona Cameron confirmed that she supported everything that Mr MacKay had said. She confirmed that she had been one of the organisers of the march held in Inverness last year and that she supported what had been said about the social media side of things. Page 39
QUESTIONS FROM CONSULTEES
Hugh O’Neill, the Council’s Network and Standards Manager, asked Mr MacKay how many coaches they expected to come. Mr MacKay confirmed that the AUOB Group would be bringing one coach from Glasgow and that, including their own coach, he expected between 6 – 10 coaches altogether. He said that they had sold 27 tickets for their bus. Mr O’Neill asked how all the other people would come if not by coach. Mr MacKay suggested they could travel by car, train and boat and that some people may cycle or walk.
QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTEES
Councillor Kieron Green referred to an article published in a national newspaper promoting the organising committee for this event. He said that in that article the organisers expected tens of thousands of people on the day. He asked Mr MacKay which was correct, 1,700 people or tens of thousands. Mr MacKay advised that he was not aware of the article Councillor Green was referring to. He said that representations to the press could have been made from a whole range of people. He confirmed that what he was telling the Committee today was correct – that they expected 1,700 to attend. Mrs Cameron advised that this event would be held two weeks after the Galashiels march and she suggested that people attending that march may not come to this march so this could lead to the numbers attending being less.
CONSULTEES
Roads
Hugh O’Neill confirmed that from a local authority point of view there was a need to balance the rights of individuals participating and also the rights of the local community not to be inconvenienced. He said that bringing 1,700 into the small town of Oban would have a significant effect on traffic and the local community. Looking at 6 – 10 coaches, there would be a need to stagger them coming into the town. He referred to the use by the Group of the Corran Halls 1 and 2 car parks which had parking for 110 cars. He advised that there would be a need to close these car parks to the general public from 9 am to ensure they were empty in time for the start of the march. He confirmed that they would be looking to charge the Group for using these car parks for 6 hours which would equate to £660 rather than the original estimate of £990 which, he said, would be fair. He said that if 1,700 people turned up to march and if they were 4 abreast then the procession could be up to 400 metres in length. He referred to the code of conduct for public processions and said that the march would be in breach of section 8 – no cause for complaint shall be given and section 9 – no obstruction shall be caused. He advised that they would get complaints and that road junctions would be obstructed. He advised of the Mull ferry coming in at 2.30 pm and the possibility of a cruise ship also visiting that day which could lead to a significant amount of people being in the town that day.
Police Scotland
The Local Area Inspector, Mark Stephen advised that the Police Scotland observations detailed at appendix 3 of the report remained the same. He referred to the Code of Conduct for Public Processions and said that Police Scotland considered that the march would breach sections 8 and 9 of this Code due it is size Page 40
and the only road through the town being the main road. He advised that the march would cause significant traffic obstruction and would likely extend onto the national speed limit zone which would add a significant safety risk to road users and residents in the town. .
Environmental Health
Iain Mackinnon, the Council’s Environmental Health Manager, confirmed that he chaired the Safety Advisory Group for this part of Argyll and that it comprised all departments the Council. He advised that they had two issues to raise on behalf of the Fire Bridge, Ambulance Service and Coastguard. He stated that the rescue services relied on volunteers who used their own vehicles to get to their stations when responding to a blue light incident. He advised that there would need to be arrangements put in place to ensure they were not prevented from getting to these call outs. He added that there would also be a need to sure there were extra emergency resources put in place at both sides of the march. He advised that access to the Oban hospital would be severely restricted and confirmed that he had been advised by the Ambulance Service that there was a vehicle at Glenshellach that could be activated on the day. He confirmed that beyond that he had nothing further to add to his initial submission.
SUPPORTERS
Campbell Cameron read out the email he wrote to Charles Reppke and other Officers as detailed below:
“Dear Charles and Fiona,
It has been brought to my attention that a hearing is to be held regarding the Independence March proposed for June 15th.
I would wish to submit my support for this event being approved. I would be delighted to speak at the hearing in support.
However I note that the supporting papers have not been published with the agenda. This makes it difficult to see what the Council could be concerned about other than facilitating a major flag day for Oban.
My support for the event comes from several angles, but that of freedom of expression of political views is my main consideration.
This is a long held position, defended in Scottish and British civic life. Marches of this nature have been growing in popularity and across Scotland have been civil, good natured family events.
They have proven well marshalled and respectful of other street users. The economic benefits will be considerable for the town of Oban with bed nights, meals and souvenir purchases being of a great boost this early in the tourist season to our traders.
I thank you for your consideration of my points and look forward to witnessing a grand safe and economically beneficial event here in the Gateway to the Isles. I would also wish Campbeltown well in its endeavour to mirror Oban's success. Page 41
Yours faithfully Campbell Cameron”
REPRESENTEES
Councillor Green advised that he had based his representation on the forms submitted by the Applicant as well as the previous events organised by them from large events in Glasgow to small events in Dumfries. He confirmed that he had noted that the Applicants have already altered their start time and that consultees have highlighted the ferries that will be effected by this new start time. He advised that he would also like to highlight the 3.55 pm ferry that left from Oban and, due to the timing of the march, would require people to arrive earlier than usual to catch this ferry. He advised of the need for people to have the opportunity to access this ferry. He commented that Oban was fortunate to have people regularly visiting from all around the world and said that visitors may not be aware of such events going on if they were not properly brought to their attention. He referred to the emergency services and pointed out that incidents could not be foreseen. He confirmed that he was pleased that they have been made aware of the contingency plans which will be put in place by the emergency services.
Councillor Robertson thanked the Committee for taking her and Councillor Green’s concerns as representations rather than objections. She advised that her main concern was logistics due to the size of the event and the capacity of Oban to absorb that number of people. Having listened to all that had been said, she advised that she was pleased to hear from Mr MacKay that numbers would be between 1,700 and 2,000. She said that she would like to highlight that Oban was very busy on Saturdays and due to visiting cruise ships and people going for their ferries it would be helpful if the march was held a little later in the afternoon.
QUESTIONS FROM THE APPLICANT
Mr MacKay asked Inspector Stephen what measures Police Scotland usually put in place if they anticipated a hold up of traffic within the national speed limit zone. He asked how they would react to that situation. Inspector Stephen said that the march would extend into the national speed limit zone quite quickly. He pointed out that most people travelling between 50 and 60 mph will arrive at a hold up with little or no notice. He advised that BEAR Scotland, who have responsibility for the trunk road, would need to have rolling signs in place capable of being moved as far back as the queue stretches. He referred to the speed of motor bikes and said that the situation would need to be constantly monitored.
Mr MacKay asked Inspector Stephen if these measures have had to be implemented before in this area. Inspector Stephen advised that this was more likely to be required on a motorway but not on an A road such as this.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor McCuish asked Mr MacKay why the start time of the march had been changed from 11.30 am to 2.30 pm. He also asked Mr MacKay to comment on the reduction of car parking fees suggested by Mr O’Neill. Mr MacKay advised that further to meetings and communications with Cal Mac it was found that a 2.30 pm start would be more advantageous. He advised that Cal Mac don’t anticipate the Page 42
same level of disruptions as the representees here today. He added that starting at 2.30 pm would allow people plenty of time to travel to the event. He advised that this was a celebration and also a family friendly protest and that they wanted as many people to get here as possible. He referred to the reduction in car parking charges and commented that in the past there have been instances of these charges being waived. He asked why they were not being waived for this Group and he questioned whether this was because of political bias.
Councillor McCuish asked Inspector Stephen if Police Scotland would prefer an 11.30 am or 2.30 pm start. Inspector Stephen advised that their initial observation was that an 11.30 am start would cause less disruption.
Councillor McCuish pointed out that Members of the Committee came from all across Argyll and Bute and had been able to get to Oban in time for the 10.00 am start of this meeting and sought comment from Mr Mackay. Mr MacKay advised that this event was for people all across Scotland so a late start time was advantageous due to the travel times for these people.
Councillor Freeman commented that there appeared to be some confusion on the numbers attending. He pointed out that Mr MacKay had advised today that 1,700 people would attend but in the representation from Police Scotland they say the Applicant had stated a possibility of 2,000 – 5,000 people attending. He asked if Police Scotland had been told that the numbers attending would be 2,000 – 5,000. Mrs Cameron confirmed that was the estimate she gave at their meeting with Police Scotland. Mr MacKay confirmed that this had been an early estimate and that they have had to scale back now due to the information obtained from social media. He confirmed that the numbers now, getting closer to the event, would be 1,700.
Councillor Freeman asked why the start time was changed. He commented that it took him 40 minutes to travel to Oban from Garelochhead this morning and that from Glasgow it would take him 2.5 hours. He said that he found it difficult to see the need for a 2.30 pm start to allow people to travel across Scotland. He suggested that if people wanted to they could get here by 11.30 am. He said that he also thought the trains would get here by that time too. He asked Mr MacKay if they had received any communications from people to say that it was not possible to arrive by 11.30 am. Mr MacKay explained that you did not need to be Scottish to support this event and that people were coming from all over the world as well as from England, Ireland and Scotland. He referred to the travel time for someone coming from Aberdeen, the Borders or from Carlisle. He said that to ensure maximum attendance they needed a time that would suit everyone.
Councillor Freeman suggested that people would need to travel in advance of the day if coming from other parts of the world. He commented on Mr MacKay advising that they were only bringing one coach. He pointed out that in the original application reference was made to buses being organised rather than just one bus. Mr MacKay advised that they would have had buses but the demand for tickets was such that they now only required one bus. He confirmed that there may be others bringing buses and that is why he estimated that 6 – 10 buses may arrive on the day.
Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mr O’Neill that there were 110 paid car parking spaces at the Corran Halls car parks. Mr MacKay pointed out that the Group were looking to use the car parks as a mustering point and that they may not be bringing any cars to it. Page 43
Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from Mr O’Neill that car parks 1 and 2 at the Corran Halls would be closed off to vehicles in order to accommodate 1,700 people to muster there. Councillor Kinniburgh questioned where those not travelling by coach would park. Mr O’Neill replied that some may come on foot, by train or may come the night before. He referred to the number of parking places across Oban. Mr MacKay advised that he did not think car parking would be pushed to the maximum. He indicated that most people would travel by bus or train. He confirmed that after this meeting they would be highlighting these issues and encouraging those intending to travel to use public transport or car share if possible. He advised that they would be looking for instruction on where the best place was to park so that they could pass this information on to their supporters.
Councillor Kinniburgh referred to Mr MacKay’s comment that people would be coming from outwith Scotland. He advised that if someone was travelling from outwith Scotland to attend a march why would they chose to stay in Aberdeen. Mr MacKay suggested that they may be combining attendance at the march with a trip home to see family. Councillor Kinniburgh advised that if it was him he would stay close to where the march was and then go on to visit with family. Mr MacKay said that this was a matter of opinion.
Councillor McCuish commented that the initial route etc was going to start from Oban High School. He pointed out that the school was closed on Saturdays and had a brand new car park there with lots of spaces and asked Mr MacKay if the Group would consider going back to this original starting point with the new start time of 2.30 pm. Mrs Cameron explained that Police Scotland had advised that there would have been too much disruption to start the march from the school and the new route was suggested at the meeting with Police Scotland as this route had been tried and tested before and would cause the least disruption to the town. Inspector Stephen explained that coming from Corran Halls the road would only be closed in one direction but coming from the school would block the road in both directions.
Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Inspector Stephen that given what they have heard at the meeting today they were still of the opinion that there was a high risk to public safety and a high risk to the likelihood of disruption to the community.
Councillor Freeman sought and receive confirmation from Mr MacKay that they would not have any control over the numbers that would attend.
Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mr Reppke that it would be a matter for the Council as owners of car parks 1 and 2 at Corran Halls to decide whether the car parks needed to be closed or not and it would depend on the decision of the Committee.
Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from Mr MacKay that the tickets for sale were tickets for the bus. Mr MacKay confirmed that there were no tickets for the event as this was a public procession open to everyone to join. He confirmed that the numbers given were based on who said they were going and who said they were interested in attending the start time of 2.30 pm. Page 44
Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Inspector Stephen that their observations were based on the original start time of 11.30 am and numbers attending being 2,000 – 5,000 people.
Councillor Kinniburgh asked Mr Reppke to confirm why the papers for this meeting were restricted. Mr Reppke explained that they were restricted for online purposes only. He advised that some time ago they were contacted by someone who was the subject of a Civic Government Hearing. The person had been refused a job because their prospective employer had “googled” their name and the search came up with paperwork advising that they were not a “fit and proper person to hold a licence”, which was the terminology in the Act. Mr Reppke advised that they had complained to the Council under Data Protection legislation. He advised that in order not to repeat that unintended consequence paperwork for civic hearings was not published on the Council’s website but was available for public inspection at Kilmory.
Councillor Freeman advised that it had always been his understanding that if papers were restricted this meant he was not allowed to discuss them with the public. He asked if it was the case that he could discuss these restricted papers. Mr Reppke advised that normally when papers were restricted from the press and public the contents of them should not be discussed with the press and public but for Civic Hearings it was generally the case that these meetings were held in public but the paperwork was restricted on the website for data protection purposes.
Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mrs Cameron that she had contacted Transport Scotland about the event and that the response she had received was that Transport Scotland would work with Police Scotland to facilitate the event.
Councillor Kinniburgh asked if BEAR Scotland had made any contact with Police Scotland. Inspector Stephen advised that he was not aware if any contact had been made but they may have been in contact with the Operational Planning Unit. Mr O’Neill advised that he was not aware of any contact with BEAR Scotland.
SUMMING UP
Consultees
Roads
Hugh O’Neill commented that the Group’s primary concern was independence and that his concern was about the safety of the community and the safety of the participants. He advised that as a Council there was a need to balance the rights of people to hold a public procession and the rights of others not to be disrupted.
Police Scotland
Inspector Stephen confirmed that Police Scotland were of the opinion that this event would breach the Code of Conduct for Public Processions in terms of Section 8 and section 9 but if the Committee agreed to it going ahead Police Scotland would have all the appropriate plans in place. Page 45
Supporters
Campbell Cameron advised that picking up comments from Mr O’Neill about the expected numbers attending, he would like to point out that the Argyllshire Gathering was attended by 5,000 people and Oban Live attracted 4,000 people per day. Referring to the 6 – 10 buses he said that on a standard tourist day Lochs and Glens coaches visited Oban with that many and they came into the town and parked on Shore Street. He said that he thought the same arrangements could be made for this event. Referring to the cruise ships, he advised that they tended to disembark from the Esplanade and Parks of Hamilton coaches picked up passengers and took them away to Glasgow and this was something that Oban coped with day in and day out. He commented on Police Scotland’s concerns about traffic congestion and said that road repairs regularly caused traffic to back up. He also pointed out that during the summer drivers regularly came upon the grass cutting rolling machine at short notice. He said that people coped with that and that accidents were few. He suggested that if there was an issue with closing off the Corran Halls car parks then an alternative could be the car parks at the Atlantis Leisure which could be dealt with by the Committee by way of a condition. He pointed out that would take the route on a slightly different way down Breadalbane Street.
He referred to marches and advised that during the recent Music and Dance Festival there was a blue light incident which was dealt with wisely by people moving to the side. He advised that the Argyllshire Gathering, attended by 4,000 people, have held a march every year since 1984. He pointed out that it was Charities Day this weekend and that this march would muster at the Corran Halls and march down to Station Square. He referred to the winter festival which was held in the dark and involved Santa and his reindeer. He advised that all these marches were 4 and 5 abreast. He referred to the AUOB march held in Inverness which he had attended. He said that it had been well marshalled and well-arranged and this was the same for the Dundee march.
He commented that Cal Mac had an online text messaging service and there was the ability to get any instances of traffic reported on the radio.
Referring to parking he said that buses and cars could be accommodated as the implementation of car parking charges had freed up spaces. He said that it seemed odd to him that Dumfries could cope with 10,000 people but there was an issue for Oban with 2,000 – 5,000 people. He stated that this was no larger than the amount dealt with during the Argyllshire Gathering. He suggested that the start time could be dealt with by condition and if 2.30 pm was too late then perhaps a compromise of 12 noon could be agreed.
In conclusion he asked if what was being said was that the town could not cope with the influx of happy people looking to join a festival of fund. He pointed out that if this was rejected Argyll and Bute Council would be the first local authority in Scotland to do so. He advised that this would be a missed opportunity for traders and shops as an influx of people to the town brings significant economic benefit. He said that it would be very embarrassing if the march was rejected and he encouraged the Committee to approve this event. Page 46
Representees
Councillor Green said he would like to reiterate the points he had already made. He advised that Oban could not be directly compared to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dumfries. He pointed out that Dumfries had a bypass and the cities had multiply roads whereas Oban only had one road which the procession would close for a substantial time. He advised that he commended the Applicant for giving considerable notice of this event (received in the autumn of last year) which has allowed for a number of adjustments to be made. He also commended them for working with the authorities to make these adjustments. He referred to the need to give reasonable notice of the event to ferry users and said he noted the contingency plans that would be put in place by the Emergency Services.
Councillor Robertson thanked the Committee for holding this hearing as she thought it had cleared up a lot of issues regarding the timing of the event and the numbers involved which, she said, had originally been a major issue for her. She confirmed that she was reassured that it was now around 1,700 people attending. She referred to the suggestion that the start time could be changed to 11.30 am or 12 noon and pointed out that this could interfere with the outer isles ferries. Having the event later in the afternoon would have the same impact for the ferries but would not have the same congestion and obstruction issues.
Applicant
Neil MacKay also thanked the Committee for holding this meeting which allowed an open forum for everything to be discussed. He advised that he was pleased to hear that there would be contingency plans in place for emergency vehicles as well as appropriate policing measures. He noted the number of other parking areas in the town which were referred to and he advised that he did not think the issue regarding car parking would cause congestion. He said that it was all about the planning and implementation of procedures to facilitate this event.
Fiona Cameron confirmed that Cal Mac have advised her that a 2.30 pm would not interfere with ferry traffic and that an 11.30 am start would have more of an impact. She advised that she has also been in touch with West Coast Motors so that they can advise their customers of the event.
When asked, all parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing.
DEBATE
Councillor Freeman said that if it was only 1,500 people then he thought the official parties could accommodate that. He advised that discussion on this has been ongoing since the autumn of last year and that all of a sudden the start time has been changed. Councillor Freeman asked Mr Reppke to confirm that if the time had not changed would this have meant there would have been no need for the hearing. Mr Reppke advised that the hearing was held due to the number of representations of concern received. He advised that he did not think the change of time was the main factor and that there were other factors highlighted in the responses.
Councillor Freeman advised that Police Scotland have highlighted their concern about the change of time and that at Civic Hearings he always took Police representations very seriously and from what he has heard the risks could have Page 47
been minimised if there was an earlier start time. He advised that his concern was that the start time has been changed so late in the day.
Councillor McCuish advised that the Committee had to take into consideration the likely effect of the holding of the procession in relation to: public safety – which he said was fine; public order – which he said was fine; damage to property – which he said was fine; and disruption to the life of the community – which he believed could be mitigated with some of the suggestions made today. He suggested that if the route started at Atlantis Leisure and came down Breadalbane Street this would mitigate against interfering with ferry traffic at 2.20 pm. He said that down this street would be far more manageable with traffic being stopped at Farm Foods. He advised that if the march started at Atlantis Leisure this would also mean the car parks at Corran Halls would not need to be closed off. He advised that there was a huge bus park at Atlantis Leisure which was never used and a huge green where everyone could muster. He suggested this compromise as a way forward.
Councillor Moffat advised that she stood as an Independent candidate on the Isle of Bute and that she has not attended any marches. She said that having seen from the media these marches were family friendly and would not cause disruption in anyway socially. She advised that she came from Bute this morning and arrived in Oban by 8 am so that she had time to walk the route before this meeting. She advised that the problem was not with the march but with the geography of the town. She said it would be nice to think that there would only be 1,700 people but, in view of the European election results, she believed the march would attract far more people. She referred to the beauty of Oban and said that people would not only be drawn to the march but drawn to the beautiful area. She said she was worried about what could happen at the top of the hill where the main road was. She advised that as she knew the roads well she knew where it was safe to speed up and where it was necessary to slow down but other roads users were not so aware. She advised that she had serious concerns about the march and the effect it would have on the road. She said that it would be a shame if it did not go ahead but she had concerns about the road conditions.
Councillor Redman thanked everyone for coming and for their good presentations. He advised that he was of the same view as Councillor Moffat and that in no way was his decision based on his personal opinions about the Yes movement. He confirmed that he was a supporter of free speech. He advised that there was a need to listen to the experts who say that there will be disruptions to businesses. He advised that a large march of this nature would have disruption to businesses which was unacceptable.
Councillor Kinniburgh referred to the four points that needed to be considered: public safety – no problem; public order – no problem; damage to property – not a problem; disruption to life of the community – he said that he shared some of the concerns but thought that there were mitigation measures that could be put in place to deal with these especially as the organisers had now reduced the numbers expected. He advised that he shared Councillor Freeman’s concerns about the late change of time but from what he has heard Cal Mac were content with the later start time so if the revised time fits better for them then obviously that would be good for anyone using the ferry service. He referred to Councillor McCuish’s suggestion about using the Atlantis Leisure car park and advised that he thought that would need further investigation. Councillor McCuish confirmed that the Longsdale car park at Atlantis Leisure was in Council ownership. He also confirmed that he believed that using this Page 48
car park would cause less of a disruption to the life of the community than using the Corran Halls car parks.
Mr Reppke confirmed that if the Committee were minded to put a condition that states the Longsdale car park should be used then that was a condition the Committee could impose.
Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from Councillor McCuish that buses could drop people off at the Longsdale Car Park at Atlantis Leisure so that they could muster at the green there.
Councillor Moffat sought and received confirmation from Councillor McCuish that he was suggesting the march come down Longsdale Road then onto Breadalbane Road and would then join George Street at the Taj Mahal.
Motion
To agree to approve the application subject to the march starting at Longsdale Car park and travelling along Longsdale road, onto Breadalbane Street then onto George Street and then following the rest of the route as detailed in the Application.
Moved by Councillor Roderick McCuish, seconded by Councillor David Kinniburgh
Amendment
To refuse the application to hold a public procession due to the disruption to life of the community.
Moved by Councillor Alastair Redman, seconded by Councillor George Freeman
DECISION
The Committee agreed to approve the application subject to the march starting at Longsdale Car Park and travelling along Longsdale road, onto Breadalbane Street then onto George Street and then following the rest of the route as detailed in the Application and also to apply the standard conditions set out in Argyll and Bute Council’s Code of Conduct for Public Processions.
Having moved an Amendment which failed to find a seconder, Councillor Freeman asked for his dissent from the foregoing decision to be recorded.
(Reference: Report by Head of Governance and Law, submitted) Page 49 Agenda Item 3d
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on MONDAY, 3 JUNE 2019
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Jean Moffat Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor Lorna Douglas Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor George Freeman Councillor Richard Trail Councillor Graham Archibald Hardie
Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Graeme McMillan, Solicitor Remo Serapiglia Applicant Jane MacLeod, Applicant’ Agent Stephanie Serapiglia, Applicant’s daughter Licensing Inspector Lara Capaldi, Police Scotland PC Alison Simpson, Police Scotland Licensing Section Councillor George Freeman, Objector Sean McCay, Luss Estates - Objector
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mary-Jean Devon, Audrey Forrest and Roderick McCuish.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor George Freeman declared a non-financial interest as he is an objector to this application. He confirmed that he would speak as an objector to this Application and, taking account of the Council’s National Code of Conduct, would leave the room at the point when the Committee came to determine the Application.
3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO STREET TRADER LICENCE (R SERAPIGLIA, LARBERT)
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. He then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application.
APPLICANT
Mrs MacLeod spoke on behalf of the Applicant. She indicated that she believed Mr Serapiglia was well known to the Members of the Committee. She confirmed that he had a Street Trader’s Licence which covered a variety of addresses across Argyll and Bute and that he had held this licence for some considerable time. She advised that if this application was successful Mr Serapiglia’s daughter would be manning the van sited at Pier Road, Luss. She said that Mr Serapiglia owned and operated 8 Page 50
vans – he used 2 of these and the remaining 6 were operated by other members of the family. She advised that Mr Serapiglia had invested £85,000 in a new ice-cream van. She confirmed that the van had been inspected by Environmental Health this morning and, having been approved, he would now seek to have this new van added to his licence. She said that the van brought with it a very quiet generator, CCTV cameras and parking sensors and advised that with these extra health and safety measures there would be no issues for the general public. She also advised that Mr Serapiglia and his family had a policy at the end of the day of picking up any litter near to their vans, whether or not this was litter dropped by customers. She referred to the application which requested an amendment to Street Trader’s Licence No. 4861 and advised that Mr Serapiglia was seeking to add a specific location at Pier Road, Luss to this licence. She referred to an updated plan which showed the specific location where Mr Serapiglia intended to trade from. She confirmed that he had discussed this location with Mr Hugh O’Neill of the Roads Department and that it was Mr O’Neill’s opinion that this was a suitable position for the van. She pointed out on the plan the St Mocha Coffee and Ice-Cream shop and advised that this business had now closed down and that there was no longer ice-cream for sale there. She suggested that Mr Serapiglia’s van could be a replacement for the ice- cream previously sold there. She also listed all the other places Mr Serapiglia was permitted to trade from across Argyll and Bute. She said that 2 Luss shopkeepers and a fellow Councillor have been vociferous about Mr Serapiglia trading in Luss. She advised that it was her opinion that the letter from Police Scotland was a representation rather than an objection to this application. She pointed out that Mr Serapiglia had previously applied for an Amendment to his Street Trader’s Licence requesting that Pier Road in Tarbet be added to his Licence but this had been withdrawn due to the National Park’s objection to him trading at this area. She suggested that as this location was no longer part of this application that the objection from the National Park should be ignored. She advised that Mr Serapiglia proposed siting his van at the end of Pier Road, Luss next to Loch Lomond. She said that Mr Serapiglia had no intention of parking outside anyone’s house. She confirmed that Mr Serapiglia had met with representatives from Planning and Roads and that both departments appeared quite happy with his proposal. She pointed out that there was considerable demand from tourists in the Luss area for bar meals, drinks, ice-creams etc. and said that there was room for everyone. She said that the shops in Luss sold more than just ice-cream. She advised that Mr Serapiglia did not wish to compete with anyone and that he wanted to trade and complement the existing businesses in the area. He wanted to attract and retain visitors to the area. She indicated that there would be no noise nuisance form the van as there would be no noisy generators and it would be even quieter than his existing vans. She commended this modified application to the Committee.
Copies of the updated plan and a picture of the new van were circulated by Mrs MacLeod to the Committee.
QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS
Councillor Freeman referred to Mrs MacLeod advising that the objection from the National Park should be ignored. He read out the submission from the National Park and said it was quite clear to him that they were of the opinion that both locations in Mr Serapiglia’s original application for Amendment to his Street Trader’s Licence were unsuitable for use. He asked why this objection should be ignored when it clearly referred to the locations at Tarbet and Luss. Mrs MacLeod said that the National Park had objected to the Tarbet location as they owned the road at Tarbet. Page 51
She pointed out that they did not own the road at Luss. She commented that they had not come to the hearing to speak to their objection. She confirmed that she had addressed the issue of litter in her presentation which had been a concern the National Park had raised.
Councillor Freeman referred to Mrs MacLeod saying that Mr Serapiglia had received permission to operate at the location in Luss. She asked Mrs MacLeod if she knew who the owner of the land was. Mrs MacLeod advised that she had not said Mr Serapiglia had permission. She said that she had indicated that Mr Serapiglia had met with Roads. She pointed out that the road had been adopted by the Council.
Councillor Freeman asked Mrs MacLeod if she was aware that the adopted road did not include the turning area where Mr Serapiglia wished to park. Mrs MacLeod said that she aware that when a road was adopted it included one metre of verge on all sides. She said that Roads had agreed with Mr Serapiglia that this would be a suitable position as it would not interfere with traffic.
POLICE SCOTLAND
Inspector Capaldi read out the representation from Police Scotland following a visit by Police licensing staff to Luss on 20 February 2019. She confirmed that the Policy licensing staff were of the opinion that Pier Road in Luss was an extremely busy road with a large number of pedestrians visiting all year round but more so in the spring and summer months. Reference was made to the road narrowing as it headed towards the Pier and it was said that the road from the junction of School Road down to the Pier would be unsuitable for an ice-cream van to park as it would be difficult for other vehicles to pass safely, especially due to the number of pedestrians and lack of pavement in this area. Reference was also made to the number of shops already on Pier Road which may already sell similar goods to the Applicant. It was pointed out in the letter that this road was technically owned by Luss Estates but had been adopted as a highway by Argyll and Bute Council. It was suggested that the Committee may wish to confirm if Mr Serapiglia had the appropriate permission to trade in this area.
OBJECTORS
Councillor Freeman advised that he had submitted his objection on behalf of a number of his constituents as well as the Community Council. He said that it was his understanding that the Community Council had contact Mr McMillan to confirm their ongoing objection to this application and he asked Mr McMillan if this was correct.
Mr McMillan confirmed that an email had been received from the Community Council late on Friday 31 May. Mr Reppke advised that this correspondence had been received outwith the time allowed for submission of objections and that if the Committee wished to take this late objection into consideration there was a process for this which the Committee would need to take account of.
Councillor Freeman advised that the main argument, which Police Scotland had highlighted in their submission, was that Pier Road, Luss was not a suitable location for a vehicle to trade there. He advised that he had driven down the road earlier today and that it was chock a block at that time. He suggested that it would be totally unsuitable for a vehicle to be parked at the bottom of the road as that was a turning area which would be restricted if a large vehicle was parked there. He also Page 52
raised the question of ownership of the road. He said that it was his understanding that the Council leased that part of the road from Luss Estates and that the lease did not allow the Council to permit people to trade from that land. He said that he was sure that Luss Estates would be able to confirm if this was the case. He advised that if this application was approved he was sure the Applicant would have difficulty from the landowner over accessing that site.
Mr McCay of Luss Estates advised that Police Scotland and Councillor Freeman had already covered the health and safety elements of their objection. He said that unfortunately there was a big problem in Luss with traffic and parking in the streets and the high number of vehicles circulating looking for parking spaces. He advised that he thought an ice-cream van at this location would mean this would continue to be a problem. He referred to lots of children congregating around an ice-cream van which he thought would be a real health and safety risk. He advised that this location was a turning circle and the road was a dead end at this point. He said that vehicles needed room to turn around at this point. He advised that at the moment people were parking there when they should not and that the Council should not be ensuring this can happen. He referred to the kiosk at the Pier and advised that this was closed temporarily. He said that Luss Estates were at an advance stage of negotiations with the National Park to whom Luss Pier was let. He advised that they wished to have a longer let and that once this was settled it would allow the National Park to re-lease the shop and that he expected it would be open again very soon. He also referred to the points raised about consent from the landowner. He said that he could confirm that while Pier Road was an adopted highway Luss Estates owned the ground in question. He suggested that adoption of the road meant the Council maintained a right to the highway over ground but this did not override seeking permission to use the land. He advised that consent had neither been asked for nor given in this case. He said that the Council had a lease covering the shore walk footway which began at the end of the pier and continued towards the lifeboat station and this included the ground subject to this application. He said that the lease did not allow sub-letting and did not give the Council authority to permit operation of an ice-cream van there. He said that permission had not been asked for on this occasion and that this should have a bearing on this case.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Redman referred to concerns about littering and commented that he was confused by this as when he used to sell ice-cream from a cone no litter was generated. He asked the Applicant and Objectors to comment on this. Mrs MacLeod advised that was the point she was making earlier that although there was no litter from an ice-cream cone Mr Serapiglia and his family still made sure there was no litter and picked up any in the vicinity of their vans. She said that there could be litter from ice lollies but not cones. She advised that litter should not be a concern and would not be generated as a result of Mr Serapiglia’s proposal. Councillor Freeman referred to the Applicant previously operating at Murray Place and that the residents there had complained of litter when the ice-cream had operated there. He said that he had observed litter being left. Mr McCay advised that obviously there would be no litter from an ice-cream cone but there could be from tubs, spoons, sticks and wrappers. He also pointed out that once a customer left the vicinity of the van the operator would have little control of that litter. He said that litter could still be a potential problem in other parts of the village. Page 53
Councillor Colville sought confirmation on the legal importance of the solum of the road. He asked if it was correct that if you owned the solum of the road then you still had control over its use. Mr Reppke said that the Roads (Scotland) Act made it very clear about entitlement of a local authority to control a road corridor and verge on either side. In terms of solum ownership he advised that this was irrelevant in the day to day running of a road. While operating as a public highway the Roads (Scotland) Act trumped all private ownerships during that time. Mrs MacLeod confirmed that she agreed with Mr Reppke that the Act allowed the local authority to have control of an adopted road and public access to it. Mr McCay said that it was his understanding that the Roads (Scotland) Act allowed the Council to use and to access it but not necessarily to permit businesses to operate on it. He said that Roads managed the road but it was his understanding that its interests still rested with the landowner. Councillor Freeman advised that Roads Officers had confirmed that this was a turning area. He said that if vehicles parked and there was trading there then clearly this would no longer be a turning area.
Councillor Currie advised that if it was the case that the Council had to get in touch with a landowner every time consideration was given to a Street Trader’s Licence this would have to be done on a daily basis as there was always someone that owned the ground beneath the tarmac. He questioned whether or not the interpretation of the Act by Luss Estates was wrong. Mr McCay advised that he would not say so. He referred to the Duke of Argyll owning the land at Inveraray and suggested that he may not be so concerned due to the size of that town and that it was very different to the village of Luss. He said that Luss was a small community and the estate took a particularly close interest in this location. He suggested that some landowners may not always use their rights in this way. He advised that it was the case that they would very much like to use their rights as landowners and that Luss Estates did not think this was a suitable location. Mrs MacLeod advised that Mr Serapiglia was asking for a variation of his Street Trader’s Licence which was controlled by the local authority. She pointed out that Mr Reppke had explained that once a road was adopted ownership of it was irrelevant.
Councillor Currie asked if Mr McCay was saying it was okay for some vehicles to park there but not others. Mr McCay advised that for the lease of the shop the shopkeepers were not permitted to park in the turning area but they were permitted to load and unload for the shop. He confirmed that Luss Estates seen this as an unloading and loading area and a turning area but not a parking area.
Councillor Douglas sought clarification on the current status of the St Mocha café as the Applicant had indicated that it was shut but Luss Estates were saying it was shut but would be starting up again. She asked how long it had been shut for. Mr McCay advised that St Mocha had traded since 2015 until the end of 2018 and that there had been a series of annual agreements between Luss Estates and the National Park. He advised that each year the National Park were given permission to sub-let the premises. He said that St Mocha was a seasonal business operating from April – October. He advised that the reason it was not open at the moment was because Luss Estates were currently negotiating with the National Park for a longer agreement. He said that Luss Estates had indicated that they were happy for St Mocha to continue trading in the meantime but the National Park had terminated the sub-lease until the longer lease was finalised. He advised that the previous agreement with the National Park ran until December 2018 and that he thought St Mocha had closed up at the end of October 2018. Mrs MacLeod advised that as far Page 54
as her client was concerned the premises was shut and that he was not privy to negotiations between the National Park and Luss Estates.
Councillor Hardie ask Police Scotland if this application was granted would it be their opinion that this would result in serious congestion in Luss. Inspector Capaldi advised that the area was already congested and the addition of one large ice-cream van to the area at the end of the road would not help matters at all.
Councillor Blair commented that he did not think having a vehicle parked at the end of the road selling ice-cream would be a major health and safety issue. He asked if anyone would agree that it would be more dangerous if the van was parked half way up the road. He referred to the plan and said that he thought there would be room to park at least 4 cars at that location. He asked which way the cars would likely be positioned if parked at that location. Mrs MacLeod advised that they would probably park in the same way as the cars shown on the plan. She also advised that there were bollards at the location which were another safety feature.
Councillor Redman referred to the investment of a new van by the Applicant and asked if this application was granted would it create extra employment. Mrs Macleod advised that Mr Serapiglia’s daughter had just come home to join her father’s business. She confirmed that Mr Serapiglia and 4 members of staff were employed in this family business.
Councillor Moffat commented that she could not recall any current Street Trader’s Licence where the trader was not set off from the road. Referring to the plan she said that this proposed location appeared to be on the road with no pavement. She asked if she was right in thinking that this would be unusual for a Street Trader. Mr Reppke advised that vehicles often traded in the main street in places where cars normally parked. He said that there may be locations where they sit off set but he could not give Councillor Moffat a view on that.
Councillor Trail asked the Applicant if it would be his intention to take the van down and park at 10 am and stay all day. He questioned whether this would be unfair competition to other traders. Mrs MacLeod advised that Mr Serapiglia’s trading hours were restricted to 9 pm but he tended to be away from 6 – 6.30 pm.
Councillor Colville asked if this application was granted would it be for that specified area. He asked what would happen if cars were already parked there. Mr Serapiglia advised that he would arrive earlier. Councillor Colville suggested that by granting this application it would not guarantee the use of the site and asked Mr Serapiglia if he would agree. Mrs MacLeod advised that this application was an amendment to enable Mr Serapiglia to trade in Pier Road. She confirmed that Mr Serapiglia’s preferred location was at the end of the road. She advised that if he could not get parked there then she was sure he would move on somewhere else.
Councillor Kinniburgh sought confirmation that if Mr Serapiglia could not get parked at his preferred location on Pier Road, he would not park anywhere else on Pier Road. Mr Serapiglia said he would go away and return when a space became available. Councillor Kinniburgh asked if the Committee could specify that just that space be used. Mr Reppke advised that if the Committee were minded to grant the application to trade on Pier Road, Mr Serapiglia has advised that he would undertake only to trade from that location. Mr Reppke advised that he was not sure how the Committee could enforce that as the application was for Pier Road, Luss. Page 55
Councillor Kinniburgh referred to the area that Mr McCay advised was a turning area and that could also be used by the shop premises for loading and unloading. He asked Mr McCay if there were any parking restrictions such as double yellows lines at that location. Mr McCay advised that he could not recall if there were any.
Councillor Kinniburgh asked if Luss Estates had ever moved anyone on from the area if they were not loading or unloading at the shop. Mr McCay advised that it was his understanding that any parking restrictions would come under the local authority. He advised that parking and operation of the business would be another matter and that it was specified in the lease that it should just be for loading and unloading and not parking. He advised that in his time he could not recall having to enforce that as the business owners always abided by their lease.
Councillor Kinniburgh referred to Mr Serapiglia advising that if he was unable to park his van at that location he would go away and come back when a space was there and that he would not park at any other area on Pier Road even although the licence would be for the whole of Pier Road. He commented that in the past Mr Serapiglia had a tendency to park where he was not permitted to. Mr Serapiglia disputed that statement. Councillor Kinniburgh referred to the original application seeking permission to park at Pier Road in Tarbet and that this had since been removed from the application. He asked Mr Serapiglia if he had ever traded there before. He referred to photographs showing Mr Serapiglia’s van parked at that location in Tarbet. Mrs MacLeod advised that Mr Serapiglia was permitted to park in areas of Tarbet. Referring to the picture, Mr Serapiglia advised that he was parked having his lunch and that he was not trading at that location.
Councillor Douglas referred to the new agreement for Street Traders and commented that even although St Mocha was not operating, there were other places selling ice-creams. Mr McMillan advised that the previous Condition 17 placed restrictions on how close a street trader could trade next to a shop. He confirmed that this Condition was removed by this Committee as a standard condition and replaced with a new Condition 17 which limited the time a mobile street trader could stay and then return to the same location. He pointed out that in terms of Mr Serapiglia this Committee had agreed not to apply that new Condition 17 to Mr Serapiglia’s licence. He also referred to the trading times and confirmed that Mr Serapiglia was permitted to trade from 12 noon to 9 pm on all days.
SUMMING UP
Police Scotland
Inspector Capaldi confirmed that she had nothing further to add.
Objectors
Councillor Freeman referred to questions raised about the turning area and advised that Roads Officers had confirmed in the past that this was a turning area. He also referred to questions about trade and he pointed out that the new Condition 17 meant you could not trade for more than 30 minutes in the one location. He said the longest that any street trader could trade was 30 minutes. He advised that the problem with this application was that if it was approved today this would allow Mr Serapiglia to trade anywhere on Pier Road. He referred to street traders trading on Page 56
roads and advised that many street traders with licences did not trade on adopted roads. He said they traded in fields and he referred to a trader at the top of the Rest and Be Thankful. He referred to comments about residents parking at that location on Pier Road and he said that they were entitled to park there. He advised that when he visited the location this morning there were 4 cars parked there and that they could do so on a regular basis. He said that if Mr Serapiglia turned up and there were cars parked there he would have to move on and if there were no cars there he would only be permitted to stay for 30 minutes. He referred to difficulties vehicles would have turning in that area due to parking. He also referred to the narrow road which made it particularly difficult for large vehicles to go down, turn, and travel back up on. He referred to the loading and uploading required as part of the lease the shop had with Luss Estates and said there has never been a problem with that in the past. He also said that if this application was approved then legally the landowner would not give approval for the operator to operate from that area. He confirmed that he would encourage the Committee to reject this application given the problems it would create for his constituents, Luss Estates and the Luss and Arden Community Council.
Mr McCay pointed out that if this application was for the entirety of Pier Road then this would only amplify his concerns. He confirmed that Luss Estates considered the end of Pier Road to be unsuitable and the remaining length of the road to be even more so. He said they would have concerns about operations taking place along that road. He asked the Committee to take account of objection from the Community Council and members of the community in the Luss area. He advised that it was a long way to come to Lochgilphead on a Monday afternoon and that a lot people were at work and he asked the Committee not to discount their objections.
Applicant
Mrs MacLeod reminded the Committee of the matter debated last December and the modifications that were made to Mr Serapiglia’s licence. She confirmed that Section 17 was removed and that the matter of time restrictions was not relevant. She advised that Mr Serapiglia was looking to amend his Street Trader’s Licence to allow him to trade on Pier Road and that he would undertake to trade at the quiet end of the road. She advised that to date there have been no difficulties with this turning area in the past and she did not see this causing any problem in the future. She indicated that if Mr Serapiglia could not get parked on Pier Road then he would move on. She confirmed that he saw an opportunity to trade at the quiet end of the road. She advised that he knew his business and that this was a long, established, family business and that he was providing a much loved facility for tourists and this was something that needed to be promoted. She advised that she had heard nothing from the objectors that gave her concern. She said that the road was adopted and that the Roads Officer was satisfied with the proposition. She commended the application for this minor amendment to the Committee.
When asked, all parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing.
Councillor Freeman left the meeting at this point.
DEBATE
Councillor Redman referred to hearing a lot about other places selling ice-cream. He referred to the village of Portnahaven on Islay and said that 3 places there sold ice- Page 57
cream. He said that this was a free market. He referred to concerns about congestion and advised that he has seen ice-cream vans parked in more cramped areas. He added that he did not think there would be much litter from ice-creams. He advised that all things considered and for economic benefit he was minded to support this application.
Councillor Currie sought clarification on what the Committee were being asked to approve as the covering report indicated that the application had been continued to allow the Applicant the opportunity to explore suitable parts of Pier Road where he could situate his ice-cream van and that the Applicant’s Agent had submitted an email and plan specifying the location where the Applicant would operate.
Councillor Kinniburgh confirmed that the application was to trade on Pier Road and that there was no way that the location identified by the Applicant could be enforced. Mr Reppke advised that paragraph 2.3 of the report set out the position of the Committee last time round. He said that paragraph 2.4 advised of the submission of a plan but the Chair was correct that the application was for Pier Road, Luss. He advised that the Applicant may have a preferred location but as Pier Road, Luss was what was being applied for it would not be restricted to that preferred location. Mr Reppke confirmed that the Committee did not request the Applicant to advise of a preferred location but they did agree to the Applicant’s request to be given time to look at preferred locations.
Councillor Currie stated that as there was no objection from Police Scotland and no objection from Roads he did not have any issue and thought that the application should be granted.
Councillor Colville advised that he had listened to all that had been said. He commented on the Chair making the point about the number of cars parked at that location and of Councillor Freeman advising that when he visited there were 4 cars parked. He confirmed that he took account of the representation from Police Scotland that the rest of Pier Road was not suitable. He advised that there was a fine line between a representation and an objection. He said that he would be happy to grant if it was just for a specific area on the plan and that he thought this was what the Applicant wanted. He asked if the Committee could change the application and grant for the specified area. He confirmed that he would listen to what other Members had to say but at the appropriate time he would put forward a motion to grant on that area alone. Mr Reppke advised that a condition could be imposed to restrict to a specified location on Pier Road.
Councillor Hardie advised that he had listened to all the arguments and had come to the conclusion, knowing Luss quite well, that it was a very congested area and it was his opinion that granting this application would make it worse so he would move to refuse.
Councillor Blair referred to opposing opinions with regard to providing opportunities for people to come and enjoy beautiful Argyll and Bute and Loch Lomond. He commented that St Mocha was not open at the moment and that tourism was a major factor. He referred to taking grandchildren for an ice-cream and walking about and using the litter bins provided by the Council. He commented that if the turning circle was an issue then this needed to be looked at as a Traffic Regulation Order. He said that he thought this application should be encouraged. He said that he took it on good faith that the Applicant would not park anywhere else on Pier Road. He Page 58
said he did not have a problem with the ice-cream van being parked at the location on the plan.
Councillor Trail said that he took at different view from Councillor Blair. He pointed out that the issue of parking in Luss has been an issue for 30 years or more and it had still not been resolved and was getting worse each year. He said that he felt that location was not a good one for a van to be parked for an extended period through the year. He said that he found it unacceptable that the van could stay from 12 noon until the end of the day. He advised that he was not minded to support parking at that location and pointed out that the Applicant had 2 other places in Luss that he could trade from.
Councillor Douglas advised that she supported what Councillor Trail had said. She said that as someone that visited Luss, she could see year on year it was getting worse. She advised that Pier Road was chaotic with pedestrians and vehicles. It was her opinion that this proposal would cause an awful lot of congestion. She confirmed that the Applicant already had places in Luss he could trade from so she would be going against this.
Councillor Kinniburgh advised that contrary to what Councillor Freeman said, he, himself recognised that Section 17 had been removed from Mr Serapiglia’s licence and that he was allowed to trade from 12 noon to 9 pm on any of the locations listed on his licence. He said that Luss has been a problem for vehicles entering it for many years. He commented that there have been attempts in the past to rectify this. He advised that the area itself was always congested with cars especially down that area. He advised that he was not minded to move that this location be the sole one that is used as he did not think it would be long for residents to discover what was happening and they would park their cars there and prevent Mr Serapiglia from trading there. He confirmed that the application was for Pier Road, Luss. He confirmed that he believed the Police Scotland submission was a representation but they have stated that it was their opinion that Pier Road would be unsuitable because of the type of road it was. He referred to hearing about one metre either side of the road and pointed out that one metre either side of this road would be entering residents’ homes. He confirmed that he believed Pier Road was entirely unsuitable. He recognised that Mr Serapiglia could trade in other areas in Luss and commented that they too could be congested. For these reasons he would move to refuse the application.
Motion
To agree to refuse the application for Amendment of Mr Serapiglia’s Street Trader’s Licence on the grounds of road safety.
Moved by Councillor David Kinniburgh, seconded by Councillor Richard Trail
Amendment
To agree that the application to amend Mr Serapiglia’s Street Trader’s Licence be granted on condition that trading be restricted to the area shaded in green only submitted on the amended Plan tabled at the meeting.
Moved by Councillor Rory Colville, seconded by Councillor Gordon Blair Page 59
The Amendment was carried by 7 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly.
Decision
The Committee agreed that the application to amend Mr Serapiglia’s Street Trader’s Licence be granted on condition that trading be restricted to the area shaded in green only submitted on the amended Plan tabled at the meeting.
(Reference: Report by Head of Governance and Law, submitted) This page is intentionally left blank Page 61 Agenda Item 3e
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on MONDAY, 3 JUNE 2019
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Jean Moffat Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor Lorna Douglas Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor George Freeman Councillor Richard Trail Councillor Graham Archibald Hardie
Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Graeme McMillan, Solicitor Licensing Inspector Lara Capaldi, Police Scotland PC Alison Simpson, Police Scotland Licensing Section
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mary-Jean Devon, Audrey Forrest and Roderick McCuish.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF A TAXI DRIVER'S LICENCE (NO. 677) (H MACINTYRE, DUNOON)
This hearing was continued from 20 March 2019, and thereafter on 17 April 2019, where Members decided to continue deliberation of the request for the suspension of Mr MacIntyre’s licence to the present meeting.
The Head of Governance and Law advised the Committee that confirmation had now been received of the dates when this case would go to Court. He requested a further continuation of the deliberation of this hearing until the outcome of the Court case was known.
DECISION
The Committee agreed to continue deliberation of this hearing until the outcome of the Court Case was known.
(Reference: Report by Head of Governance and Law, submitted) This page is intentionally left blank Page 63 Agenda Item 3f
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on MONDAY, 3 JUNE 2019
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Jean Moffat Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor Lorna Douglas Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor George Freeman Councillor Richard Trail Councillor Graham Archibald Hardie
Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Graeme McMillan, Solicitor William Tucker, Licence Holder
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mary-Jean Devon, Audrey Forrest and Councillor Roderick McCuish.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF TAXI DRIVER LICENCE (NO. 3735) (W TUCKER, INNELLAN, DUNOON)
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. He then outlined the procedure that would be followed and as the Complainant was not present he invited the Licence Holder to present his case.
LICENCE HOLDER
Mr Tucker advised that on the day in question he was dropping off pupils from his taxi at the Guide Hall, Victoria Hall, Dunoon for attendance at the After School Club, Escape. He explained that it was a compact area and after doing a 3 point turn he was in the process of leaving the grounds when the complainant came up to the side of his window and tried to stop him from leaving. He advised that she had crossed the road with approximately 16 children 200 yards from the entrance to the Guide Hall and that it was his opinion that she was putting the children in danger by not holding them back until his taxi had left the vicinity of the hall. He said that she gave him verbal abuse and told the children to squeeze by his taxi. He advised that as a responsible person she should have kept the children out of the area till the taxi left. He pointed out that this incident happened on the 3rd of the month but she did not complain until the 17th of the month. He showed a photograph of the location to the Committee to highlight the confined space. Page 64
Mr Tucker also advised of a previous incident which involved this person when he had gone into the Escape office to be paid after dropping children off at the club.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Trail asked if this was a usual taxi drop off for Mr Tucker. Mr Tucker explained that another taxi driver had the contract but he was giving him a hand on this occasion.
Councillor Moffat sought and received confirmation from Mr Tucker that he was coming out of the entrance to the hall and instead of keeping the children back until he had left the complainer had asked the children to squeeze past the vehicle.
Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from Mr Tucker that he has been asked to provide this taxi service for Escape 3 or 4 times.
Councillor Colville sought and received confirmation from Mr Tucker that all of the children were on his side of the main road and that they had crossed the main road 200 yards away from the entrance to the guide hall.
Councillor Hardie sought and received confirmation from Mr Tucker that he had previously been a taxi driver for Inverclyde for 10 years and that he was now a taxi driver for Argyll and Bute and has held this licence for 19 years.
Councillor Blair referred to Escape previously working out of the school. He commented that the pavements were quite narrow in parts leading to the guide hall. He asked Mr Tucker if he had received a copy of the club’s risk assessment regarding transport of children. Mr Tucker advised that the club had been moved to the guide hall while Dunoon Primary was being renovated and that this was a temporary measure. He advised that he dropped off 6 or 7 children and another taxi driver dropped off 5 or 6 children. He explained that children coming from other primary schools also walked to the club. He said that the children he transported came from Kirn Primary.
Councillor Blair asked if the Council should be requesting a copy of Escape’s risk assessment and could the Committee have access to it. Mr Reppke advised that this request could not be made formally as part of this Committee but he would raise this issue with the Head of Education.
Councillor Douglas sought and received confirmation from Mr Tucker that the complainant had already crossed the road with the children. Mr Tucker pointed out the location on the photograph. He advised that there were 2 adults with about 18 children.
Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mr Reppke that Police Scotland were not asked to comment on this issue as it would not have been appropriate.
Councillor Freeman asked why there was a delay. Mr Reppke explained that discussions had taken place with the complainer and as she was not happy with the views expressed by Officers the matter was therefore before the Committee. Page 65
Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from Mr Tucker as to where the taxi was, where the children were and when the complainer approached the taxi. Mr Tucker confirmed that when he tried to leave the grounds of the hall the complainer had tried to stop him and had then asked the children to squeeze past the vehicle.
SUMMING UP
Licence Holder
Mr Tucker said that he was not sure why he was here as it was his opinion that he had done nothing wrong. He said that he did not put the children in danger but he thought that the complainant had. He pointed out that the incident happened on the 3rd of the month but the complaint was not made until the 17th of the month. He questioned what happened in between those dates and said that if it had been him complaining he would have been on the phone straight away.
Mr Tucker confirmed that he had received a fair hearing.
DEBATE
Councillor Moffat advised that she saw no reason to uphold anything against Mr Tucker.
Councillor Freeman referred to the time it had taken between the incident happening the complaint being made. He advised that as far as he was concerned the Committee should agree to take no action.
Councillor Colville also agreed that no action should be taken.
DECISION
The Committee unanimously agreed to take no action.
(Reference: Report by Head of Governance and Law, submitted) This page is intentionally left blank Page 67 Agenda Item 4
Argyll and Bute Council Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services
This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) Section 36 consultation regarding the proposed Tangy 4 wind farm, on Land at Tangy Wind Farm, Kilchenzie, Argyll and Bute
Reference No: 18/02014/S36 Applicant: SSE Generation Limited (via Scottish Government Consents Unit) Proposal: Electricity Act Section 36 consultation relevant Tangy 4 wind farm
Site Address: Tangy Wind Farm, Kilchenzie, Argyll and Bute
(A) Section 36 application made up of the following elements:
Erection of 16 wind turbines of up to, but not exceeding, 149.9 m tip height with external transformers; Formation of hardstanding area at each turbine base with a maximum area of 1,800m2; Erection of 3 permanent meteorological masts and associated hardstand areas; Up to 2 site substations (1 new substation and possible retention of the existing Tangy 1 and Tangy 2 wind farm substation); Erection of operations control building with parking and welfare facilities; A total 11 km of onsite access tracks with associated watercourse crossings (of which approximately 7.4 km are new access tracks and 3.6 km are upgrades to existing tracks); and Onsite underground cabling. Dismantling of existing Tangy 1 and 2 wind farms (totalling 22 turbines) and associated reinstatement 4 Borrow Pits
Associated works, but which do not form part of this application, include a connection from the on-site sub-station to the grid network. ______(B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Members agree that the Council do not object to this Section 36 Application and that the Energy Consents Unit consider the following conditions and mitigation:
Conditions
In recognition of the expected lifespan of the wind farm, it is considered that the permission should be time-limited to a period reflective of the lifespan of the turbine technology intended to be used from the date when electricity is first exported to the electricity grid network (Scotways); Condition to ensure that the Replanting Figure is corrected to reflect the known locations of the badger setts within the site (Badger Protection Plan – as recommended by SNH); Page 68
Conditions to ensure that all ecological mitigation measures detailed in the EIA Report are incorporated into any approval (as recommended by SNH); Condition to secure a more detailed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (as recommended by SNH); Conditions relating to Tangy Loch SSSI to deliver appropriate mitigation to protect Tangy Loch SSSI from water quality impacts (as recommended by SNH); Condition to secure a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP); Condition to prevent disturbance to Greenland white-fronted goose (GWFG) (as recommended by RSPB); Condition to ensure compensatory planting plan is included with any consent (as recommended by Forestry Commission Scotland); Condition to secure an independent tourism impact assessment (in accordance with the advice of VisitScotland); Conditions as recommended by the Council’s Environment Protection Officer to ensure: control of noise immissions; a report to demonstrate compliance with noise limits; assessment by independent consultant upon request of EHO; logging of wind speed, wind direction and power generation data; working methods and operating times for decommissioning of existing wind farm; point of contact for local residents; method statement detailing all mitigation measures to secure the quality, quantity and continuity of private water supplies; and details of external lighting. Condition to control potential Shadow Flicker impact to ensure that the relevant turbines are programmed to shut down at appropriate times to avoid any adverse impact on neighbouring properties. Conditions as required by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL) to secure appropriate aviation lighting; Conditions as required by Transport Scotland and the Council’s Area Roads Engineer; Condition to secure the decommissioning of Tangy 1 & 2 to an acceptable standard, including ancillary infrastructure and site restoration; Condition to secure the decommissioning of Tangy 4 to an acceptable standard, including ancillary infrastructure and site restoration.
Mitigation
Consideration should be given by the ECU to the mitigation measures suggested by SNH and the Council’s Landscape Consultant to lessen the impact of the proposal on the raised beach (as evidenced by VP 1); Consideration should be given by the ECU to the relocation of the turbine nearest to Tangy Loch (Turbine 5) to reduce the adverse impact upon Tangy Loch, Fortified Dwelling. For the same reason, consideration should also be given to the relocation of borrow pit search areas depicted adjacent to Turbines 4 and 5 as recommended by Historic Environment Scotland.
Other Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) object on the basis that a lack of information has been provided in regard to compliance with the UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) in regard to species diversity, peat depth and restocking, Page 69
forest landscape design and nutrient enrichment. It is noted at time of writing that SSE has provided further information, however that FCS have not withdrawn their objection. It is recommended that this matter is addressed, prior to the Energy Consents Unit reaching a conclusion on the proposal, and any further conditions recommended by FCS are applied. SNH also provide advice in relation to the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA which, in their view, would not be adversely affected by the proposal. Due to the status of the site the Energy Consents Unit will be required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations. In light of the requirements of both National and Local Policy on wind farm development proposals it is considered by the Council that Energy Storage for this site should be explored further by the Energy Consents Unit prior to the application being determined. That the Council would expect to be consulted on any final list of conditions prior to permission being granted, should Scottish Ministers be minded to do so. The Council would also expect to be consulted on any further mitigation, changes to the layout or turbine height. ______(C) CONSULTATIONS: ENERGY CONSENT UNIT RESPONSES: Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (22nd November 2018) – SNH object unless the proposal is subject to conditions in relation to Tangy Loch SSSI. SNH also provide advice in relation to the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA which, in their view, would not be adversely affected by the proposal. SNH also provide advice on a number of significant adverse effects as they relate to landscape and visual impacts. SNH provide advice on Ecology, and advice on Peatland and Habitat Management Proposals.
Transport Scotland (TS) (17th October 2018) – no objection subject to conditions relating to: approval of the route for abnormal loads; accommodation measures required including the removal of street furniture, junction widening, and traffic management; delivery of construction materials, any additional signing or temporary traffic control measures must be undertaken by a recognised QA traffic management consultant.
TS (13th November 2018) – response to additional information - no further comment.
Marine Scotland (MS) (17th October 2018) - no objection to the proposal. Recommends that a robust integrated water quality and fish monitoring programme is established to try to ensure the water quality does not deteriorate throughout the development, as required by the Water Framework Directive, and to protect fish populations of high national conservation importance within and downstream of the proposed development area.
Forestry Commission Scotland now Scottish Forestry & Land (SFL) (28th November 2018) – object on the basis that a lack of information has been provided in regard to compliance with the UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) in regard to species diversity, peat depth and restocking, forest landscape design and nutrient enrichment. SFL also object unless a condition to ensure compensatory planting plan (CP) is included with any consent.
Scottish Water (SW) (26th September 2018) – no objection Page 70
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (27th November 2018) – object on the grounds of lack of information provided in regard to the impact of the proposal on private water supplies (PWS). SEPA will review this objection if these issues are adequately addressed. SEPA confirm that the Peat Management Plan (PMP) appears to be sufficient. As the proposed windfarm is located outwith the SEPA Flood Hazard extents and is considered an appropriate type of development to be located in an area at risk of flooding, SEPA have no objection to the proposal on flood risk grounds.
SEPA (5th December 2018) – advise that they have received further information from the applicant which confirms there will be no works to the existing roads with potential to impact on private water supplies (PWS). SEPA therefore withdraw their objection.
Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (21st November 2018) – no objection
Visit Scotland (VS) (2nd November 2018) – no objection, strongly recommend any potential detrimental impact of the proposal on tourism - whether visually, environmentally and economically - be identified and considered in full. VisitScotland strongly agrees with the advice of the Scottish Government – the importance of tourism impact statements should not be diminished, and that, for each site considered, an independent tourism impact assessment should be carried out. VisitScotland would also urge consideration of the specific concerns relating to the impact any perceived proliferation of developments may have on the local tourism industry, and therefore the local economy.
Scotways (14th November 2018) - object on the grounds that consent in perpetuity is sought.
Ministry of Defence (MOD) (19th October 2018) – no objection subject to conditions to secure aviation safety lighting.
Glasgow Airport (25th October 2018) – no objection
Glasgow Prestwick Airport (12th October 2018) – no objection
Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (15th November 2018) – no objection subject to condition to secure red aviation warning lights.
National Air Traffic Services (NATS) (17th October 2018) – object based on preliminary technical findings, as the proposal conflicts with NATS safeguarding criteria.
NATS (18th December 2018) - Further consultation response - NATS has now completed its assessment and is satisfied that the objection to Tangy 4 can be withdrawn.
BT (18th September 2018) – no objection
The Joint Radio Company Limited (27th September 2018) – no objection
Crown Estate Scotland (9th October 2018) - no comments.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (21st November 2018) – no objection - recommends conditions are applied to prevent disturbance to Greenland white-fronted goose (GWFG). RSPB would also welcome management for key species within this Page 71
area and request that if consent is given, particularly if in perpetuity, that a habitat management plan (HMP) and group (with funding) is established to deliver biodiversity improvements alongside the wind farm throughout operation and decommissioning.
AM Geomorphology (6th December 2018) – concludes that minor revisions are required on certain aspects of the Peat Slide Risk Assessment to ensure that it is sufficiently robust. No recommendations have been made in relation to conditions at this stage, as the level of risk calculated by the PSRA is not yet sufficiently clear.
AM Geomorphology (22nd January 2019) – advise that the applicants have liaised with them to ensure the most critical issues were understood and addressed. In relation to AM Geomorphology’s original recommendations. They are satisfied that taken together the PLHRA and letter from the applicant (14thJanuary 2019) comprises a satisfactory assessment of peat landslide risks at the Tangy 4 site and have no further comment.
Campbeltown Community Council (18th February 2019) – confirm that they are unanimously in favour of the Tangy 4 application. If this application is approved it will help create jobs in our fragile area both construction and manufacturing of the wind turbines.
West Kintyre Community Council (WKCC)(6th December 2018) – object on the grounds that the increased size of the turbines significantly increases the visual effect on the landscape to both the local community residing within the area and those visiting and travelling within and around the area.
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL RESPONSES
Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO)(23rd November 2018) – no objection subject to conditions relating to: control of noise immissions; report to demonstrate compliance with noise limits; noise complaints and assessment by independent consultant; remedial action following complaint; continuous logging of wind speed, wind direction and power generation data; working methods and operating times for decommissioning of existing wind farm; provision of a nominated representative to act as a point of contact for local residents in connection with noise complaints; for local residents; method statement detailing all mitigation measures to secure the quality, quantity and continuity of private water supplies; and, details of external lighting.
Council’s Landscape Consultant (CLC) (20th February 2019) – in summary, the Tangy 4 proposal is far too close to the Kintyre coast and the turbines too large in terms of the scale of the uplands they are sited within, affecting more sensitive settled coasts and upland fringes. This proposal would have a major effect on views from the A83 (VP1 being an example of this where the turbines would be very distracting seen above the raised beach cliff) and be quite unlike other wind farms on Kintyre in this respect. It would also affect views from both the Kilbrannan Sound/Arran and the west coast of Kintyre and would introduce new visibility and intrusion into views from the east coast of Kintyre (VP17 Peninver being an example of this) when compared with the existing Tangy wind farm. This proposal would also result in significant adverse cumulative effects on views from Arran, Barr Glen, the A83 and the Bay Farmland area between Machrahanish and Campbeltown when seen variously with Beinn an Turic 1, 2 and 3 and with Blary Hill/Auchadaduie. In addition, the stacked layout of turbines evident in VP19 is very disconcerting especially as it would be seen in a long array of wind farms with a different layout on the skyline of the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic (although this effect may only occur in a relatively confined area). The Council’s Page 72
Landscape Consultant supports SNH’s response which expresses their strong concern about this proposal (but also the consent of Tangy 3).
CLC (11th March 2019) – (Comparison of Tangy 3 and 4 – In terms of the differences between the consented Tangy 3 and the proposed Tangy 4 scheme in relation to the VP’s where comparative visualisations were produced in February 2019, the CLC comments as follows: VP11 (High Peninver) – The differences between Tangy 3 and 4 are appreciable but unlikely to be significant. VP19 (Drumlemble) – The combination of a stacked layout and the size of turbines (+ cumulative effects with operational and consented phases of Beinn an Tuirc wind farm) are key problematic features of both the Tangy 3 and 4 schemes in this view. The CLC considers that there would be a significant difference between the Tangy 3 and 4 schemes here with the eastern-most turbines being particularly problematic as their full height would be largely seen. VP6 (Machrahanish) – while the stacking of turbines will not occur at this angle, the size of the Tangy 4 turbines will overwhelm the scale of the uplands and result in a significant increase in effects when compared with the Tangy 3 consented/S42 scheme. VP2 (Glenbarr Memorial) – Cumulative effects with the operational Auchadaduie and consented Blary Hill wind farms are paramount here such that the differences between Tangy 3 and 4 may be less of an issue. VP1 (A83) - in the Tangy 4 EIA Report also needs to be considered and it is clear that Tangy 4 will significantly worsen effects on the appreciation of the highly sensitive raised beach cliff in this area.
CLC (30th April 2019) (in response to SSE rebuttal letter) - while the CLC’s review of Tangy 4 was necessarily brief and focussed, the CLC stands by their views on Tangy 4.
CLC) (24th May 2019) – a meeting was held with the CLC on the 21st May 2019, to seek further clarification on the overall significance of the change in landscape and visual effects between the Tangy 3 and 4 schemes.
CLC (3rd June 2019) – In conclusion, the CLC advises that there are some significant changes between the approved S42 and the Tangy 4 schemes although these are unlikely to be widespread in number and extent. The nature of significant effects from the A83 (VP 1) is a major concern however and the CLC considers that there may have been missed opportunities to influence the design of the current proposal to mitigate landscape and visual effects on the raised beach edge (VP1) by omitting/relocating turbines. The CLC notes that SNH also refer to similar mitigation their letter of 22nd November 2018.
Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer (LBO) (20th November 2018) – no objection - welcomes the provision for a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and the associated action plans for ecological and conservation interests overseen by an Ecological Clerk of Works for the proposed construction and de-commissioning process.
Council’s Archaeological Advisors, the West of Scotland Archaeologist Service – no response at time of writing.
Council’s Access Officer – no response at time of writing
Council’s Roads & Amenity Services (19th December 2018) – no objection subject to conditions.
______Page 73
(D) REPRESENTATIONS: As this is not a planning application the ECU’s website provides the up-to-date listing of 3rd party representations and other submissions relating to this S36 application. At time of writing, there have been 37 letters of representation made to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU). The number of representations in support is 35 and the number of objections is 2. The ECU’s policy is not to publish any personal details. The main issues raised may be summarised as follows: Supporters:
Tangy 4 represents an economic investment in Argyll & Bute allowing businesses to maintain job security, or increase employee numbers. Wind farm development and construction including projects such as Tangy wind farm extension has provided the pipeline of work to allow to maintain and invest in our workforce, and that of our local supply chain. Tangy wind farm has been operational for over 15 years with little impact on the environment and our community. This proposal to Tangy with modern more efficient turbines is sensible. Tangy 4 will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide support to the local economy. Tangy wind farm has existed for quite some time now and it is not inimical to its surroundings and forms what is now part of the fabric of Argyll and the Tangy 4 will not damage the area or the environment. Tangy 4 will be beneficial to the environment and the local economy. Cleaner energy is clearly generated and potentially cheaper than existing infrastructure, not to mention the employment opportunities in the local area. The Tangy 4 proposal to create a more efficient and powerful wind farm can only be a much needed boost for the area – bringing investment and jobs at a time when both are much needed. The benefits to the environment go without saying. The addition of Tangy wind farm to be positive to the local area and a strong sign of the renewable energy future that we need to pursue as a country. The employment and revenue for the local economy is much needed and I hope we will be able to advance with the times and install the new, modern technology to keep apace with the rest of the industry. Tangy 4 will benefit the Community greatly by the provision of employment and much needed income. I have resided in Argyll for 30 years and have supported the development of renewable energy sources. There is a significant benefit to the environment as well as local economic benefit and I support the Tangy 4 proposal. Renewable energy is of paramount importance to Scotland and the whole planet. Updating the infrastructure when old technology becomes obsolete makes sense and is a natural progression as we continue to transition towards a future of renewable energy. Tangy wind farm is a proud beacon of Scotland’s efforts to move to a more sustainable future. Tangy 4 should be accepted on the grounds that it will create employment and lessen the burden on the national grid to produce electricity from burning fuel. It’s imperative that we continue to support clean and sustainable fuel sources in Kintyre. In order for us to do so the turbine technology should be kept updated. The work involved would also bring valuable employment to the area. Tangy 4 would be of great benefit to both the local community as well as supporting the struggle we all are fighting against global air pollution and greenhouse gas Page 74
emissions. There are real and much needed benefits conferred by this project – helping prevent further global warming by invoking this type of energy – and helping to work towards the recommendations made by There are the badly needed benefits to the local community in terms of providing support of the local economy with new jobs and all the support of the workforce that would be employed to complete this very worthwhile project. Any independent venture that can hope to make any headway with these issues should be wholeheartedly supported by local government. It is essential for the future of the renewables industry in Scotland to support investment in wind generation. In a highly competitive industry it is essential to replace and upgrade older turbines with more efficient units. This practice is critical to the future of the renewables industry in Scotland and will allow those SMEs, such as my own to bring revenue, create jobs and career development for the benefit of local communities. The economic and social benefits to the area are huge and must be encouraged. As there will be no subsidy for the Tangy 4 proposal then it’s a great opportunity to prove that wind farms can be viable without Government support. It will be a real benefit for the local economy, and as a frequent visitor to the area I think the wind farms looks perfectly okay and are a great benefit to the local community. Tangy 4 will provide many economic benefits for the area including much needed employment and increased trade for local businesses. Importantly, it will also deliver a significant rise in the supply of renewable, carbon-free energy for which Argyll & Bute can be proud. It is generally considered that in areas that have the wind power to sustain wind farms that they should be built as long as they do not interfere with the living quality of local residents. It is the policy of SNP that Scotland in the near future should not have to rely on fossil fuels and should develop wind farms that do not interfere with nearby homes. The building of wind farms is good for local employment and that has the knock on advantage of bringing money into the local community which is sorely needed in the Campbeltown area. Sustainable wind farms and green energy is definitely the way forward to sustain our planet. I don’t believe that it spoils the scenery in anyway and we must all pull together in order to protect our environment. Tangy 4 will create economic benefit for the local community in Kintyre and supports the Scottish Government Policy on renewable energy. Old wind farms should be upgraded and this will also bring money into the local economy and also jobs. Renewable power is a ‘must’ for our planet going forward and every opportunity to harness natural resources should be taken. Kintyre, like most of rural Argyll is not well endowed with economic opportunity. Over the last 15 years the Tangy wind farms have brought a degree of prosperity to South Kintyre, providing high quality employment opportunities and very significant capital investment. The very weather conditions that frustrate our tourism and agriculture, are ideal for the generation of clean, renewable power from onshore wind. Tangy 4 is an exciting project, with the developing scale of technology able to operate long term in a post subsidy environment. The new turbines would be able generate significantly more power than the existing plant, going some way to delivering Scotland’s ambitious and vital renewable energy targets. Page 75
Our own experience of developing and operating the Allt Dearg and Srondoire Community wind farms in Knapdale, to the north of Tangy, have confirmed that official and public concerns over landscape impact prior to construction were vastly overstated. Wind turbines have become a well-established feature of upland Argyll over the last decade, as commercial forestry did in the decades before, and for the indigenous communities they represent real sustainable economic opportunity. Renewable Energy from onshore wind now being a key revenue generating export from Argyll. I would like to lend my full support to SSE’s Tangy 4 project, in the hope that it will pioneer the next generation of wind technology in Argyll, securing vital jobs and prosperity for the dependant Kintyre communities, and clean energy for the UK. Being a local company in the area we are hugely involved within the renewables industry as are most other local businesses and it hugely benefits our local economy. Being supporters of renewable energy, we would be happy to see Tangy being re- powered as this would bring an added boost to our local economy by having this project going on, and create further work within our local area. We must support renewables if we are going to achieve the goal of keeping global warming below the 1.5c increase target. Tangy wind farm is contributing to green energy reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. The current installation has contributed positively to the national energy grid and an enhancement can only be for the good. The more green energy production we can have the better. As there is already an established wind farm in place at Tangy and this is an upgrade with newer and more efficient appliances, then I cannot see what any objection could be to such a proposal.
Objectors:
The height of the Tangy 4 proposal will overpower and spoil the beauty of a tranquil area for which it is renowned. Wind farms are supposed to be part of the green energy system and environmentally friendly, this is contradictory to what is proposed.
The turbines will only work between 9-56mph, so when the wind exceeds this, they are then switched off which does not make them efficient.
Instead of disturbing the vegetation, it is proposed to leave all wiring in the ground. This is not environmentally friendly.
The amount of traffic on the single track road from the A83 to the wind farm will increase by 98% during the construction period. How is this going to affect local people using this road when they are faced with heavy lorries on the bends. Also numerous lorries delivering concrete is not environmentally friendly.
What happens if the private water supplies are affected by the construction, who is going to take responsibility to put it right.
What effects will there be on the valuation of the properties due to the overpowering view from these monstrosities.
The report states that a few swish noises will be heard by residents, but we already have these from smaller wind blades so how loud will the new ones be. We already suffer from lack of sleep when the wind is in a certain direction so bigger and louder turbines will have a detrimental affect on our health. Page 76
We as a group object to this extended proposal due to the height of the turbines as they will be very much in view of all our properties even more and for the low level noise emitting from them. Since the original wind farm has been in place there has been a deterioration in sleep patterns and while as neighbours we did not object previously it is no longer the case and we wish our objection to be noted in respect of your consideration of the new proposal you have before you. This increase in height seems excessive which will add to already existing problems with noise as nearby residents. ______
(E) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: i) Environmental Impact Assessment: Yes An EIA Report dated August 2018 was submitted in support of this S36 application. The ES considers the following key issues: Environmental Impact Assessment; Renewable Energy Policy Context; Site Selection and Alternatives; Description of Development; Planning Policy Context; Scoping and Consultation; Landscape and Visual; Ornithology; Ecology and Nature Conservation; Geology, Soils and Peat; Cultural Heritage; Noise; Access, Traffic and Transport; Land Use, Socio-Economics and Recreation; Shadow Flicker; Aviation; and a Summary of Impacts and Schedule of Mitigation. ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: A Habitat Regulation Appraisal is required to be undertaken by Scottish Government for this proposal. iii) A design or design/access statement: Yes iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc.: Yes
(F) Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application: Members are asked to note in the context of the Local Development Plan and planning process that this application has been submitted to the Scottish Government under Section 36 (S36) of the Electricity Act 1989. As part of the S36 application process, the applicant is also seeking that the Scottish Ministers issue a Direction under Section 57 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that deemed planning permission be granted for the proposed development. In such instances, the Development Plan is not the starting point for consideration of S36 applications, as Sections 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which establish the primacy of Local Development Plan policy in decision-making, are not engaged in the deemed consent process associated with Electricity Act applications. Nonetheless, the adopted Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2015 still remains an important material consideration informing the Council’s response to the proposal. Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act does require both the applicant and the decision- maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the prospective developer shall have regard to: Page 77
(a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects. Similarly, it obliges the Scottish Ministers in their capacity as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at a) and the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty at b). Consideration of the proposal against both the effect of Scottish Planning Policy 2014 (SPP) and the adopted Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2015 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent which the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties. (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan (2015) LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LPD 4 – Supporting the Sustainable Development of our Coastal Zone LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of our Communities LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 10 – Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure
Supplementary Guidance to the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2015 & 2016
SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity) SG LDP ENV 2 – Development Impact on European Sites SG LDP ENV 4 – Development Impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves SG LDP ENV 6 – Development Impact on Trees / Woodland SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment SG LDP ENV 9 Development Impact on Areas of Wild Land SG LDP ENV 10 Geodiversity SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources SG LDP ENV 12 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs) SG LDP ENV 13 –Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape SG LDP ENV 15 –Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Development Impact on Listed Buildings SG LDP ENV 19 –Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments SG LDP ENV 20 – Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance SG LDP Sustainable - Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / Sustainable Systems (SUDS) Page 78
SG LDP SERV 3 – Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage and Collection Facilities within New Development SG LDP SERV 6 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation SG LDP SERV 7 – Flooding and Land Erosion – The Risk Framework for Development SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 6 –Vehicle Parking Provision SG LDP TRAN 7 –Safeguarding of Airports Supplementary Guidance 2 (December 2016) Supplementary Guidance 2 - Windfarm map 1 Supplementary Guidance 2 - Windfarm map 2
Note: The above supplementary guidance has been approved by the Scottish Government. It therefore constitutes adopted policy and the Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
(ii) List of other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A.
National Planning Policy Framework 3 (NPF3), Scottish Government (June 2014) Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), Scottish Government (June 2014) The future of energy in Scotland: Scottish Energy Strategy, Scottish Government (December 2017) Onshore wind policy statement, Scottish Government (January 2017) SNH Review 78 – Landscape assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde (1996) SNH Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance, (August 2017) Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, (2013); ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ SNH and A&BC (2017); The Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) Historic Environment Scotland Policy (June 2016) Views of statutory and other consultees; Planning history of the site; Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters ______
(G) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No
(H) Is the proposal consistent with the Local Development Plan: Yes ______
Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 7th June 2019
Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 7th June 2019
Angus Gilmour Page 79
Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services Page 80
APPENDIX A – PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT A. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME
In Scotland, any application to construct or operate an onshore power generating station, in this case, a wind farm, with an installed capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any ministerial authorisation given would include a ‘deemed planning permission’ and in these circumstances there is then no requirement for a planning application to be made to the Council as Planning Authority. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee along with various other consultation bodies. It is open to the Council to either support or object to the proposal, and to recommend conditions it would wish to see imposed in the event that authorisation is given by the Scottish Government. In the event of an objection being raised by the Council, the Scottish Ministers are obliged to convene a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they are minded to approve the proposal. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Such an inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter(s) appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. In the event that consent is given, either where there has been no objection from the Council, or where objections have been overruled following PLI, the Council as Planning Authority would become responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, and for the ongoing monitoring and enforcement of such conditions.
This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and 3rd party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government following publicity of the application by them. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Scottish Government on behalf of the Council before a final decision is taken in the matter.
The conclusion of this report is to recommend that the Council does not object to this proposal, subject to consideration of the recommended conditions and mitigation detailed in Section X of this report.
B. SETTLEMENT STRATEGY
The proposal is located within a mixture of: Rural Opportunity Area, Countryside and Very Sensitive Countryside as delineated by the LDP maps for South Kintyre. The access from the public road is located within ROA; the internal access tracks are located in a combination of Countryside, Very Sensitive Countryside and Rural Opportunity Area; and the turbines, crane hardstandings, and all other ancillary development will be located in a combination of Countryside and Very Sensitive Countryside, where they are subject to the effect of LDP policy LDP DM 1.
LDP DM 1 requires proposals to be consistent with all other Development Plan Policies. In this case, it has been demonstrated that the scale and location of the proposal, in combination with other existing and consented large scale turbines, will integrate sympathetically with the landscape, without giving rise to adverse consequences for the visual amenity of its surroundings. For the reasons detailed below in this report, it is considered that this proposal satisfies Development Plan Policy and associated guidance in respect of wind farm development.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Page 81
Management Zones; SPP (2014); and National Planning Framework 3 in this regard.
C. SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF RENEWABLES
Argyll and Bute Council is keen to ensure that Argyll and Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects.
D. LOCATION, NATURE AND DESIGN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The site is located approximately 9 km north-west of Campbeltown. The closest villages are Bellochantuy, 2km north-west of the site, and Kilchenzie, 3km south of the site. The site is a combination of forestry and agricultural land currently used for commercial forestry, grazing and renewable electricity generation. The highest point within the application boundary is Cnocan Gean, north-east of the existing wind farm at a height of 200m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). In general, the elevation of the site ranges from about 90 m to 200 m AOD.
Tangy 4 would comprise: 16 wind turbines of up to, but not exceeding, 149.9m tip height with external transformers; hardstanding area at each turbine base with an approximate area of 1,800m2; 3 permanent meteorological masts and associated hardstanding areas; up to 2 site substations (1 new substation and possible retention of the existing substation); an operations control building with parking and welfare facilities; a total 11km of onsite access tracks with associated watercourse crossings (of which approximately 7.4km are new access tracks and 3.6km are upgrades to existing tracks); and an onsite underground cabling.
Infrastructure - During the anticipated 22 month construction phase of the wind farm would also include the following: temporary construction compound and laydown areas (option for on-site concrete batching); temporary meteorological masts; temporary telecoms infrastructure; forest removal and replanting; dismantling of existing turbines and associated reinstatement (turbine bases to ground level and approximately 2.1km of redundant access tracks); and up to 4 borrow pits. The construction and operations access to the site would be from the A83 to the south of the site and connects to Campbeltown and the B842 and B843 roads.
Infrastructure - Scottish Water has no objection to Tangy 4, however, SSE should be aware that this does not confirm that Tangy 4 can be serviced. There are no Scottish Water drinking water catchments or water abstraction sources, which are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas under the Water Framework Directive, in the area that may be affected by the proposal.
Borrow Pits - Suitable locations within the site for 4 borrow pits have been identified. They will provide a source of construction aggregate, which will minimise the amount of material required to be imported to the site. The Council would normally expect these to be the subject of separate mineral consent applications.
Grid Network & Cables - The site substation will step up the voltage for transmission to the grid network. An application has been made to National Grid to provide a grid connection route to the site. Connection to the National Grid is not a matter of land use Page 82
policy, however, it should be considered ‘in the round’ as part of the planning application process.
E. SPATIAL FRAMEWORK FOR WIND FARMS
In terms of the Council’s Spatial Framework for wind farms, the proposal is predominantly within a Group 3 area (sites that would be acceptable for wind farms subject to detailed consideration against identified policy criteria) with a small area of Group 2 (areas of significant protection) mapped on the southern side of the existing Tangy 1 and 2 wind farm, designated as such due to the likely presence of class 1 priority peatland habitat. Mitigation proposals to address the potential for significant effects on peatland habitats are provided in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Peat Management Plan (PMP).
F. NET ECONOMIC IMPACT, INCLUDING LOCAL AND COMMUNITY SOCIO- ECONOMIC BENEFITS SUCH AS EMPLOYMENT, ASSOCIATED BUSINESS AND SUPPLY CHAIN OPPORTUNITIES
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewables and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities.
The EIA Report acknowledges that Campbeltown has a fragile economy and the benefits that renewable energy has to the Argyll and Bute economy. The applicant is committed to utilising local contractors during construction and the contract values are up to £120m. Renewable energy brings opportunities for economic development within Argyll and Bute. This is particularly important for Campbeltown. The associated potential for direct economic benefit and induced employment creation is expected to create moderate and significant beneficial effects at a local scale in Kintyre.
Community Benefit is not considered to be a ‘material planning consideration’ in the determination of planning applications. In the event that permission were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit, either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process.
Having due regard to the above the proposals net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities has been assessed and it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Supplementary Guidance 2 (December 2016); LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SPP (June 2014) and the Onshore wind Policy Statement (January 2017) in this regard.
G. THE SCALE OF CONTRIBUTION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TARGETS
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets. The Scottish Government is committed to increasing the supply of renewable energy within Scotland and in 2018 their Energy Strategy sought to include a new 2030 'whole system' target Page 83
for the equivalent of 50% of Scotland's heat, transport and electricity consumption to be supplied by renewable sources. Tangy 4 could generate up to 80MW of renewable electrical energy, which would be a large contribution to renewable energy generation targets.
Having due regard to the above the proposals scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets has been assessed and it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SG 2; Supplementary LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SPP (2014); and the Onshore wind Policy Statement (2017) in this regard.
H. EFFECT ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against their effect on greenhouse gas emissions. In respect of Scottish Government policy, The Scottish Government (2018) Climate Change Plan outlines a new interim target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 66% by 2032 against the baseline. The EIA report confirms that the expected carbon payback time for the development, is 1.8 years. As part of the development up to 61 MW of additional generation capacity could be provided which will contribute to Scottish Government targets. The proposals are for a sustainable development project and once operational will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Tangy would save approximately 94,611 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year compared to a typical grid mix of electricity supply.
Having due regard to the above the proposals effect on greenhouse gas emissions has been assessed and it is concluded that the proposal is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SPP (2014) and the Onshore wind Policy Statement (January 2017) in this regard.
I. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, INCLUDING VISUAL IMPACT, RESIDENTIAL AMENITY, NOISE AND SHADOW FLICKER (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS).
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker. The Environment Protection Officer has provided the following advice:
Noise – in terms of noise, the EHO has taken account of the fact that there are properties with a financial interest in the wind farm (Killarow; Tangy Farm; Tangylee and Tangymoil are listed as financially involved). Cumulative noise impact has also been considered in relation to other wind farms in the vicinity. The general impact of noise on the surrounding noise receptors has also been considered. The EHO is satisfied that the proposal is satisfactory in this regard subject to conditions. Page 84
Air Quality - there are no matters considered to pose a threat to ambient air quality objectives. The main potential risk to air quality nuisance is during the construction phase, including dust from vehicles travelling along access tracks. The applicant has stated that a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared. This should include plans to control dust etc. and a condition to require compliance with this could be considered.
Lighting - the proposal is unlikely to require significant lighting and given that there are no known sensitive receptors within a reasonable distance of the construction activities, it is not anticipated that light pollution will be a matter to control via planning condition.
Private Water Supplies – only properties within close proximity to the A83 are served by a Scottish Water supply. SSE has undertaken an assessment which identifies private water supplies (PWS) including those that may be in hydraulic continuity with the development activities. Monitoring and mitigation measures to protect PWS should be included within the CEMP. SEPA originally objected to the proposal on the grounds of lack of information provided in regard to the impact of Tangy 4 on PWS. In response to this, SSE confirmed that Tangy 4 does not include any excavation or modification to the existing roads that intersect with PWS buffer area. SEPA have confirmed that they are satisfied with the clarification provided by SSE and have withdrawn their objection.
The Environment Protection Officer recommends that conditions are attached to any grant of planning permission to ensure: control of noise immissions; a report to demonstrate compliance with noise limits; assessment by independent consultant; logging of wind speed, wind direction and power generation data; working methods and operating times for decommissioning of existing wind farm; point of contact for local residents; method statement detailing all mitigation measures to secure the quality, quantity and continuity of private water supplies; and, details of external lighting.
Shadow Flicker - A shadow flicker assessment has been undertaken to consider the maximum tip height of 149.9m and rotor diameter of 130 m. An assessment area of 1,300m around each turbine was considered (10 rotor diameters) and 7 receptors were found within the area potentially susceptible to shadow flicker. The assessment has demonstrated that the likely number of shadow flicker hours experienced at all 7 shadow flicker assessment location (SFAL), taking into account typical sunshine hours for the area, is below 30 hours per year. The highest predicted likely level of shadow flicker at any SFAL is 15.4 hours per year at Killarow Farm. The maximum amount of shadow flicker which could theoretically occur in a single day, not taking into account cloud coverage, is approximately 31 minutes, experienced at Tangy Mill. It is recommended that, in order to protect the amenity of local residents, the turbines be programmed to shut down during periods when shadow flicker could occur. Accordingly, the impact from shadow flicker is predicted to be not significant. The Environmental Protection Officer has not raised any concerns in regard to Shadow Flicker.
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to the recommended conditions the proposal will have not have any adverse impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including, residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker and subject to the recommended conditions is consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP 9 Page 85
– Development Setting, Layout and Design; SPP (2014); and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement (2017) in this regard.
J. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS, INCLUDING EFFECTS ON WILD LAND (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any landscape and visual impacts including wild land. SNH have no objection to the proposal on Landscape and Visual Impact grounds and provide the following advice:
The advice of SNH has been sought by the ECU, and advice has been sought from the Council’s Landscape Consultant by Officers on the Landscape & Visual Impact of Tangy 4. It is important to note that in terms of the EIA Regulations and for the purposes of the Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment the baseline which has been considered in providing SNH’s advice is the existing Tangy 1 & 2 wind farm. This was agreed as the appropriate approach in terms of EIA Regulations at the scoping stage by the ECU. Consequently, the advice provided does not take into account the fact that there is an extant planning permission for 130m high turbines (S42 application granted permission in August 2018). The EIA Regulations only require the current situation on site to be considered, however, the planning history of the site is also a material consideration.
SNH do not object to Tangy 4 on the grounds of Landscape & Visual Impact. SNH have however submitted a detailed response (this may be viewed on the ECU website) to the ECU which highlights concerns they have regarding Tangy 4, including suggested mitigation. It is important to re-emphasis that this advice does not take into account the approval of the S42 application.
SNH advice on Landscape & Visual Impacts – Tangy wind farm is located on the outer edge of the central ‘spine of hills on the Kintyre Peninsula, overlooking Machrihanish Bay. This edge is more sensitive to wind farm development due to the close visual relationship with the coast and smaller scale landscapes and greater visibility from settled areas. Tangy is more closely associated with the coast than the interior hills. SNH advise that Tangy 4 is too close to the coast and the turbines too large for this sensitive landscape context. Consequently, the scale of turbine proposed would tend to be perceived as overbearing on the landscape.
In summary, SNH consider that the proposal will result in:
Significant adverse landscape effects on the character and experience of the landscape including part of Rocky Mosaic (RM), Upland Forest Moor Mosaic (UFMM), Bay Farmland, and possibly Sand Dunes and Machair Landscape Character Types(LCTs); Significant adverse visual effects in relation to a wide range of highly sensitive receptors including: scattered settlement, areas visited and enjoyed for recreation, key routes including the A83 and Kintyre Way, coastal waters popular for recreation; Significant adverse effect on the views, setting and experience of the West Kintyre APQ; significant adverse cumulative effect in relation to the strategic pattern of large/very large typology wind energy development on the Kintyre peninsula;
Significant adverse cumulative effect on RM and UFMM LCTs; and significant Page 86
adverse cumulative visual effect in relation to specific views/routes.
SNH advice on Mitigation – turbine height and scale would need to be significantly reduced to improve the landscape fit of Tangy 4 and reduce landscape, visual and cumulative impact. In addition, removing/re-siting some turbines away from the west coast is likely to reduce impacts on the coast.
SNH Comparison with existing Tangy 1 & 2 wind farm – the location and scale of Tangy 4 greatly exacerbates the landscape and visual impacts of Tangy wind farm (75m tip). Visibility will be more widespread, seen on both sides of Kintyre and from offshore. It is also a key factor in introducing visibility and adverse effects into the West Kintyre APQ, the settled Glen Lussa/High Peninver area and parts of the Kintyre Way and significantly increasing impacts on a range of routes and places both onshore and offshore. In SNH’s view, the scale of turbine proposed would tend to be perceived as overbearing on the landscape.
SNH Comments on Assessment Baseline - SNH consider that the baseline for the LVIA should be without an existing wind farm in this location. However, for clarity and comparison with the LVIA, SNH have based their appraisal on the same baseline used by SSE – with the existing Tangy 1 & 2 wind farm.
SSE provided a rebuttal to the ECU, highlighting some areas of concern they have with the advice provided by SNH. Whilst, SSE, welcome the fact that SNH (subject to conditions) has no objection to Tangy 4, they strongly disagree with conclusions drawn by SNH in regard to their review of the landscape and visual effects (baseline & methodology). It is understood that SSE sought a detailed response from SNH in regard to the specific concerns which they have raised in respect to SNH’s assessment of the proposal.
Given the opposing views of SNH and SSE the Council enlisted the advice of an independent Landscape Consultant. Initially, based on the LVIA assessment of a baseline of Tangy 1 and 2 the Council’s Landscape Consultant (CLC) supported the advice of SNH. However, following receipt of the initial consultee advice further clarification was sought from the CLC in regard to the specific difference between Tangy 3 S42 and 4, rather than Tangy 1 & 2 and 4. Comparative visualisations were produced for VP 11 High Peninver; VP 19 Drumlemble; VP 6 Machrihanish; and VP 2 Glenbarr War Memorial and the CLC comments may be summarised as follows:
VP11 (High Peninver) – The differences between Tangy 3 S42 and 4 are appreciable but unlikely to be significant.
VP19 (Drumlemble) – The combination of a stacked layout and the size of turbines are key problematic features of both the Tangy 3 S42 and 4 schemes in this view.
VP6 (Machrahanish) – While the Tangy 4 proposal will lie relatively close to the Bay Farmland LCT, this landscape is less sensitive than the raised beach coast of the Rocky Mosaic LCT lying on the west coast of Kintyre (where VP1, is located). Factors which reduce sensitivity in the Bay Farmland LCT include the relative simplicity and broad extent, the presence of larger semi-industrial buildings associated with the airport and existing full visibility of the operational Tangy wind farm.
VP2 (Glenbarr Memorial) – Cumulative effects with the operational Auchadaduie and consented Blary Hill wind farms are paramount here such that the differences between Tangy 3 and 4 may be less of an issue. Page 87
VP1 (A83) - it is clear that Tangy 4 will significantly worsen effects on the appreciation of the highly sensitive raised beach cliff in this area. The larger turbines of Tangy 4 would increase the extent of hubs and blades visible. The design of both Tangy 3 and 4 is poor in this respect and turbines 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 should have been omitted or relocated to avoid visibility directly above the pronounced and highly sensitive raised beach scarp which form a focus when travelling south on the A83.
When comparing the S42 approval and the current application the CLC considers that there would be fewer significant effects than concluded in SSE’s LVIA as the baseline is different. Having reviewed the visualisations the CLC considers that there would be a significant change from 4 VP’s – VP’s 1, 2, 6 and 19.
The CLC advised that most wind farms will incur significant adverse visual effects and it is the nature, severity and number/extent of these effects that need to be considered, together with other environmental, policy and economic factors, when making judgments on acceptability. Although significant and widespread effects would occur from the Machrihanish coast and across the Bay Farmland, landscape and visual sensitivity is reduced in this area to some degree due to the presence of large semi- industrial buildings and the simplicity of the landscape. In the CLC’s opinion, the raised beach scarp experienced from the A83 is the most concerning aspect of Tangy 4.
Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (LWECS 2017) – The locational guidance contained within the LWECS is for new sites and is not applicable to existing wind farms, and the LWECS gives support to repowering. Tangy is a long standing wind farm and the principle of wind farm development in this area has been accepted most recently by the approval of the Tangy S42 application.
The LWECS gives consideration to opportunities for repowering existing wind farm developments. In this respect it notes, “There may be some very limited opportunities to accommodate wind turbines between 130 m and 150 m high as part of repowering of existing wind farms sited within the central part of the Kintyre peninsula. However, more detailed assessment would be needed to fully consider potential effects on key sensitivities including cumulative effects with other wind farms. Any increases in the size of turbines should not result in considerably more widespread and significant effects arising on coastal fringes on the east and west sides of the peninsula and on Gigha and/or Arran.”
It also notes that, “Redesign of wind farm developments as part of the repowering process, including altering the layout/number of turbines, may offer opportunities to avoid exacerbating effects on adjacent more sensitive landscapes and on views and reduce cumulative effects.”
The LWECS identifies a number of sites which are considered as unsuitable for repowering due to their location. These sites do not include Tangy, although it should be noted that the LWECS baseline included Tangy as a repowered site (consented Tangy 3).”
This proposal constitutes the redesign and repowering of an existing site, which accords with the repowering principles of the LWECS in that it takes the pressure off locating wind farm development on undeveloped sites elsewhere.
Conclusion Page 88
Having reviewed and compared the photomontages, wirelines and comparative ZTV for Tangy 3 S42 (130m) and Tangy 4 (149.9m) officers do not consider that the difference between Tangy 3 S42 (130m) and Tangy 4 (149.9m) is significant. It is noted that the landscape professionals have approached this in a different manner, as they have compared Tangy 1 & 2 (75m) with Tangy 4 (149.9m) (as they are required to do in terms of the EIA Regs). However, the difference between Tangy 3 S42 and Tangy 4 is a material consideration in planning terms. This is why Officers sought advice from the Council’s Landscape Consultant on the difference between Tangy 3 S42 and Tangy 4. The Council’s Landscape Consultant concludes that there are some significant changes between the approved Tangy S42 and the Tangy 4 schemes although these are unlikely to be widespread in number and extent.
Landscape Impact – The existing operational Tangy wind farm has a landscape impact on the area, which would be expected of any development of this nature, due to its scale. The proposal is located within the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic Landscape Character Type, adjacent to the Rocky Mosaic and Bay Farmland Landscape Character Types. However, as a consequence of the existence of Tangy 1 & 2, wind turbines are now a feature of this landscape, therefore, the proposed development would not introduce a new characteristic. Generally the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic has more capacity for change. The positives of the proposed site are that the existing wind farm is a well-established part of the local landscape and not an unusual site in this part of Kintyre. It is also a positive that the proposed turbines are being moved away from the coast and there are going to be less of them which helps to compensate for the increase in height. It is concluded that the proposal will not result in significant adverse landscape effects on the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic. The Bay Farmland LCT is considered less sensitive to the proposed development. Factors which reduce its sensitivity include its relative simplicity and broad extent, as well as the presence of larger semi-industrial buildings associated with the airport and existing full visibility of the operational Tangy wind farm. VP6 (Machrahanish) is representative of the landscape impact from the Bay Farmland LCT. It is concluded that the proposal will not result in significant adverse landscape effects on the Bay Farmland LCT. The proposal does however have the potential to worsen the already accepted impact on the Rocky Mosaic LCT (accepted by approval of Tangy 3 and Tangy 3 S42). This impact is evident from VP 1, where the turbines of Tangy 3, Tangy 3 S42 and Tangy 4 are all visible above the raised beach scarp. Consequently, it has been suggested that the Energy Consents Unit consider mitigating this effect in their determination of the proposal. The fact that this impact has already been accepted by the historic approvals, it is not considered that this warrants sufficient justification to object to the proposal. It is noted that SNH consider that the proposal will have significant adverse landscape effects. However, it is important to remember that this advice is based on a comparison of the operational wind farm with Tangy 4, and does not take into account the existing planning permission for 130m high turbines. The difference between this and the Tangy 4 proposal is not considered to be significant in landscape terms.
Visual Impact – The existing operational Tangy wind farm has an existing visual impact on the area. Having considered the various viewpoints it is not considered that the proposal will result in significant adverse visual effects. For example, from VP 2 Glenbarr War Memorial, which is representative of views from northern Glenbarr settlement and receptors visiting the war memorial or travelling along the A83; the principal view for travellers is in the direction of travel (i.e. north or south). Main views for other receptors at this location are panoramic, but focussed south and north. It is agreed that cumulative effects with the operational Auchadaduie and consented Blary Hill wind farms are paramount here such that the differences between Tangy 3 and 4 is less of an issue. From VP 6 Machrihanish (Little Scone), which is representative of views from Machrihanish settlement, taken from a coastal location by Little Scone and Page 89
the B843, to the south-west of the proposal. Main views are to the north across Machrihanish Bay along the sandy beach and west coastline of Kintyre. Views include scattered properties along the distant coast and more concentrated development visible at Campbeltown airport and RAF Machrihanish. The southern edge of Kintyre’s interior upland forms the skyline beyond with large blocks of conifer woodland and the existing Tangy 1 and 2 Wind Farm visible on the skyline. It is considered that the visual impact from this area is acceptable, due to the existence of semi-industrial buildings associated with the airport and full visibility of the operational Tangy 1 and 2. From VP 11 High Peninver, which illustrates views from a rural glen and local road to the east of the proposal. Main views are channelled along the valley and local road to the east and west. Views to the east are towards the sea and Arran. Views to the west are up the valley towards higher hills, looking across fields of open pasture and woodland blocks near the Lussa Water and scattered farmsteads. The Glen Lussa power station and associated pipeline are visible on the valley floor, and wood pole lines pass through the valley in a variety of directions. Coniferous plantation has been planted on the valley slopes and can be seen extending along the upland interior to the north. The existing Tangy 1 and 2 Wind Farm is not visible, however, Tangy 3 and Tangy 3 S42 do have visibility from here. The differences between Tangy 3 S42 and 4 is not considered to be significant from this viewpoint. From VP 19 Drumlemble, which illustrates views from northern periphery of Drumlemble settlement on the A83 road, to the south of the proposal. This viewpoint is at a roadside bus stop within a settlement south of the proposal. Orientation of properties within the settlement is such that the main view is north across Aros Moss. This includes flat, low-lying and open pastoral fields with occasional farmsteads and Kintyre’s upland interior beyond the distinct hills which mark its southern extent. Campbeltown Airport and existing turbines at Tangy 1 and 2 are also in this view. The combination of a stacked layout and the size of turbines are key problematic features of both the Tangy 3 S42 and 4 schemes in this view. These four viewpoints used as examples are representative of scattered settlement, areas visited and enjoyed for recreation, and key routes. It is noted that SNH consider that the proposal will have significant adverse visual effects. However, it is important to remember that this advice is based on a comparison of the operational wind farm with Tangy 4, and does not take into account the existing planning permission for 130m high turbines. The difference between this and the Tangy 4 proposal is not considered to be significant in visual terms. This said mitigation is recommended to be considered by the ECU for VP 1 (A83 at Glenbarr Burial Ground) which is representative of views from the A83 road in the West Kintyre APQ, following the advice of SNH and the Council’s Landscape Consultant.
SNH and the Council’s Landscape Consultant have been consulted and have no objection to the proposal. Both, however, suggest that mitigation should be considered to lessen the impact of the proposal on the raised beach (as evidenced by VP 1). In light of this, it is recommended that the Council should not object to the proposal on the grounds of landscape and visual impact (including cumulative impacts) subject to consideration of potential implementation of the suggested mitigation measures prior to the Energy Consents Unit reaching a decision on the application.
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have adverse landscape and visual impacts and is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs); SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape; SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout Page 90
and Design; of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; SPP (2014); and the Onshore wind policy statement, (2017).
K.. EFFECTS ON NATURAL HERITAGE INCLUDING BIRDS (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on natural heritage including birds.
Ecology Advice from SNH
Ecology - a full suite of ecological surveys was undertaken to support Tangy 3 with an updated extended Phase 1 habitat survey undertaken to confirm ecological conditions at the site. The footprint of Tangy 4 remains unchanged from that presented and assessed in the Tangy 3 ES (2014). SNH agree with most of the assessment of ecological impacts within the EIA Report and with the mitigation measures that it proposes, and recommend that these be incorporated into any approval of this proposal.
Badgers - SNH are content with the mitigation measures set out in the Badger Protection Plan. SNH note that the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the site details that “woodland creation would be targeted along burn sides and around the badger setts identified within the ecological study area”. However when comparing the replanting figure to the location of the known badger setts (Confidential Annex), it appears as though the area around the setts will actually be replanted with Sitka spruce. SNH therefore strongly recommend that the Replanting Figure is corrected to reflect the locations of the known badger setts within the site.
SSE is pleased to note that SNH agrees with most of the assessment of ecological impacts within the EIA Report and agrees in principle that the mitigation measures can be incorporated (by appropriately worded condition) into the approval of this proposal.
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) – SNH advised that the HMP is very concise. As a result it lacks some important detail. Should Tangy 4 be approved, SNH would expect a more detailed HMP to be produced.
SSE is disappointed with the overly negative response from SNH on the proposed HMP and would note that there is no requirement for the HMP to address likely significant effects, as these have been avoided through good design. SSE welcomes the fact that SNH, subject to necessary conditions being implemented, has no objection.
Protected Areas - Tangy Loch SSSI & Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA – Tangy 4 lies close to the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA and the Kintyre Goose Lochs SSSI (the Lussa Loch component) and to Tangy Loch SSSI. SNH object unless the proposal is subject to conditions in relation to Tangy Loch SSSI. SNH also provide advice in relation to the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA which, in their view, would not be adversely affected by the proposal. Due to the status of the site the Energy Consents Unit will be required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations. SNH advise that, in their view, based on the information provided and appraisal carried out to date, the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. The appraisal SNH carried out considered the impact of the proposal in relation to collision risk, disturbance and displacement effects. Page 91
SSE acknowledges the SNH request for a condition to deliver appropriate mitigation to protect Tangy Loch SSSI from water quality impacts potentially arising from construction or peat slide. Appropriate good practice mitigation measures, identified through detailed intrusive ground investigations, will be included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
RSPB Scotland does not object but recommends suitable conditions are applied to prevent disturbance to Greenland white-fronted goose (GWFG). RSPB would also welcome management for key species within this area. RSPB ask that if consent is given, particularly if in perpetuity, that a habitat management plan (HMP) and group (with funding) is established to deliver biodiversity improvements alongside the wind farm throughout operation and decommissioning.
SSE provided further comments in response to RSPB’s response and these relate to: Greenland white-fronted goose (GWFG); Hen Harrier, Black Grouse, Curlew, and the Peatland and habitat management. In summary, due to the low impacts of the project and the limited species present, SSE feels that the mitigation proposed in the EIAR is proportionate to the potential effects identified. SSE also do not consider that further management as part of the proposed HMP or a Habitat Management Group (with funding) would be necessary, or required by condition, in this case.
Forestry - Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) object on the basis that a lack of information has been provided in regard to compliance with the UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) in regard to species diversity, peat depth and restocking, forest landscape design and nutrient enrichment. FCS also object unless a condition to ensure compensatory planting plan (CP) is included with any consent.
SSE responded to the points made by FCS. Whilst, SSE are disappointed to note that FCS raise an objection on the basis of lack of information on UKFS compliance. However, SSE welcome FCS engagement with their forest advisor and note recent advice from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit (ECU). As such, SSE have provided clarification on: Forest Plan Consent; Compensatory Planting; UKFS Compliance; Peat Depth; Forest Landscape Design; Nutrient Enrichment; and Land Management Plan which SSE anticipate will allow FCS to remove their objection. Taking account of these clarifications, SSE hope that FCS remove their objection to Tangy 4. At time of writing the FCS objection has not been withdrawn.
The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer (LBO) has no objection and welcomes the provision for a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and the associated action plans for ecological and conservation interests overseen by an Ecological Clerk of Works for the proposed construction and de-commissioning process. The LBO also asks that all staff have been given Toolbox talks based on the content of the CEMP on sensitive ecological and ornithological issues.
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on the natural heritage including birds and is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity); SG LDP ENV 6 – Development Impact on Trees / Woodland; SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment; SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources; SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; SPP; Onshore wind policy statement, Scottish Government Page 92
(January 2017); The Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009);
L. IMPACTS ON CARBON RICH SOILS, USING THE CARBON CALCULATOR (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Supplementary Guidance 2 and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator.
SNH advice on Peatland - SPP identifies “carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat” as nationally important interests for which planning authorities should develop spatial frameworks. Also that “Further consideration will be required to demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation” SPP also recognises that “Areas identified for wind farms should be suitable for use in perpetuity.” Although the area of blanket bog (as opposed to afforested peatland) within the site is small, it is disproportionately affected by the proposal. There is also a sufficient range of peat depths and habitats over relatively short distances to allow for micrositing, or movement of infrastructure over slightly larger but still quite small distances, to avoid sensitive habitats and areas of deep peat. SNH recommends that detailed habitat and peat depth surveys be undertaken.
Peat Stability Risk Assessment (PSRA) - The PSRA for Tangy 4 is identical in all substantive ways to the PSRA for Tangy 3. Some changes have been made facilitate cross-referencing to the Tangy 4 Figures, but otherwise there has been very little revision. No new data has been incorporated. SNH recommend further clarification, and site investigation following tree removal to determine more accurately the peat slide risk associated with all infrastructure.
SSE strongly disagrees with the SNH advice that Tangy 4 proposal ‘disproportionately’ affects peatland habitats. It is agreed that further analysis of peatland condition and the potential for instability risk would be required following tree removal and that this may be subject of a suitably worded condition. SSE notes that AM Geomorphology is providing advice to Scottish Ministers on these issues and has discussed with them, the ‘minor revisions’ required, to provide the required clarification. Officers note that AM Geomorphology’s most recent consultee response confirms that they are now satisfied that a satisfactory assessment of peat landslide risks has been undertaken.
Spatial Strategy (SPP & SG2) - The site is located predominantly within a Group 3 area (sites that would be acceptable for wind farms subject to detailed consideration against identified policy criteria) with a small area of Group 2 (Areas of significant protection) mapped on the southern side of the existing Tangy 1 and 2 wind farm, designated as such due to the likely presence of class 1 priority peatland habitat. Mitigation proposals to address the potential for significant effects on peatland habitats are provided in the Construction Environmental Management Plan and Peat Management Plan.
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator and is therefore consistent with the provisions of is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity); SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources; SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Page 93
Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; SPP (2014); Onshore wind policy statement, (January 2017).
M. PUBLIC ACCESS, INCLUDING IMPACT ON LONG DISTANCE WALKING AND CYCLING ROUTES AND THOSE SCENIC ROUTES IDENTIFIED IN THE NPF (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in the NPF.
Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding - The Walkhighlands website lists 17 walks in the Kintyre peninsular, including The Kintyre Way.
The Kintyre Way - is a long-distance path and is the only designated path located in the vicinity of Tangy 4. The path provides walkers with access to the entire length and breadth of the Kintyre peninsula and is approximately 144 km long. The current route of the Kintyre Way passes through the study area to the west of Lussa Loch. A section of the Kintyre Way is also designated as a proposed core path (C088: Campbeltown to Cloanig). This section is approximately 53km in length. During consultation between the applicant and The Kintyre Way, the possibility of re-routing the path partially through the proposed development was investigated in relation to the Tangy 3 application (2014).
Core paths within the south-east section of the study area include: C084 – Campbeltown to Stewarton (2.7 km in length); C086 – Machrihanish to West port (6.2 km in length); C087 – Sound of Kintyre housing to beach (1.7 km in length); C447 – Darlochan to Stewarton (1.5 km in length); C448 – Stewarton to Clochkeil, Campbeltown (4.1 km in length); and C085 – Stewarton to Machrihanish (7km in length).
Rights of Way - there are no rights of way within the study area.
National Cycle Route 78 (the Caledonia Way) - passes through the Kintyre peninsula, connecting Inverness in the north to Campbeltown in the south. At its closest point, the route is approximately 8.9 km from Tangy 4. The cycle route is approximately 381km long and passes to the east of Tangy 4 via the B842 (Sustrans, 2018).
Formal Cycleways or Equestrian Routes - there are no formal cycleways or equestrian routes within the study area, however it has been assumed that the Kintyre Way may be used by cyclists and equestrians, subject to standing restrictions during lambing and when shooting activities are taking place.
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse physical impacts on public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in the NPF and is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables Page 94
of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; SPP (2014); Onshore wind policy statement, (January 2017).
N. IMPACTS ON THE CULTURAL HERITAGE, INCLUDING SCHEDULED MONUMENTS, LISTED BUILDINGS AND THEIR SETTINGS (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings.
Historic Environment Scotland (HES) note that the EIA report identifies 2 significant operational effects on the following scheduled monuments: Tangy Loch, Fortified Dwelling and Killocraw Cairn. HES are content to concur with the conclusion identified in the EIA report of a significant effect on the setting of these assets. HES consider that while significant the effects do not adversely affect the integrity of the setting of these scheduled monuments and therefore are not of such an order that warrant objection from HES.
Mitigation - HES note the proposed mitigation strategy in the form of a survey of archaeological features located in the north of the site, including a group of 15 shielings on the banks of the Allt nan Creamh burn, hut circles and a cup marked stone. While HES welcome this proposal in general, they do not consider that this addresses the significant impact predicted on the setting of Tangy Loch or Killocraw Cairn. Also, any potential gain would not directly relate to the key heritage assets in question. This type of mitigation can only be considered to offset the effect of Tangy 4, rather than to avoid or reduce it. This mitigation proposal is therefore at the lower end of the mitigation hierarchy. In lieu of a preferred mitigation strategy, HES reiterate their comments from a previous consultation. HES recommend that the turbine nearest to Tangy Loch (Turbine 5) should be relocated to reduce the adverse impact upon Tangy Loch, Fortified Dwelling. For the same reason, consideration should also be given to the relocation of borrow pit search areas depicted adjacent to Turbines 4 and 5.
HES position - While the proposal would result in a change to the impact on the above monuments, this impact is not significantly different from that assessed in their previous consultation response. The turbines would be located in the same locations as those of Tangy 3 and, while the impact is increased by these turbines being 19.9m taller than those consented, this impact is not so significant that HES would object. At time of writing no response has been received from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.
Having due regard to the above subject to the mitigation recommended by Historic Environment Scotland it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings and is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG LDP ENV 15 – Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes; SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Development Impact on Listed Buildings; SG LDP ENV 19 –Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments; SG LDP ENV 20 – Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; and SG 2 Renewable Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; SPP (2014); the Onshore Wind Policy Statement and Historic Environment Scotland Policy (2016) in this respect. Page 95
O. IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on tourism and recreation.
Visit Scotland’s response focuses on the crucial importance of tourism to Scotland’s local and national economy, and of the natural landscape for visitors. VisitScotland conclude that given the importance of Scottish tourism to the economy, and of Scotland’s landscape in attracting visitors to Scotland, VisitScotland would strongly recommend any potential detrimental impact of the Tangy 4 on tourism - whether visually, environmentally and economically - be identified and considered in full. VisitScotland strongly agrees with the advice of the Scottish Government –the importance of tourism impact statements should not be diminished, and that, for each site considered, an independent tourism impact assessment should be carried out. This assessment should be geographically sensitive and should consider the potential impact on any tourism offerings in the vicinity. VisitScotland would also urge consideration of the specific concerns raised above relating to the impact any perceived proliferation of developments may have on the local tourism industry, and therefore the local economy.
Scotways - wish to object to the fact that permission is being sought in perpetuity. While we can understand that the site has been in use for power generation over a good number of years, the long-standing approach for wind power is that development is time-limited. This bid to set aside the conventional approach also has wider policy implications. Our advice is to recommend that the Scottish Government continues the approach of wind power consents being time-limited.
SSE responded to the Scotways consultee advice and note that Scotways object to the application seeking consent in perpetuity, although SSE welcome that you do not object to the Tangy 4 redevelopment proposal itself. SPP states, ‘Areas identified for wind farms should be suitable for use in perpetuity. Consents may be time-limited, but wind farms should nevertheless be sited and designed to ensure impacts are minimised and to protect an acceptable level of amenity for adjacent communities’ (Scottish Government, 2014). In line with SPP, the site has been assessed by SSE on the basis of it being suitable for a wind farm in perpetuity. While accepting that the policy goes on to say that permissions for wind farms "may" be time-limited, it is considered such a condition would be unnecessary here. If granted, the consent and permission would normally include suitable conditions to deal with any requirements for decommissioning of turbines (e.g. where turbines have not been in use for a certain period) and site restoration.
The Council also regards landscape as being a particularly valued asset both in terms of its intrinsic qualities and in terms of its value to the tourism economy. For all types of development the maintenance of landscape character is an important facet of decision-making in the countryside in Argyll and Bute, regardless of the scale of development proposed. The Council’s Local Development Plan Policy LDP 6 identifies impacts on tourism and recreation as a material consideration in the assessment of wind turbine developments on the basis that inappropriate developments with significant adverse effects which contribute to the degradation of landscape character are unlikely to be in the interests of the Argyll tourism economy.
Having due regard to the above, in terms of the impacts on tourism and recreation it is considered to be consistent with the provisions of: SG LDP TRAN Page 96
1 – Access to the Outdoors; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SG LDP ENV 12 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs); SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs); SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape; and SG 2 Renewable Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect.
P. AVIATION, DEFENCE AND SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on Aviation, Defence and Seismological Recording.
This Ministry of Defence (MOD) has confirmed that it has no objection subject to a condition to ensure that turbines are fitted with MOD accredited aviation lighting. Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL) advise that at the given position and height, this development would infringe the safeguarding surfaces for Campbeltown Airport, and that a red aviation warning light will be required to be fitted at the hub height of some of the turbines. Provided that this condition is met HIAL would be unlikely to object to this proposal. National Air Traffic Services (NATS), Glasgow Airport and Glasgow Prestwick Airport have confirmed that they have no safeguarding objections.
The MOD, HIAL, NATS, Glasgow Airport and Glasgow Prestwick Airport have been consulted and have no objection subject to conditions. Providing these conditions are attached in the event that the proposal obtains planning permission it is recommended that the Council should not object to the proposal on the grounds of impacts on aviation, defence and seismological recording (including cumulative impacts).
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording and is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and SG LDP TRAN 7 –Safeguarding of Airports of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect.
Q. IMPACTS ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS AND TRANSMISSION LINKS (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links.
BT have confirmed that the proposal should not cause interference to their current and presently planned radio network and they have no objection to the proposal. The Joint Radio Company Limited (JRC) have confirmed that the proposal is cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by: The Local Electricity Utility and Scotia Gas Networks. Page 97
Both BT and the JRC have been consulted on the proposal and have no objection. It is recommended that the Council should not object to the proposal on the grounds of impacts on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links (including cumulative impacts).
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording and is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG 2, Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect.
R. IMPACTS ON ROAD TRAFFIC AND ADJACENT TRUNK ROADS (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on road traffic and adjacent trunk roads.
Transport Scotland (TS) comments on Tangy 4 proposal - TS note that the construction of Tangy 4 will also involve the removal of the existing Tangy 1 and 2 turbines. The EIA report indicates that, as the new turbines to be installed for Tangy 4 are larger than those being removed, the swept path analysis that has been conducted for the transport of the new turbines will cover the removal of the existing turbines and no specific assessment needs to be conducted. TS is generally in agreement with this approach as the new turbine components will be far bigger than the original components being removed. This all assumes that the reverse route is to be used for turbine removal. If this is not the case then an assessment of any alternative route (north) would need to be considered.
Access Strategy - The EIA report indicates that turbine components would be transported from Campbeltown Harbour via the A83 and then via minor roads to the site. TS note that timber haulage from the site will access the A83 at Kilchenzie, via a temporarily upgraded route. The site access junction will be on the local road network and, as such, is a matter for Argyll and Bute Council. TS has no further comment to make in this regard.
Assessment of Environmental Impacts - An assessment of the impact of construction- related traffic on the A83 has been carried out in accordance with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Guidelines. These specify that road links should be taken forward for further detailed assessment of environmental impacts if: traffic flows will increase by more than 30%, or the number of HGVs will increase by more than 30%, or Traffic flows will increase by 10% or more in sensitive areas. The EIA report indicates that HGV traffic on the A83 north and south of the unnamed road to the site is predicted to increase by 29% and 28% respectively on concrete pouring days. TS note that concrete pouring will occur on 16 non-consecutive days spread over a 4 month period and, outwith these 16 days, the increase in HGV traffic is predicted to be a maximum of 7% for the remainder of the duration of construction. It is concluded within the EIA that, as the IEMA Guidelines upper threshold of 30% will not be exceeded at any time, the overall impact on receptors on the A83 can be considered negligible and that this effect will be minor and not significant. TS is in agreement with this conclusion and is content that the interests of the trunk road network have been considered appropriately. Page 98
Abnormal Load Route Assessment - An abnormal load route assessment (ALRA) has been carried out and is provided in the EIA report. This is a desk-based assessment which includes a swept path analysis. In addition, TS note that a site visit and route drive-over were undertaken in February 2018 to verify the results of the initial swept path analysis and confirm the identified points of constraint. It is noted that the turbine blade length assumed in the assessment is 65m and that this resulted in the identification of 20 points of constraint along the proposed route between Campbeltown Harbour and the site entrance. Of these 20 points, TS note that points PC/04 to PC/09 are located on the trunk road and that these pinch points will require mitigation varying from checking wall heights to relocating lighting columns and installing load bearing surfacing. TS would note that agreement with the Network Area Manager for the A83 works will be required prior to any works commencing. TS would request that contact be made at the appropriate stage to discuss the level of information that will be required for the technical approval process associated with undertaking works on the trunk road network.
Traffic Management Plan (TMP) - An outline TMP has been produced. While a review of this document has been undertaken and considered it to be acceptable at this stage, TS note that it states that it should be considered as a draft TMP for approval and is subject to further consultation. In addition, it states that the turbine and transport vehicle dimensions will be defined once the candidate turbine supplier is identified and that this information will define the finalised tower, blade and component delivery vehicle dimensions. These will be used to define the final clearance envelope required along the delivery route. TS would ask that the finalised document be forwarded to them for discussion and agreement prior to any works commencing on site.
Having reviewed the assessments, TS has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to ensure that: prior to commencement of deliveries to site, the proposed route for any abnormal loads on the trunk road network is approved by the trunk roads authority prior to the movement of any abnormal load. Any accommodation measures required including the removal of street furniture, junction widening, traffic management must similarly be approved. Reason: To minimise interference and maintain the safety and free flow of traffic on the Trunk Road as a result of the traffic moving to and from the development; and that, during the delivery period of the wind turbine construction materials any additional signing or temporary traffic control measures deemed necessary due to the size or length of any loads being delivered or removed must be undertaken by a recognised QA traffic management consultant, to be approved by TS before delivery commences. Reason: To ensure that the transportation will not have any detrimental effect on the road and structures along the route.
Transport Scotland (TS) (response to additional information) – TS note that the additional information comprises a document entitled ‘Long Term Forest Plan’ which it is understood was omitted from the submission made on 6th September 2018. Having reviewed this information, TS have confirmed that the additional information does not alter their previous response
The Council’s Roads Engineer advises that the applicant should be made aware that: there will be no financial contributions from the Council towards work required to facilitate the works or to make good any damage directly attributable to the construction of the wind farm; that the applicant should be made aware that they will be responsible for making good any damage to the public road which is directly attributable to the construction of the wind farm; Transport Scotland should be notified as there is work to be carried out adjacent to the A83 Trunk Road; damage to the existing carriageway Page 99
may occur which is directly attributable to the works; and Roads and Amenity Services will require a carriageway reconstruction detail for making good any damage.
The Council’s Roads Engineer does not object to the proposal subject to conditions to ensure that: a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is submitted for approval by Roads & Amenity Services (R&AS), prior to any work starting on site (The TMP should include details of all materials, plant, equipment, components and labour required during the construction, operation and decommissioning phase); a detailed Method Statement (MS) is provided in relation to access and transport of materials, plant and equipment (MS to be submitted for approval by R&AS prior to any work starting on site); new passing places and signs to be provided and existing passing places to be extended where required (locations and construction details to be agreed with R&AS prior to any work starting on site); carriageway widening to be carried out (locations and construction details to be agreed with R&AS prior to any work starting on site); sections of temporary carriageway widening to be soiled and seeded on completion of construction works, to the satisfaction of R& AS; the applicant to inspect and submit a report which identifies areas of road which will be vulnerable to the proposed traffic loading (the report will include an assessment of any culverts or other structures and measures to mitigate against likely damage - details of the report to be agreed with R&AS prior to any work starting on site); a detailed condition survey to be carried out between the A83 and the application site prior to any work starting on site (the condition survey to be recorded by means of video and photographs and a copy of the video and photographs to be submitted to R&AS for approval; the Public Road between the A83 and application site to have inspections carried out on a weekly basis to ensure the carriageway remains in a safe condition (details of inspection to be agreed with R&AS prior to any work starting on site; a Section 96 Agreement will be required; and applicant to provide a standard detail for carriageway reconstruction, for approval by R&AS prior to any work starting on site. In addition, the Council’s Road Engineer advises that a Section 56 Roads Opening Permit will be required, and that no surface water will be allowed to discharge onto the public road.
Both Transport Scotland and the Council’s Area Roads Engineer have been consulted and have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. Providing these conditions are attached in the event that the proposal obtains planning permission it is recommended that the Council should not object to the proposal on the grounds of impacts on road traffic and adjacent trunk roads (including cumulative impacts).
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on road traffic and adjacent trunk roads and is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect.
S. EFFECTS ON HYDROLOGY, THE WATER ENVIRONMENT AND FLOOD RISK (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk. The EIA Report considers surface water associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposal. It has considered the potential for significant effects on surface water quality, fisheries and recreation, flood risk, public water supplies and private water supplies (PWS). The EIA Report concludes that, with Page 100
the exception of PWS source locations within 250m of the Tangy 4 proposal, there would be no potential for significant effects.
It is recommended that the Council should not object to the proposal on the grounds of impacts hydrology, the water environment and flood risk (including cumulative impacts)
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk have been considered and the proposal is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect.
T. THE NEED FOR CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE DECOMMISSIONING OF DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SITE RESTORATION (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against the need for conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration. There are 2 decommissioning aspects to consider as part of this repowering application: the decommissioning of Tangy 1 and 2 to enable the construction of Tangy 4; and the ultimate decommissioning of Tangy 4 at the end of its operational life.
Decommissioning and Reinstatement of Tangy 1 and 2 wind Farm - decommissioning and reinstatement of Tangy 1 and 2 will comprise: removal of the 22 existing wind turbines and towers to ground level; reinstatement of turbine bases/foundations; and removal of approximately 2.2km of access tracks and reinstatement of former track routes. The decommissioning of the existing turbines will need to be managed in order to ensure that no significant impact on the environment occurs. Environmental management for the decommissioning of Tangy 1 and 2, and the construction of Tangy 4 is described in detail in the CEMP and in the EIA report. It is possible that the existing substation would be retained and used as part of Tangy 4, so decommissioning of the substation and associated buildings is not described. It is not proposed to re-use the existing electrical cables that are in place as part of the Tangy I and II infrastructure, however, to minimise ground and habitat disturbance it is not proposed to remove them, and they will be left in situ.
Decommissioning of Tangy 4 - The decommissioning period for a wind farm of this size is estimated to be 6 months. Following the period of wind farm operation, decommissioning of the wind farm will be undertaken or the site would be repowered. When decommissioning is required, this is anticipated to involve: dismantling and removal of the turbines, met masts and site substations and operations buildings and removal to 1m below ground level of the turbine and met mast foundations. Detailed decommissioning proposals will be established and agreed with relevant authorities prior to commencement of decommissioning activities. This will take cognisance of guidance available at the time. The decommissioning effects have been taken into account in each of the specialist assessments contained in the EIA report.
It is recommended that the Council should not object to the proposal on the grounds of the need for conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration. Page 101
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the need for conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration has been considered and the proposal is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect.
U. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY STORAGE (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any opportunities for energy storage which exist.
This proposal does not include any energy storage infrastructure. Clarification on this has been sought from SSE who have advised that they are very interested in the opportunities around energy storage and have noted suitable locations on site. However, it has not been included in this particular application as it is still at an early stage. A battery storage facility would have several benefits: when the local grid network is not able to absorb the additional wind power created by a quick wind speed increase the battery storage facility would catch this extra generation and then store it in the batteries and release back onto the grid when possible; it provides predictable and consistent power to the local grid network. The battery storage facility would have the ability to smooth out any short-term wind peaks and troughs; and Frequency Regulation - this allows the wind farm to store energy in the battery storage facility in order to immediately and precisely respond to changes in load, further improving turbine generation flexibility.
It is recommended that the Council should not object to the proposal on the grounds of opportunities for energy storage (including cumulative impacts) as they have been considered. However, in light of the requirements of both National and Local Policy on wind farm development proposals it is considered by the Council that this matter should be explored further by the Energy Consents Unit prior to the application being determined.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that opportunities for energy storage have been considered and the proposal is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect.
V. THE NEED FOR A ROBUST PLANNING OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT OPERATORS ACHIEVE SITE RESTORATION (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS)
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against the need for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration. The decommissioning of the project is detailed in the EIA Report, which notes that the reinstatement of the site at the end of its lifespan will form a condition as part of any decision notice. It is recommended that this matter is covered by planning conditions or a legal agreement consistent with other Page 102
projects across Argyll & Bute in the event that the proposed development obtains consent from the Energy Consents Unit.
It is recommended that the Council should not object to the proposal on the grounds of the need for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration (including cumulative impacts).
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that opportunities for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration have been considered and the proposal is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect.
W. Scottish Planning Policy, the Scottish Energy Strategy & Onshore Wind Policy Statement 2017
Scottish Planning Policy - Scottish Planning Policy states at paragraphs 170 and 174:
Paragraph 170 - Areas identified for wind farms should be suitable for use in perpetuity. Consents may be time limited but wind farms should nevertheless be sited and designed to ensure impacts are minimised and to protect an acceptable level of amenity for adjacent communities.
Paragraph 174 - Proposals to repower existing wind farms which are already in suitable sites where environmental and other impacts have been shown to be capable of mitigation can help to maintain or enhance installed capacity, underpinning renewable energy generation targets. The current use of the site as a wind farm will be a material consideration in any such proposals.
The Scottish Energy Strategy (SES) 2017 - The SES was published in December 2017 and sets out the Scottish Government’s (SG’s) strategy through to 2050, marking a ‘major transition’ over the next 3 decades in terms of energy management, demand reduction and generation. The SES sets 2 new targets for the Scottish energy system by 2030: The equivalent of 50% of the energy for Scotland’s heat, transport and electricity consumption to be supplied from renewable sources; and, an increase by 30% in the productivity of energy use across the Scottish economy. The SES recognises that reaching the 50% target by 2030 ‘will be challenging’ but the target demonstrates ‘the SG’s commitment to a low carbon energy system and to the continued growth of the renewable energy sector in Scotland’. These energy and climate change goals mean that onshore wind must continue to play a vital role in Scotland’s future – helping to decarbonise our electricity, heat and transport systems, boosting our economy, and meeting local and national demand. The Statement goes on to state that: ‘This means that Scotland will continue to need more onshore wind development and capacity, in locations across our landscapes “where it can be accommodated”’.
‘Onshore Wind Policy Statement’ (December 2017) – The onshore wind policy statement sets out the Scottish Government’s position on onshore wind and supports the aims of the Scottish Energy Strategy:
“The Scottish Government’s position remains one of clear support in principle for repowering at existing sites. This is on the grounds of its potential to make the best use of existing sites, and — through the continued use of established infrastructure, grid Page 103
connections and strong wind resource — provide a cost effective option to deliver our renewable and decarbonisation targets.”
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Scottish Energy Strategy 2017 and Onshore Wind Policy Statement 2017, which represent the Scottish Governments most up to date position on this type of development.
X. CONCLUSION
Baseline & Planning History – what constitutes the baseline in terms of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is an issue that has been raised during the determination of this proposal. For the avoidance of doubt, for the purpose of the Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment for Tangy 4, the baseline includes Tangy 1 and 2. This was agreed by Scottish Ministers at the Scoping Stage. This is consistent with the guidance set out in the 2017 EIA Regulations and GLVIA3, which clearly define the baseline as the current state of the environment. It should be noted that the purpose of this baseline is solely to inform the Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment to enable an assessment of the impact of the proposal compared to what exists on site at present. For the purposes of reaching a conclusion in this case Officers have also taken into account the planning history of the site as a material consideration. Consequently, the fact that planning permission exists for 16 turbines at 130m in height, which was granted permission as a variation to the Tangy 3 permission under Section 42 of the Planning Act in August last year, has been taken into account by Officers, but not the relevant landscape professionals as this level of consideration lies outwith the auspices of the EIA process. At the request of Officers the Council’s Landscape Consultant subsequently provided comparative advice on the difference between Tangy S42 and Tangy 4. An evolved approach has been taken by Officers, who have put substantial weight on how Tangy 4 (149.9m) compares to Tangy 3 S42 (130m). This is because, it is considered that this should be the test of the net impact on the environment in planning terms.
Repowering – the professional landscape advice provided by SNH and the Council’s Landscape Consultant, as well as the rebuttals submitted by SSE, have been considered very carefully by Officers. Having undertaken a comparative exercise, considering the photomontages, wirelines and comparative ZTV for Tangy 3 S42 and Tangy 4, officers do not consider that the changes in effect between the approved Tangy S42 and Tangy 4 to be significant. This is a longstanding windfarm in Kintyre which has existed for many years and forms part of the established pattern of wind farms in this area. While the turbines will be larger and more pronounced than the previously consented section 42 proposal, it is not considered that the landscape and visual impact of these would warrant an objection to this proposal on these grounds There a number of benefits to repowering this existing wind farm which have also had to be deliberated upon: Repowering would provide the opportunity to optimise the yield from the available wind resource by improving both the efficiency and overall production of the existing wind farm; repowering this older site offers the chance to reduce the number of wind turbines from 22 to 16, whilst increasing the output capacity from around 30MW to 80MW due to availability of new turbine technology; the site has been previously determined to be suitable from a planning perspective for use as a wind farm (evident in the approval of Tangy 1, 2, 3 and Tangy 3 Section 42 permissions); and the proposal can utilise some of the existing infrastructure (access, internal access tracks and possibly control building).
Brownfield Development – it is considered by Officers that the repowering of Tangy differs from a new site development in that the grounds for the acceptability of a wind Page 104
farm have already been established by the fact that there is an existing operational wind farm, and its redevelopment is preferential to an alternative Greenfield onshore wind development in a different location, which will never have had an onshore wind farm. It is clearly preferable to reuse the existing site rather than expand into a new Greenfield site. Repowering is consistent with an objective of using available land and wind resource most efficiently. This comparison with the alternative of a new Greenfield site is a material factor in reaching a decision on this repowering application. It is acknowledge that proposals will still come forward for Greenfield sites, which will be considered on their own merits. However, repowering can reduce the need for Greenfield sites, but it will not remove the need entirely.
Environmental Change – Tangy 4 will follow in the footsteps of the existing operational Tangy 1 and 2. This existing wind farm has already changed the environment. The reality is that the development of Tangy 1 and 2 has taken place, it has been operational for more than a decade, therefore the environment is likely to be less sensitive to further wind farm development.
Climate Change - Climate change is one of the major factors likely to bring about future change in the landscape, and is widely considered as the most serious long-term threat to the natural environment. The need for climate change mitigation and adaptation is now well established at a policy level in the UK and beyond. Onshore wind (and other renewables) are being encouraged as a key part of the Scottish response to the risks of climate change. Scottish Government’s ‘Onshore Wind Policy Statement’ (December 2017) (OWPS) explicitly supports repowering at existing onshore wind sites.
Public Representation – 35 letters of support and only 2 letters of objection have been submitted to the ECU, this has also been a material consideration, in the deliberation of this case.
Recommendation – that Members agree that the Council do not object to this Section 36 Application and that the Energy Consents Unit consider the following conditions and mitigation:
Conditions
In recognition of the expected lifespan of the wind farm, it is considered that the permission should be time-limited to a period reflective of the lifespan of the turbine technology intended to be used from the date when electricity is first exported to the electricity grid network (Scotways)
A condition to ensure that the Replanting Figure is corrected to reflect the known locations of the badger setts within the site (Badger Protection Plan – as recommended by SNH);
Conditions to ensure that all ecological mitigation measures detailed in the EIA Report are incorporated into any approval (as recommended by SNH);
A condition to secure a more detailed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (as recommended by SNH)
Conditions relating to Tangy Loch SSSI to deliver appropriate mitigation to protect Tangy Loch SSSI from water quality impacts (as recommended by SNH); Page 105
Condition to secure a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP);
Condition to prevent disturbance to Greenland white-fronted goose (GWFG) (as recommended by RSPB);
Condition to ensure compensatory planting plan is included with any consent (as recommended by Forestry Commission Scotland);
Condition to secure an independent tourism impact assessment (in accordance with the advice of VisitScotland);
Conditions as recommended by the Council’s Environment Protection Officer to ensure: control of noise immissions; a report to demonstrate compliance with noise limits; assessment by independent consultant upon request of EHO; logging of wind speed, wind direction and power generation data; working methods and operating times for decommissioning of existing wind farm; point of contact for local residents; method statement detailing all mitigation measures to secure the quality, quantity and continuity of private water supplies; and details of external lighting.
Condition to control potential Shadow Flicker impact to ensure that the relevant turbines are programmed to shut down at appropriate times to avoid any adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
Conditions as required by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL) to secure appropriate aviation lighting
Conditions as required by Transport Scotland and the Council’s Area Roads Engineer
Condition to secure the decommissioning of Tangy 1 & 2 to an acceptable standard, including ancillary infrastructure and site restoration.
Condition to secure the decommissioning of Tangy 4 to an acceptable standard, including ancillary infrastructure and site restoration.
Mitigation
Consideration should be given by the ECU to the mitigation measures suggested by SNH and the Council’s Landscape Consultant to lessen the impact of the proposal on the raised beach (as evidenced by VP 1).
Consideration should be given by the ECU to the relocation of the turbine nearest to Tangy Loch (Turbine 5) to reduce the adverse impact upon Tangy Loch, Fortified Dwelling. For the same reason, consideration should also be given to the relocation of borrow pit search areas depicted adjacent to Turbines 4 and 5 as recommended by Historic Environment Scotland.
Other Page 106
Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) object on the basis that a lack of information has been provided in regard to compliance with the UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) in regard to species diversity, peat depth and restocking, forest landscape design and nutrient enrichment. It is noted at time of writing that SSE has provided further information, however that FCS have not withdrawn their objection. It is recommended that this matter is addressed, prior to the Energy Consents Unit reaching a conclusion on the proposal, and any further conditions recommended by FCS are applied.
SNH also provide advice in relation to the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA which, in their view, would not be adversely affected by the proposal. Due to the status of the site the Energy Consents Unit will be required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations.
In light of the requirements of both National and Local Policy on wind farm development proposals it is considered by the Council that Energy Storage for this site should be explored further by the Energy Consents Unit prior to the application being determined. That the Council would expect to be consulted on any final list of conditions prior to permission being granted, should Scottish Ministers be minded to do so. The Council would also expect to be consulted on any further mitigation, changes to the layout or turbine height. Page 107
Location Plan relative to Application Ref: 18/02014/S36 ¯ Date: 05.06.2019 1:40,000 This page is intentionally left blank Page 109 Agenda Item 5
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure Services
PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE (PAN) ______
Reference: 19/01070/PAN
Applicant: The Trail Family
Proposal: Proposal of application notice for proposed residential development including roads, infrastructure, open space amenity and affordable housing
Site Address: Land East Of Hermitage Academy, Sawmill Field, Helensburgh ______
1.0 BACKGROUND
A Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) has been submitted to the Planning Authority which took effect from 29th May 2019. In order to allow for a minimum of 12 weeks community consultation in accordance with the relevant legislation no formal planning application can be submitted until the 21st August 2019.
Planning permission in principle has previously been granted for residential development of this site under is 16/00643/PPP. This planning permission expires on 17.8.19. It is stated in the pre- application submission that the submission of this PAN would allow the submission of an application to renew this previous planning permission before its expiry. However, following the PAN process it would also be open to the applicants to submit a fresh application should they wish to do so.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
• Erection of residential development (including 25% affordable); • Construction of roads; • Formation of amenity open space. • Associated site works, landscaping and infrastructure connections
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The application site covers an area of approximately 5.8 hectares and is located at the east of the settlement of Helensburgh. The site is bounded by the south by the A814, Cardross Road which is the main road which connects the town to Dumbarton and the east. Helensburgh’s Secondary School, Hermitage Academy, bounds the site to the west beyond the Red Burn.
4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
The adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan under LDP PROP 2 identifies the site as Housing Allocation H2005 – Helensburgh East – Sawmill Field, Cardross Road, with the capacity for 145 units to include 25% affordable housing.
‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ adopted March 2015
LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development Page 110
LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP PROP 2 – The Proposed Allocations LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of our Communities LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 10 – Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption
Supplementary Guidance
SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact of Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity SG LDP ENV 6 – Development Impact on Trees / Woodland SG LDP ENV 8 – Protection and Enhancement of Green Networks SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape SG LDP ENV 20 – Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance
SG LDP HOU 1 – General Housing Development including Affordable Housing SG LDP HOU 2 – Special Needs Access Provision in Housing Developments SG LDP HOU 3 – Housing Green Space Sustainable Siting and Design Principles Delivery of Affordable Housing
SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / Sustainable Systems (SUDS) SG LDP SERV 3 – Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) SG LDP SERV 5 (b) – Provision of Waste Storage and Collection Facilities within New Development SG LDP SERV 7 – Flooding and Land Erosion – The Risk Framework for Development
SG LDP TRAN 2 - Development and Public Transport Accessibility SG LDP TRAN 3 – Special Needs Access Provision SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 5 – Off-Site Highway Improvements SG LDP TRAN 6 –Vehicle Parking Provision
5.0 POTENTIAL MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
In respect of this proposal it is considered that the following matters will be material considerations in the determination of any future planning application;
Scottish Planning Policy 2014 Argyll & Bute Sustainable Design Guidance (2006) Designing Streets: A Policy Statement for Scotland (2010) Creating Places: A Policy Statement on Architecture and Place for Scotland (2013) The approval of 16/00643/PPP
This is an allocated housing site where a previous PPP has been granted. The main planning considerations on this site are likely to relate to the following issues:
Delivery of affordable housing; Design and layout including open space and landscaping; Roads access; Flooding and drainage.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the PAN. Summarised are the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as Page 111 potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. The list is not exhaustive and further matters may arise as and when a planning application is received and in the light of public representations and consultation responses.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Members consider the content of the report, and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of this PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the applicant in finalising any future planning application submission.
Author of Report: David Moore Date: 6/6/19
Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 6/6/19
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services This page is intentionally left blank Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank Page 115 Agenda Item 6
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL
Development and Infrastructure 19th June 2019
Costing the Planning Service in Scotland 2018
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 This report provides a summary of the key findings from the 2018 Costing the Planning Service Project. Appendix A.
1.2 The Costing the Planning Service Project is a follow up to earlier studies ran by the Heads of Planning Scotland which Argyll and Bute Council participated in 2014. The project aims were to provide detailed information on the cost of delivering planning services, particularly development management.
1.3 The study findings are intended to assist Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, and the Scottish Government in their understanding of the totality of planning costs for providing planning services and to further inform on-going discussions at the High-Level Group on Planning Performance. They offer a good basis from which to understand the nature and relationship of planning costs and increased performance, and the potential for application fees and charges to achieve cost recovery.
1.4 It is recommended that PPSL, in any upcoming consultation, adopt a position to lobby the Scottish Government for an uplift of planning fees to a level which would address the current shortfall in the cost of handling planning applications. Page 116
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL
Development and Infrastructure 19th June 2019
Costing the Planning Service in Scotland 2018
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 This report provides a summary of the key findings from the 2018 Costing the Planning Service Project. Appendix A.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 It is recommended that PPSL, in any upcoming consultation, adopt a position to lobby the Scottish Government for an uplift of planning fees to a level which would address the current shortfall in the cost of handling planning applications.
4.0 DETAIL
What is the Costing the Planning Service in Scotland Project?
4.1 The Costing the Planning Service in Scotland Project 2018 was undertaken by the Heads of Planning Scotland with the aim of providing detailed information on the cost of delivering planning services, particularly development management. The 2018 study is a follow up to a project of the same name which ran in 2014 in which Argyll and Bute Council also participated.
4.2 The study findings are intended to assist Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, and the Scottish Government in their understanding of the totality of planning costs for providing planning services and to further inform on-going discussions at the High- Level Group on Planning Performance. They offer a good basis from which to understand the nature and relationship of planning costs and increased performance, and the potential for application fees and charges to achieve cost recovery.
Methodology
4.3 12 Authorities participated in the 2018 Project. The methodology was developed by the Planning Advisory Service and CIPFA and is based on three components – time recording, performance information, and detailed financial information.
4.4 The data collection was carried out with results providing a snapshot of information based upon a 4-week time recording period (21st May to 15th June 2018), combined with financial and performance information from a 6 month period since the increase in Major Application fees (1st June 2017 – 1st December 2017). Page 117
4.5 The 4-week period data was aggregated up to an assumed 12-month position, and the fee income was derived from the performance information provided by local authorities relating to a 6-month period, averaged to an annual figure
4.6 Whilst this is an established methodology which has been refined and improved since its creation in 2009, there are natural limitations with the data provided. In particular, there are different ways in which local authorities structure their financial systems and this can affect the level of detail available. In addition, different councils have different staffing structures and inevitably a different interpretation of the CIPFA guidance provided.
4.7 The costs used in these figures include staff time and overheads such as premises, ICT, transport, postage and adverts and external advice.
4.8 The data from the survey is comprehensive and covers the following critical cost areas:
Cost of handling applications Costs per application by category including: Major Non- Residential, All Dwellings, Local Non-Residential, All Others, Householders, and Heritage. Planning cost per hour Basket analysis – providing a comparison between local authorities of the cost to handle a ‘standard basket’ of applications. Performance analysis, which includes valid on receipt, zero fee applications, pre-application advice, appeals, speed of processing, and enforcement costs. Appendices cover recorded staff costs, staff hours and cost calculation, non-staff costs, and indirect costs.
Key Findings and Benchmarking:
Planning Performance:
4.9 Initial review of performance information in relation to rates of delegation, approval and withdrawn submissions confirms that the Argyll and Bute’s Development Management Service is performing well in comparison to the study group in the efficient and effective determination of applications.
Activity Study Group ABC Variance % Applications valid on receipt (see 42% 34% -8% Appendix 3 tables) Applications withdrawn prior to 7% 6% -1% determination Zero Fee 29% 37% +8% Applications Delegated 98% 99% +1% Decisions Page 118
Applications 97% 97% 0% Approved
The higher than average rate of applications which are invalid upon receipt is a cause for concern as repeated handling of invalid submissions would indicate inefficiency in the process which would give rise to additional costs to the Council in delivery of the Development Management Service. The Development Management Service has already identified validation as an area for improvement – the Council has recently implemented national validation standards prepared by HoPS and has identified an Improvement Action through the 2017/18 PPF and the Service Plan that will require a review of validation processes and engagement with regular customers to seek to improve the quality of submissions with the intention of improving the valid on receipt rate.
Similarly, the receipt of a higher than average rate of applications which do not require a fee is also a concern as these are processed at cost to the Council; zero fee applications include listed building consents, and statutory notifications required under permitted development legislation in relation to agriculture and forestry developments. Officers have identified the requirement to engage positively with any upcoming Scottish Government review of planning fees and the Planning Act to seek to reduce the extent of applications which are exempt from fees.
4.10 The results of the study confirm that Argyll and Bute Council is below average when compared to the study group’s performance on the speed of processing applications.
This position is corroborated by benchmarking the Council’s performance against the statistical returns submitted to the Scottish Government and output provided for the Planning Performance Framework. Since the previous study was undertaken in 2014 Argyll and Bute’s performance on the time taken to determine planning applications has slipped from being one of the best performers nationally to being slightly worse than the national averages. When taken in the context of the Council’s position as being one of the most cost effective Development Management Services nationally it is evident that delivery of significant savings since 2014 has come at a cost of poorer performance in comparison to other local authorities. The Development Management Service has already identified that there is scope to improve the efficiency of application handling through Page 119
improvement of case handling systems and work processes. The Service has recently committed to the purchase of IDOX Enterprise which will provide improved performance monitoring and workflow process for the Development Management team which is expected to enhance case handling efficiency and consequently performance.
Planning Costs
4.11 Overall, Argyll and Bute compare very well with the study group in the delivery of a cost effective Development Management service. This is demonstrated in the measure which looks at the ‘Total Cost Basket’. This is a measure based upon the average number/type of applications for all local authorities in the study group and the basket cost is an indication of what it would cost each local authority to deal with this standard basket. This measure identifies Argyll and Bute as having the lowest cost (£1.4m) to deal with the standard basket; this is £370k below the average (£1.77m) for the study group and almost £1m less than the most expensive authority (£2.35m).
The validity of this outcome is underpinned by the indicator Econ 2 in the Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF) for 2017/18 which identifies Argyll and Bute as having the 4th lowest ‘Cost per planning application’ nationally. It is noted that subsequent to the financial period the Development Management Service having delivered additional savings of £169k in 2018/19, and implemented a Service Redesign which will deliver planned savings of £105k for 2019/20.
4.12 The study has demonstrated that planning fee income does not meet the costs of delivering the Development Management Service; during the study period Argyll and Bute’s planning fee income represented only 50% of application handling costs for the study period which is down from 67% of costs in 2014. The average cost recovery for the study group was 66%, the best performers were at 88% cost recovery and the worst at 31%. Page 120
It should however be noted that the study was undertaken during a period in which planning fee income was significantly below expected levels for Argyll and Bute with a £336k shortfall in fees received for the financial year – this represented a 32% shortfall on budgeted income. It is confirmed that planning fee income has since returned to ‘normal’ forecast levels in 2018/19 and accordingly it is advised that, had income been received at ‘normal’ levels during the study period, planning fee income would in fact have covered 83.8% of application handling costs during 2017/18 and would properly reflect the significant savings and efficiency measures delivered by the Development Management Service in the period since the 2014 study.
4.13 The study results identify that planning fee income per application is significantly lower in Argyll and Bute (£326 per application) compared to the study group (average of £524 per application).
This measure needs to be interpreted with a degree of caution given that the income received within the study period was significantly lower than expected as a result of a reduced number of high value applications; the overall volume of applications however remained at ‘normal’ levels. Comparison of fee information provided by other authorities as part of the study would however indicate that there is a significant difference between the fee value per application between urban and rural authorities, particularly in relation to housing development where urban areas benefit from a high number of major applications which generate significant fee income. As a point of comparison it is identified that for Argyll and Bute the average value of an application within the “All Dwellings” category was £629 compared to an average of £1,533 per application across the wider study group. Analysis of the data has shown this variance in application value to be a disparity between urban and rural authorities rather than issue unique to Argyll and Bute and is reflective of the situation that rural areas handle a higher proportion of small, low fee value applications than authorities with large urban populations.
4.14 The study has broken down the costs of delivering the planning service to key areas of activity which indicate that as a proportion of overall cost to the Council the handling of planning applications and planning enforcement are at, or just about average for the study group. The proportionate cost of the Planning Policy activity is significantly less than the study group average and would appear to be indicative of the savings delivered within the Development Policy Service through staff reduction in recent years.
Activity Study Group ABC Variance % Handling 50% 50% 0% Application Indirect Costs 17% 25% +8% Planning Policy 24% 14% -10% Compliance & 9% 11% +2% Delivery
The results identify that the cost to the Council of handling planning applications in 2017/18 amounted to £1.28m of which £111k could be directly attributed to input from other Services including internal consultee input and staff time for facilitating committees and Local Review Boards. Page 121
Compared against fee income received for 2018/19 this would indicated that the current fee structure gives rise to a 17.2% shortfall in providing for the costs incurred to the Council in administering the Development Management process. Argyll and Bute’s position of recovering 82.3% of core application handling costs from fee income is heading in the right direction with the Scottish Government having set the target of full cost recovery for this activity and compares well with the average cost recovery of 65.6% for the study group. When viewed within the context of the full cost to the Council of delivering the planning service (including development policy, enforcement, monitoring, pre-application enquiries, all other planning related activities, including input from corporate IT and customer contact centres etc) application fee income drops to 42% of expenditure but still compares very well with the average for the study group of 32.9% cost recovery. This outcome again underpins the savings delivered by the Council in recent times given that fee income only provided for 19% of total costs to Argyll and Bute Council in 2014. It is reasonable to assume that an uplift in planning application fees by 58% to cover the full cost to the Council of delivering planning is likely to meet political resistance and have significant impacts for the development industry. It is therefore identified that seeking to secure an uplift which would cover application handling costs is a more realistic outcome but should be coupled with lobbying to reduce the volume of ‘zero-fee’ applications and notifications through legislative change in order to deliver significant reductions to the Council in the overall cost of delivering the planning service.
4.15 The results identify that Argyll and Bute compare well with the study group on the cost per productive hour in relation to the activities of handling of planning applications, application related activity and planning policy.
Direct staff costs for Argyll and Bute Council are £350k lower than the previous 2014 study again indicating the extent of savings which have reduced the number of FTEs in both Development Management and Development Policy Services during this period. The data in the study indicates that compared to 2014 more productive hours (+8%) are focused on core activities thus underlining the position set out in the ‘Reconstructing the Budget’ paper for Development Management that the service is already operating at a minimum level focused on addressing statutory requirements. Page 122
The cost of Planning Enforcement is higher than average for the study group, this is again considered to be a reflection of the challenges facing the Council in the delivery of a largely reactive service across an extensive geographic area.
5.1 CONCLUSION
5.1 The key messages from the study are considered to be that:
Argyll and Bute Council has one of the most cost effective Development Management services in Scotland when considered on the basis of cost per application. This is a reflection of the significant savings which have been delivered by the Service which amount to a 68% reduction in budget over the ten year period to 2017/18.
There is evidence to confirm that the Development Management Service continues to make significant steps toward delivering on the challenge to move to full cost recovery. Adjusted figures for the study period would indicate that planning fee income covers approximately 80% of delivering the Development Management Service. Delivery of further savings of £169k in 2018/19 and planned savings of £110k for 2019/20 will further improve this position.
Moving to full cost recovery position for the cost of handling planning applications remains dependent upon the Scottish Government delivering on its commitment to review planning fees for mainstream applications. The study results confirm that even after reducing service delivery to minimum standards there remains a significant gap between planning fee income and the cost of handling applications. To address this it has been identified that the Council should continue to lobby the Scottish Government for increased planning fees that reflect handling costs (current shortfall of 17.2%), and should seek to secure a reduction in the types of ‘zero fee’ applications either by introduction of new charges and/or appropriate amendment of regulations to reduce demand.
The study has identified that there is considerable scope to improve the efficiency of the validation process with 66% of applications requiring more than one validation assessment. An Improvement Action to review validation processes and engage with customers to provide guidance and training intended to improve the quality of submissions has already been identified in the 2017/18 PPF Report and PHRS Service Plan.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy: None
6.2 Financial: The study data will be utilised to inform the Scottish Government’s views on revision to planning fees. Page 123
6.3 Legal: None
6.4 HR : None
6.5 Equalities: None
6.6 Risk: There is a risk that failure to adequately resource the planning service will have an adverse impact upon performance.
6.7 Customer Service: None
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Policy Lead:- David Kinniburgh 30th March 2019
For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Action Report From Heads of Planning Scotland On the Recent CIPFA/HoPS Survey on Costing the Planning Service in Scotland This page is intentionally left blank Page 125
ACTION REPORT FROM HEADS OF PLANNING SCOTLAND ON THE RECENT CIPFA/HOPS SURVEY ON COSTING THE PLANNING SERVICE IN SCOTLAND
HEADS OF PLANNING SCOTLAND, FEBRUARY 2019
Page 126
CONTENTS
HEADLINE RESULTS
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. RESOURCING PLANNING AUTHORITIES
3. HOPS ASSESSMENT
4. HOPS CONCLUSIONS
5. HOPS ACTIONS
APPENDIX 1 - HOPS/CIPFA survey of planning costs
APPENDIX 2 - Application income as a % of handling costs
APPENDIX 3 - Validation of planning applications
1
Page 127
HEADLINE RESULTS x 12 Authorities participated in the 2018 Costing the Planning Service Project, which is a follow up to the project of the same name ran in 2013 and 2014 in which 30 authorities participated. The project aims were to provide detailed information on the cost of delivering planning services, particularly development management. x The methodology used was developed by the Planning Advisory Service and CIPFA and is based on three key components – time recording, performance in- formation and detailed financial information. The data collection was carried out with the results providing a snapshot of information based on a 4-week time re- cording period (21st May to 15th June 2018), combined with financial and perfor- mance information from a 6-month period since the increase in major fees (1st June 2017 to 1st December 2017). x The detailed information behind these figures is available and will be provided to the Scottish Government as part of the funding agreement for this project. x The costs used in these figures include staff time and overheads such as premises, ICT, transport, postage and adverts and external advice. The figures below are the average across the 12 participating authorities. There are significant variances between authorities within this average. This is to be expected given the differ- ences in demographics, geography and application profiles between authorities. These differences are likely to have a more significant effect than business process efficiency.
Fee income as a % of full cost of planning 2014 26.5% service (including policy) 30 Authorities 2014 26.1% 12 Sample Authorities 2018 32.9% 12 Sample Authorities Fee income as a % of the development 2014 40% management service (including enforcement) 30 Authorities 2014 36.6% 12 Sample Authorities 2018 42.7% 12 Sample Authorities Fee income as a % of core application 2014 63.1% processing costs (receipt to appeal/local 30 Authorities review) 2014 59.8% 12 Sample Authorities
2018 65.6% 12 Sample Authorities
2
Page 128
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
The Costing the Planning Service Project is a follow up to the project of the same name ran in 2013 and 2014 in which 30 planning authorities participated. It was agreed with the Scottish Government in 2018 that a partial re-survey was required to update the previous data.
The methodology used was developed by the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) and is based on 3 main components: - time recording, performance information and detailed finan- cial information.
The data collection was carried out based on a 4-week time recording period (21st May to 15th June 2018), combined with financial and performance information from a 6- month period since the increase in major planning application fees (1st June 2017-1st December 2017)
The 4-week period data was aggregated up to an assumed 12-month position, and the fee income was derived from the performance information provided by local au- thorities relating to a 6-month period, averaged to an annual figure.
Almost all of the Tables and Charts used in the CIPFA reports compare a council figure with a group average. This average value ignores missing data, or data that CIPFA have excluded and for this reason sets of averages sometimes do not reconcile pre- cisely.
Whilst this is an established methodology which has been refined and improved con- tinually since its creation in 2009, there are some natural limitations with the data pro- vided. In particular, there are different ways in which local authorities structure their financial systems and this can affect the level of detail available.
In addition, different councils have different staffing structures and inevitably a different interpretation of the CIPFA guidance provided.
The costs used in this exercise include staff time and overheads, such as premises, ICT, transport, postage, adverts and external advice.
There are differences and variations across the 12 participating authorities due to their demographics, geography, and application and staffing profiles. In particular, the man- agement costs derived by 3 councils - Dumfries and Galloway, Aberdeenshire and Orkney used slightly different methods of calculation.
Each council received their own customised report from CIPFA with a wide range of comprehensive, financial information. The 3 appendices at the end of the report are included as examples of the information available.
HOPS is confident that the overall figures and key conclusions are robust and relevant based on the CIPFA methodology and involvement and the joint project management arrangements between HOPS and CIPFA.
3
Page 129
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Heads of Planning Scotland (HOPS) agreed with the Scottish Government (SG) to carry out a follow up survey on Planning Costs using the same CIPFA methodology as in 2013 and 2014.
1.2 The survey was part funded by SG subject to the full data findings being shared with SG, subject to GDPR requirements and the confidentiality agreement between HOPS and CIPFA. The conclusions and findings in this Summary Report are aggre- gated to provide a representative Scotland wide position and they are anonymised to protect the data of individual planning authorities.
1.3 The planning costs data is also made available to each participating council to enable each council to use the data to monitor and assess its planning costs across all planning activities and to facilitate benchmarking activities across councils.
1.4 HOPS selected the 12 local planning authorities (LPAs) listed below to take part in a partial survey on planning costs to compare and contrast with the previous findings and to provide an up to date analysis at 2018 cost levels. HOPS considers this selec- tion to be representative of the Scottish position. x Aberdeenshire x Angus x Argyll and Bute x Dumfries and Galloway x Edinburgh x Falkirk x Fife x Glasgow x Highland x Moray x Orkney x Stirling
1.5 The study findings are intended to assist Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning and the Scottish Government in their understand- ing of the totality of planning costs for providing planning services and to further inform the ongoing discussions at the High-Level Group on Planning Performance. They offer a good basis from which to understand the nature and relationship of planning costs and increased performance, and the potential for increased application fees and charges to achieve cost recovery.
1.6 In particular, HOPS wants to develop a better understanding of how planning costs are derived across the whole planning service to inform and influence future discussions on planning costs and resources. HOPS sees these survey results as an important element in taking discussions forward with the Scottish Government and other stakeholders.
4
Page 130
2.0 RESOURCING PLANNING AUTHORITIES
2.1 Both HOPS and SG agreed that it was important to provide an up to date baseline for planning costs to take forward in to future discussions on the sustainable resourc- ing of LPAs.
2.2 This follows on from the Scottish Government consultation in December 2016 as part of its commitment to consult on enhanced fees, following on from the Independ- ent Review of Planning’s recommendation that fees for major applications should be increased substantially so that the planning service moves towards full cost recovery. (Empowering planning to deliver great places - page 33, item 37).
2.3 This was termed by the Scottish Government a “Phase 1” approach as it was intended to consider wider changes to the planning fee structure, including scope for further discretionary charging taking account of changes to the planning system flow- ing from the planning review process. Previous discussions suggested that the further “Phase 2” consultation would not take place until the latter part of 2018 or possibly later, depending on the progress of the Planning Bill and timescales for the subsequent Planning Act. It is now apparent that Stage 3 of the Planning Bill will not commence until early in 2019.
2.4 At the time the fee increase was reported there was general industry support for increasing planning application fees, provided that the additional fee income was used to improve the quality and responsiveness of the planning service and this could be clearly evidenced.
2.5 HOPS previously submitted a detailed response to the Scottish Government in its previous paper on Planning Fees and Performance, (HOPS Paper on Fees and Per- formance) setting out a case for a comprehensive review of the planning fee structure and categories for discretionary charging. This message has subsequently been reit- erated by HOPS in its separate submissions on the Financial Memorandum, the Call for Evidence for the Planning Bill and subsequent submissions at Stages 1 and 2.
2.6 HOPS considers that it is important to maintain the pressure for a more comprehensive, proportionate and sustainable planning fee regime and this focused survey will further assist in providing some additional data beyond what is currently collected in the Planning Performance Frameworks and the annual LFR7 returns prepared by Council Finance Officers.
2.7 It is important to note that this survey is one of 3 carried out by HOPS in 2018 as input papers to the Scottish Government. We have already published the findings of the HOPS survey on Planning Skills. (HOPS Paper on Skills and Shared Service). The HOPS survey on Fee Increases for Major Planning Applications has just been pub- lished in February 2019 (HOPS Paper on the Major Fee Increase)
2.8 All 3 studies by HOPS are interlinked and inter-related and need to be read to- gether to understand the different relationships affecting our costs and resources.
5
Page 131
3.0 HOPS ASSESSMENT
3.1 The data from the survey is comprehensive and covers the following critical cost areas: x Cost of handling applications x Costs per application - 6 categories x Planning costs per hour x Basket analysis x Performance analysis, which includes applications valid on receipt, zero fee ap- plications, pre-application advice, appeals, speed of processing and enforcement costs x Appendices cover recorded staff costs, staff hours and cost calculation, non-staff costs and direct and indirect costs
WHAT DID WE FIND OUT?
• The headline figures are relatively consistent with the previous 2 surveys carried out by CIPFA/HOPS using the same methodology • Each council is using the financial data in a positive manner to highlight areas of concern or as an opportunity to identify further processing efficiencies • The individual reports are considered to be useful for inter-council benchmarking activities • Some councils have already started to work on Improvement Plans and individual actions, using the data from the survey as a basis for sharing good practice e.g. delegation schemes, discretionary fees, cost of high hedge applications • The councils also indicated that the costing data provided has proved helpful in their wider council discussions with colleagues and committees on budgets and planning finance • In each of the council data sets there are specific areas which were considered “surprising” by the host council and would merit further study and clarification • Validation rates were considered to be low despite the use of the HOPS national standards and councils carrying out seminars and workshops to assist agents and developers • The data will be worth sharing with other organisations, e.g. Local Authority Build- ing Standards Scotland (LABSS) as many councils have combined the 2 functions into a single service and comparisons in approaches to overall costs would be helpful. per productive e h
6
Page 132
WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUT PLANNING PERFORMANCE?
HOPS considers that it was invaluable to include the following performance measures in the survey data to provide an up to date picture of the most recent findings.
Validation • The average rate for applications valid on receipt is 42% • The lowest rates (below 20%) are for major non-residential, waste, minerals and electricity applications. • The average % for all dwellings applications was 36%
Withdrawn Applications • 7% of applications were withdrawn before they were determined
Zero Fee Applications • 29% of applications received were zero fee applications
Delegation • The average delegation rate was 98%
Permissions • 97% of the applications were granted permission
WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUT PLANNING COSTS? x The range of costs varies widely due to the representative nature of the selected councils x The importance of the individual council costs data cannot be over-emphasised as it is a finer grain measure of total costs than the LFR7 returns x In relation to fee income it is clear that the fees collected do not meet the costs of delivering the full cost of the planning service (32.9%), the costs of the develop- ment management service (42.7%) or the core application processing costs (65.6%) x The costs average is broken down as Handling Application (50%), Indirect (17%), Planning policy (24%) and Compliance and Delivery (9%) x The average income generated by planning fees is 66% x Full Time Equivalent (FTE) is shown as, Handling applications 30% Planning apps indirect 11% Planning policy 13% Compliance and Delivery 6%, Ge- neric 9%, Not at work 13% and Non-planning 19% x The cost per average productive hour are, Handling applications £52, Planning apps indirect £45, Planning policy £59, and Compliance and Delivery £48 x Application income as a % of handling costs is 65.6% and the range is (31%- 88%)
7
Page 133
4.0 HOPS CONCLUSIONS
4.1 The results of this joint HOPS/CIPFA demonstrate clearly the range of factors in- volved in calculation of the costs of delivering a full planning service. These all require to be taken into account when considering a review of planning costs and setting new levels for planning fees. The finer grain data in this and the earlier HOPS/CIPFA sur- veys will be invaluable to the Scottish Government to feed in to these discussions.
4.2 Although planning fees are only currently received for the submission of planning applications and other applications, the costings provided here including costs for other services, such as non-staff costs, compliance and delivery, enforcement and appeal costs presenting a fuller picture of the overall planning costs.
4.3 Although the report highlights the average costs from the survey sample, it also includes the range of costs involved to demonstrate the geographical differences which occur.
4.4 The key headline figures clearly show the significant funding gaps between the fee income currently received and the actual costs of running the planning service. In terms of core application processing costs, it is 34% but in terms of the planning service the gap in income is 67%
4.5 Most planning authorities have made year on year efficiency savings, and the % of what the planning fee covers can be an indication of how efficient the planning authority is, against other factors.
4.6 Planning costs also have to be set within the wider resourcing context, and recent RTPI research findings and updates on planning resources indicate;
x 25% decrease in planning budgets between 2009/2010 and 2016/2017 x 25.7% staffing cuts in planning departments x Decrease in planning budgets in real terms by 40.8% since 2009 x Average spend on development planning and development management is 0.38% of local authority budgets
8
Page 134
5.0 HOPS ACTIONS
5.1 HOPS will continue to work with the Scottish Government and other stakeholders to resolve the current dilemmas facing local planning authorities with regard to overall funding and resourcing of planning, including the related areas of planning fees and discretionary charging.
5.2 HOPS will support this approach by sharing the sample data and the previous 2014 survey data with the Scottish Government and assist in its analysis and interpre- tation.
5.3 HOPS will distribute this report and its summary findings with all Scottish planning authorities to assist them in preparing service budgets and identifying opportunities for efficiencies.
5.4 HOPS will assist the pilot authorities in this survey to benchmark and discuss the service improvements being developed so that best practice can be identified and promoted.
5.5 HOPS will share the report findings with RTPI, COSLA and SOLACE to inform other related workstreams.
5.6 HOPS will submit the Action report to the High Level Group on Planning Perfor- mance and request a meeting with the Minister, Kevin Stewart, to discuss the findings of the survey.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
HOPS would like to thank all the council respondents who took part in this survey and for providing detailed assessments of the context in their organisation on how their planning costs are derived.
Special thanks to Juliet Lawrence and Vijay Pillai of CIPFA for their help, support and assistance during the survey discussions.
This report is a summary version of the data compiled by CIPFA and HOPS during the survey but the contents of this report are wholly the responsibility of HOPS.
Report compiled on behalf of HOPS by Jim Birrell, HOPS Manager, assisted by David Leslie, HOPS Senior Vice Chair and Trevor Moffat, Improvement Service.
Approved by the HOPS Executive Committee, February 2019.
9
Page 135
APPENDIX 1 HOPS/CIPFA SURVEY OF PLANNING COSTS
£2.5m £2.35 Total Cost of Basket
£2.14 £2.01 £1.98 £1.95 £2.0m
£1.69 £1.68 £1.62 £1.52 £1.46 £1.5m £1.43 £1.40
£1.0m
£0.5m
£0.0m
Basket size is the average number of applications of that type for all LAs in the exercise.
Basket cost is therefore what it would cost each LA to deal with this standard basket.
Where unit cost could not be calculated it is assumed for this purpose that this would have been equal to the average.
% of Total Costs Activity Cohort Averages Receipt 4% Validation, Fees 9% Running the consultation process 7% Responding to internal consultation 15% Responding to external consultation 1% Evaluation and negotiation 19% Delegated reports and decisions 23% Committee reports and decisions 13% Decision notices, agreements 4% Planning appeals 5%
10
Page 136
APPENDIX 2 APPLICATION INCOME HANDLING COST
100.0% Application income % handling cost 88% 90.0% 88% 87% 87%
80.0% 73% 69% 70.0% 62% 60% 60.0% 53% 50% 50.0% 38% 40.0% 31% 30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
£80 £70 Cost per productive hour of Cost per productive hour of handling applications £60 planning applications (indirect) £60 £50
£40 £40 £30
£20 £20 £10
£0 £0
£100 Cost per productive hour of £80 Cost per productive hour of planning policy compliance & delivery £80 £60
£60 £40 £40
£20 £20
£0 £0
11
Page 137
APPENDIX 3 VALIDATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
80.0% Applications valid on receipt: All 80.0% Applications valid on receipt: dwellings Local non-residential 60.0% 60.0%
40.0% 40.0%
20.0% 20.0%
0.0% 0.0%
80.0% Applications valid on receipt: 80.0% Applications valid on receipt: Householders Electricity 60.0% 60.0%
40.0% 40.0%
20.0% 20.0%
0.0% 0.0%
80.0% Applications valid on receipt: All others 60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
12
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 139 Agenda Item 7
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT AND 19TH JUNE 2019 INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES PERFORMANCE REPORT FQ4 2018-19
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Planning and Performance Management Framework sets out the process for presentation of the council’s quarterly performance reports.
1.2 This paper presents the PPSL Committee with the Planning and Regulatory Services performance report with associated scorecard for performance in FQ4 2018-19 (January to March 2019).
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 It is recommended that the Committee reviews the scorecard as presented.
3.0 DETAIL
3.1 The performance scorecard for Development and Infrastructure Services was extracted from the Council’s Pyramid performance management system and is comprised of key performance indicators incorporating the services that make up Development and Infrastructure Services.
3.2 It is worth noting that in FQ4 the Building Standards team responded quickly to maintain public safety in Ardrishaig as a result of a dangerous building. The dangerous building resulted in a road closure however the road was re-opened as soon as possible to assist with minimising disruption.
3.3 It is also worth highlighting in FQ4 the planning application approval rate was above the target of 95% for the 23rd consecutive quarter at 97.9%. The approval rate demonstrates that we are open for business.
4.0 IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Policy None 3
Page 140
5.2 Financial None 5.3 Legal The Council has a duty to deliver best value under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 5.4 HR None 5.5 Equalities/Fairer None Scotland Duty 5.6 Risk Ensuring performance is effectively scrutinised by members 5.7 Customer Service Inherent
For further information contact: Pippa Milne, Tel 01546 604076
APPENDICES FQ4 2018/19 Performance reports and score cards – Development and Infrastructure Services
4
Departmental Performance Report for: Development and Infrastructure Period: FQ4 18/19 Key Successes Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services (PHRS)
Business Outcome 5 – Information and Support are Available to All 1. In response to the outcome of the EU Referendum, in 2017 the Council established the Industry and Regional Development Sounding Board which has been active in developing an initial understanding of risks and opportunities. The Chief Executive subsequently established a tactical level working group to support preparedness for the UK Withdrawal from EU from a Council and Health and Social Care Partnership perspective. Through the work of the Tactical Group, and using Scottish Government planning assumptions for a “no deal”, the risk were fully evaluated, assessed, and an Action Plan was agreed. The Council/HSCP fully engaged in national groups which considered a range of issues including the areas of highest risk for export of food to EU countries, food insecurity, economy, medicines and civil contingencies, and rurality. Work continues to deliver the Action Plan although this has slowed due to the extension agreed by the EU. Notwithstanding this, this work undertake has ensured that there are adequate arrangements in place for business continuity and contingency planning with the Council /HSCP and that they meet COSLA’s assessment criteria of “ready”, (the highest level) in a very short timescale.
Page 141 Business Outcome 13 – Our Built Environment is Safe and Improved 1. Extended our commercialisation to East Lothian, Inverclyde and East Dunbartonshire Councils which enabled us to return an end of year budget surplus of £215k. We will continue to monitor Building Standards income and expenditure tightly and retain our verifier contract(s) with Babcocks and other Local Authorities which provide additional income generation streams.
Business Outcome 23 – Economic Growth is Supported 1. Planning application approval rate was above target (95%) for the 23rd consecutive quarter (97.9%).
Key Challenges and Actions Completed In Previous Quarter
Short‐term Operational Challenges
PHRS 1. The average determination period of ‘all local’ applications increased during FQ4 from 10 weeks to 10.2 weeks and the average response time for pre‐application enquiries during FQ4 decreased from 69% to 56.7%. Performance has been impacted by reduced resources in MAKI for an extended time period and has also been below expected levels in OLI as a result of a requirement to commit officer resources to a Judicial Review
during FQ4. Performance has also been impacted by efforts during FQ4 to reduce the number of legacy files required to meet Planning Performance Framework targets. Performance is expected to return to target levels during FQ1. Performance will continue to be monitored weekly basis; additional performance reporting tools will be provided to Area Team Leaders and Planning Officers to better gauge performance against targets. FQ4 has seen a focus on the determination and closure of legacy files (applications older than 1 year old) to meet Planning Performance Framework targets; determination of a higher than normal number of older applications has had an adverse impact on determination time periods during 2. Training requirements for the new Planning System Tech were delivered during the latter part of FQ4 – the availability of IDOX training has impeded the development of the Planning System Tech to date. 3. Service Redesign has been implemented during the latter part of FQ3 resulting in changes to the management arrangements of the area teams. Whilst proposals are intended to deliver a seamless transition with appropriate handover periods for all staff involved there is potential for such significant change in the management structure and expected retirement of an experienced member of staff to have a short term negative impact upon performance relating to timeliness of determinations. 4. Operational capacity of the shared BS / DM Admin Support service is remains depleted following loss of one staff member on secondment from Jan 2019 and another on maternity leave from February 2019. Recruitment has been completed with new starts taking up post in March and April. Whilst workload is being shared amongst the wider BS / DM Admin Support team there is potential during periods of planned/unplanned absence for the reduced availability of Admin resource to impact upon speed of determination for both DM and BS and gives rise to additional procedural risk arising from delay in tasks being completed. Page 142 5. Accelerate the delivery of the Food Control Improvement Plan, the Trading Standards Improvement Plan and to deliver the Food Standards Scotland Audit Action Plan (completion 30th April 2019. Work is ongoing. Further evidence was provided to FSS to demonstrate progress however they have taken some time to respond. Further meeting is planned for May to clarify the position in terms of the Audit report. Key Challenges and Actions to address the Challenges (PHRS) Business Outcome BO05 Information and support are available to all 1. Challenge – To work towards delivering the review of advice services action plan Action – Contract being evaluated at present. New model implemented for debt counselling and governance arrangements are in place. Update to be provided to the next Policy and Resources Committee.
Carried Forward From Previous Quarter – Y Completion Due Date: Ongoing Responsible Person: Regulatory Services Manager
2. Challenge – The development of Council EU Withdrawal Plan and Risk Register Action ‐ Tactical Group has been established and met its remit. Risks have been fully evaluated, an Action Plan developed, there is strong engagement with the civil contingency framework in Scotland and work is ongoing to ensure that the Council and HSCP are prepared for EU withdrawal. This work continues whilst the final details are agreed nationally by Westminster and the EU.
Carried Forward From Previous Quarter – Y Completion Due Date: Ongoing Responsible Person: Regulatory Services Manager
Key Challenges and Actions to address the Challenges Business Outcome 12 – High Standards of Public Health and Health Protection are Promoted 1. Challenge ‐ Effective service management, meeting our core statutory priorities and our improvement agenda Action ‐ Deliver the outcomes defined in the plan within the agreed milestones. To redesign the delivery of the environmental health service and better direct its resources more effectively to meet the statutory framework for food authorities, and to complete the actions required from the Food Standard Scotland (FSS) audit. The development and training of new staff, and securing arrangements to recruit to vacant posts. Deliver Food Control Improvement Plan, FSS audit plan and actions form internal audit reports for environmental health and trading standards.
Carried Forward From Previous Quarter – N Completion Due Date: 30/09/2019 Responsible Person: Regulatory Services Manager
Key Challenges and Actions to address the Challenges Page 143 Business Outcome 27 – Infrastructure and assets are fit for purpose 1. Challenge ‐ Maintain an LDP Less Than Five Years Old. Engaging with Members following Main Issues Report (MIR) consultation took until 1st September to complete. This delayed production of the Local Development Plan (LDP) by four months. Reduced resources meant it is not possible to recover the delay. As a result the planned time frame for production of the proposed LDP2 is spring 2019. Team currently focusing on detailed policy writing, digitization of new sites and amended boundaries, creation of a Geographic Information System (GIS) version, and the carrying out of a Strategic Environmental Assessment, Habitat Regulations Assessment, and EQIA. Other demands continue to stretch the team’s ability to focus on this core task: e.g. Houses In Multiple Operation, CSE Assessment, Best Value 3 Audit, Community Growing Strategy. Action ‐ The Development Plan Scheme which has been adjusted accordingly and sets a revised timetable was approved at February PPSL Committee. Continue to prioritize team workload including wider specialist members of the Development Policy Team contributing to LDP work, and hold weekly team project monitoring meetings. Aim to complete drafting of Proposed LDP2 for FQ1 2019‐20 and publication thereafter. It is anticipated that the LDP2 will be adopted October 2020. It should be noted that until the new Local Development Plan is adopted, the current Local Development Plan’s statutory status remains. The current LDPs main proposals were set for the period up to year 10 from adoption. The Housing Land Supply is currently sufficient to meet the demand and will continue to be monitored. Therefore planning applications will continue to be processed as normal during the short delay period.
Carried Forward From Previous Quarter – Y Completion Due Date: FQ2 19/20 Responsible Person: Senior Planning and Strategies Officer
Key Challenges and Actions to address the Challenges Business Outcome 27 – Infrastructure and assets are fit for purpose 2. Challenge ‐ Update and Improve our Conservation Area Appraisal Coverage. Continuing to deliver 2 conservation area appraisals in the absence
of the conservation officer who was on maternity leave until January 2019. Cover arrangements had been planned within the LDP team, but
workload pressure within the LDP work (as above) and the extended length of consultation period that was required for the Slate Island
Conservation Area Appraisals means that the planned timetable of work slipped. In addition it is now necessary for the Design and Conservation officer to support the development policy team writing the Proposed LDP2. Action ‐ Delay completion of slate islands Conservation Area (CA) appraisals until LDP2 proposed plan completed. As a twin track, consultants have been appointed to produce CA appraisals in Lochgilphead, Tarbert and Helensburgh. This is in partnership with Economic Development and in order to facilitate CARS funding. It is now planned that these should all be reported to PPSL Committee in June allowing the formal consultation process to be started. Carried Forward From Previous Quarter – Y Completion Due Date: FQ4 19/20 Responsible Person: Senior Planning and Strategies Officer
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147 Agenda Item 8
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure Services
PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE – 19th June 2019 ______
UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISION ______
A) INTRODUCTION
This report summarises the outcome of a recent decision by the Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 relative to the case set out below.
B) RECOMMENDATION
Members are asked to note the contents of the report.
C) DETAILS OF APPEAL DECISIONS
Planning Authority: Argyll and Bute Council Planning application ref: 15/03175/S36 Planning appeal ref: WIN-130-2 Proposal: Proposed 18 wind turbines (136.5 metres high to blade tip) including permanent meteorological masts, control building, sub-station, access track, upgrading of access from A819 and ancillary development. Location: Land At Upper Sonachan Forest, South East Of Portsonachan, Loch Awe Date of decision: 24th May 2019
The associated section 36 application was subject to an objection by the planning committee on 16th November 2016. The applicant subsequently submitted an appeal against this refusal and a Public Local Inquiry was held on 3 days between 14 and 16 November 2017 and Hearing sessions on 13, 14 and 17 November 2017.
As this was a Section 36 Appeal the Reporter made his recommendation to the Scottish Ministers on 28.9.18 and a decision refusing Section 36 consent was subsequently issued by the Scottish Ministers on 24.5.19.
The Reporter concluded that the proposed development would provide some substantial benefits in relation to meeting renewable energy targets; reducing greenhouse gases; and contributing to the economy through construction, operation, maintenance and, if secured, community ownership. The proposal would have acceptable impacts in relation to noise levels; economic impact; water supplies; residential amenity and human health; ornithology; ecology and habitat; wild land; the historic environment; civil and military aviation; telecommunications; access and traffic; hydrology, geology and hydrogeology; forestry and woodland; and grid connection and transmission reinforcements.
Members are requested to note that no objection was raised on any of these matters. Page 148
However, the Reporter was also of the opinion that the proposal would have significant landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative impacts, which would be unacceptable based on the distinct landscape features and scenic quality of the area in which the proposed turbines would be situated, viewed from and impact upon.
Members are requested to note that these concerns were the reason for raising objection to the proposals, and that the Reporter has supported these.
The Reporter further stated that:
This conclusion is supported by the fact that the proposal would have a significant impact on the North Argyll Area of Panoramic Quality. These conclusions have lead me to find that the proposal would gain no favour from Scottish Planning Policy as a development that contributes to sustainable development; that the proposal would not accord overall with the provisions of the development plan; and, in consideration of the National Planning Framework 3, that it would not overall promote Scotland as ‘a natural resilient place’ significantly affecting a landscape that contributes to Scotland’s national identity.
Overall, the Reporter found find that in balancing the factors for and against the proposal the significant adverse effects on the natural beauty of the area outweigh the benefits envisaged. The Scottish Ministers have agreed with this recommendation, stating in their decision letter dated 24.5.19 that:
The Scottish Ministers agree that the proposed development would provide some substantial benefits in relation to meeting renewable energy targets; reducing greenhouse gases; and contributing to the economy through construction, operation maintenance and if secured, community ownership. However the Scottish Ministers consider that the proposal would have significant landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative impacts, which would be unacceptable based on the distinct landscape features and scenic quality of the area and, agree with the Reporter’s findings, reasoning and conclusions and adopt them for the purposes of their own decision and find the disadvantages of the proposed development outweigh the benefits.
This decision endorses and supports the Planning Authorities grounds for objecting.
D) IMPLICATIONS
Policy: Content and findings to be considered in respect of drafting windfarm policies in the emerging LDP by policy officers. Financial: None. Personnel: None Equal Opportunities: None
Author and Contact Officer: David Moore 01436-658916
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning, Housing & Regulatory Services