MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the BRUICHLADDICH VILLAGE HALL, BRUICHLADDICH, ISLE OF on MONDAY, 29 JUNE 2015

Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)

Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor George Freeman Councillor Alex McNaughton Councillor Neil MacIntyre Councillor James McQueen Councillor Robert G MacIntyre Councillor Richard Trail

Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Richard Kerr, Major Applications Team Leader Simon Coughlin, CE, Bruichladdich Distillery (Applicant) Paul Graham, Supporter Philip Neaves, Objectors’ Planning Consultant Alan Morrison, Objector George Jackson, Objector Douglas Tott, Objector

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors Gordon Blair, Alistair MacDougall and Sandy Taylor.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

3. BRUICHLADDICH DISTILLERY CO LTD: CONSTRUCTION OF 6 NO BONDED WAREHOUSES, TOGETHER WITH DISGORGING UNIT/FILLING STORE AND WELFARE FACILITIES, FORMATION OF ACCESS ROAD, HARD STANDINGS, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE: LAND NORTH OF COULTORSAY, BRUICHLADDICH, ISLE OF ISLAY (REF: 15/00158/PP)

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. Thereafter he advised of the procedure that would be followed and the Head of Governance and Law identified those present who wished to speak.

PLANNING

Richard Kerr presented the application on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services. He advised that this was a major application under the government’s Planning Hierarchy by Bruichladdich Distillery Company seeking detailed planning permission for the construction of six new bonded warehouses and an associated disgorging/filling facility and welfare facilities, construction of a private means of access, and the installation of foul and surface water drainage arrangements.

As a major application the proposal was the subject of statutory pre-application consultation with the community council and the local community and the submission was accompanied by the necessary pre-application consultation report detailing the steps undertaken and the influence of the process on the final submission. The application has been the subject of local representation which prompted the Committee to continue consideration of the matter from the May Committee meeting in order to be able to hold this discretionary Local Hearing as part of the decision making process.

He referred to the Officer’s report from the meeting of the 20th May, along with supplementary report No 1 which detailed consultation and contributor responses received in the interim.

Having regard to the adopted and Bute Local Development Plan 2015, he indicated that the application site was primarily contained within ‘Rural Opportunity Area’ with part of the access and lowest part of the main development site being located within the adjacent light green ‘Countryside Zone’. . Development opportunities within ‘Rural Opportunity Areas’ and ‘Countryside Zones’ are normally restricted to development categorised as ‘small’ scale as defined in the LDP. However, Policy LDP DM 1 does make provision that exceptionally, medium or large scale development may be accepted in the countryside, but only on the basis that firstly, a locational requirement is advanced and accepted, and secondly, that an Area Capacity Evaluation (or ACE) has been carried out as part of the planning process. The purpose of the ACE is to establish the capacity of the wider countryside containing the application site to successfully absorb the development proposed. It therefore involves an assessment of landscape sensitivity to the type and scale of development being proposed. The outcome of the ACE assessment will be a material consideration in decision-making.

He advised that the current application was accompanied by a business case and was detailed in Section I of Appendix A to the main report. In summary, the case presented by the Applicant confirms that there is a need for the development to facilitate continued growth of the business and that in terms of brand image and operational logistics, the additional storage requires to be located on Islay with a strong operational preference for a location in proximity to the existing production and bottling facilities at Bruichladdich. The Applicant has given consideration to other sites but has been unable to identify an alternative location which meets both their own requirements and the normal operation of the LDP policies. The Applicant has explained that Bruichladdich Distillery exclusively produces single malt with the unique selling point from an Islay perspective that it is also matured and bottled on the island. The Applicant contends that their product currently has an increasing demand and good prospects for growth. In support of this argument it is pointed out that employment at the distillery has grown from 19 employees in 2011 to 80 in 2015; it is envisaged that this will further increase to over 100 employees within the next 10 years. Beside direct employment, there are associated employment benefits both on and off the island related to contractors, hauliers, suppliers and tourism. The projected capital investment at the distillery is in excess of 20 million pounds over the next five years, and is expected to amount to a total of 58 million pounds between 2015 and 2026.

Supplementary Report No. 1 summarises the contention advanced by an additional representation submitted on behalf of Mr & Mrs Morrison of Curlew Cottage, that insufficient locational justification for the development has been demonstrated to allow consideration of the proposed development as an ‘exceptional’ circumstance. Notwithstanding this, it is the opinion of Officers that the Applicant in this instance has demonstrated sufficient locational context, to merit consideration of the proposal as an ‘exceptional case’ having regard to the provisions of policy LDP DM 1. Accordingly an Area Capacity Evaluation has been undertaken and shall be presented to and considered by Members later in this presentation. The application site relates to an area of 13.5 Ha located at Coultorsay Farm, which is to the south and west of the settlement of Bruichladdich. The main body of the development will be undertaken within two fields to the north of the farm buildings and is located approximately half a kilometre from the existing distillery. For reference it is also noted that the northern site boundary is approximately 230m south of existing residential development at Burnside and is set back some 300m from the Oil Storage Depot on the main road.

The application site comprises a shallow sloping area of agricultural grassland, currently used for grazing. The site is adjoined by scrub woodland to the west and there is a marshy grassland below the site of the proposed buildings and a further small pocket of woodland to the east.

The site is separated from the A847 Bruichladdich to Port Charlotte road by intervening fields which are two deep. There is existing roadside development along the southern fringe of the village located below the application site, including some dwellings and the oil storage depot which has been mentioned. As a whole the village has a significant industrial component with the presence of the distillery buildings and associated bonds, the oil jetty and associated storage tanks.

The proposal provides for 16,500 square metres of new floor space in the form of six new warehouses and a disgorging and filling unit for product transported to and from the facility by tanker.

The proposal provides for six warehouses, four of which would provide 3 storage cells, and two of which would provide 2 storage cells. Each cell would have a net floor space of 1000 square metres providing an overall storage floorspace of 16,000 square metres. The buildings are designed in a manner that each cell may be constructed on a phased basis as and when it is required, it is anticipated that the current proposal would provide adequate storage to provide maturation for production for the next 15 years. The disgorging and filling unit will be contained within a separate 500 square metre building located adjacent at the end of the site access route.

The development would be served by a new 6 metre wide private access road with a concrete wearing surface.

The access onto the A847 would be via a new junction formed to the south of an existing BT telephone exchange building and opposite a war memorial. The proposal includes for the formation of a new public car park as a replacement for roadside spaces which would be lost to the new bellmouth arrangements. The Council’s Roads Engineer has not raised objection to the proposed access arrangements.

The disgorging and filling unit would occupy the eastern end of the first field, the second field would be occupied by three rows each of two buildings, slightly terraced as a result of cut and fill required to deal with the gentle slope down the site from west to east.

The warehouses would be of steel portal framed construction with exterior roughcast blockwork painted white; each cell would have a shallow pitched roof of dark grey profiled metal cladding. The warehouses would be 11.8m to the eaves and 15.5m to the ridge.

He then advised of the dimensions of the various buildings.

Given the extent of proposed roof and surface areas, particular consideration is required in terms of surface water run-off and a SUDS drainage scheme has been devised involving an attenuation pond and associated wetland to provide the necessary drainage without producing an enhanced risk of run-off from roofs and impermeable surfaces leading to flooding off-site. SEPA have not raised objection to the proposals in terms of flood risk. A late consultation response received from the Council’s Flood Prevention Officer covered in supplementary report No 1 advises that whilst the proposals are satisfactory, a permission should be subject to a planning condition requiring the Applicant to provide further technical information for approval in relation to the operation and maintenance of the SUDS system. It is intended that the development be connected to the public water supply. A single septic tank would be provided to serve staff welfare facilities located within the disgorging and filling unit building.

The proposal is accompanied by a detailed landscape scheme which has been produced by a landscape consultant and informed by the conclusions of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which was also undertaken by the applicant. These proposals include for the tree planting around the warehouses, tree and hedgerow planting along the route of the access and seeding with species appropriate to the locality. The stated intention of the Applicant is to establish planting as far as is practicable in advance of the phased delivery of the warehouse buildings, so as to enable the best opportunity for it to become established and to be effective.

With the aid of slides Mr Kerr presented a series of photographs showing views towards the proposed development site as well as the proposed new access route and new junction.

The access route would be set some 60m behind the existing dwelling at the top of the field behind at the foot of the transition point in the landscape. It is intended to provide structural tree planting along the route and the rear of existing properties including Curlew Cottage and Coultorsay Farm. Although the number of vehicle movements is anticipated to be limited to a handful of movements a day (up to two tankers and one delivery of casks per week) it is considered prudent to limit these to prevent HGV movements at unsocial hours and a condition to this effect is recommended. Any potential noise, dust or other nuisances associated with construction would be addressed by a Construction Management Plan recommended by the Council’s Environmental Health Officers in their consultation response.

It is considered that the proposed development is sufficiently set back from the outlook of existing residential property so that the buildings are not overwhelming in terms of residential amenity, and so that appropriate separation is secured for safety reasons. Although the proposed buildings will be imposing by virtue of their scale and will be readily visible features in the landscape, their adverse visual amenity implications have to be balanced against the economic arguments for the development as detailed in Section I of the report.

Any safety issues relating to the storage of flammable substances in bulk will require to be addressed by means of a separate application for Hazardous Substances Consent which will involve consultation with the Health and Safety Executive.

The wider locality contains a Special Protection Area relating to the Rhinns of Islay. Whilst only a section of the access route serving the proposed development is located within the SPA, qualifying species including the European Protected Greenland White Fronted Geese are present in the immediate vicinity of the development. As advised earlier, the provisions of policy LDP DM 1 require proposals for large scale development within the countryside zones to be subject to an Area Capacity Evaluation, or ACE as it is more commonly referenced.

Storage and distribution units of more than 600sqm footprint or on a site of more than 2ha are defined in the LDP as being of ‘large’ scale.

An updated methodology for undertaking an ACE is set out within the draft Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ACE 1. Although this Supplementary Guidance has yet to be approved by the Scottish Government it has been approved by the Council and as such may be regarded as the most recent expression of the Council’s in relation to the ACE process and may therefore be relied upon in this case.

The purpose of the ACE is to establish the capacity of the wider countryside containing the application site to successfully absorb the scale of development proposed in response to exceptional circumstances.

The detailed ACE assessment in respect of this application is set out within Appendix B of the main report

The application site and its immediate surroundings is dominated by intensively managed improved grassland which forms part of a relatively flat coastal plain between and higher unmanaged ground rising to Cnoc a’ Chuil to the rear of Coultorsay Farm.

In terms of SNH’s ‘Argyll and Firth of Clyde Landscape Capacity Study’ (1996) the site falls within the ‘Rocky Moorland’ Landscape Character Type which covers most of the Rhinns of Islay. This LCT is described as an exposed rocky upland plateau sloping to the east with grassland broken by rocky outcrops and a rocky coast. It does not fall within any national or regional landscape designation, so is not recognised as having particular scenic qualities. That said it does form part of the landscape setting of the settlement of Bruichladdich which is experienced at a distance in scenic views across Loch Indaal from the environs of .

Landscape components and key environmental features of the site and its surroundings have been recorded on accompanying Field Sheets 1A and 1B appended to the report of handling. These in turn have been used to define an Area of Common Landscape Character, the boundary of which is recorded on the attached plan. This essentially comprises a low lying managed agricultural landscape on the landward side of the A847 which also contains the settlement of Bruichladdich and other roadside development, and penetrates inland as far as Conisby.

This area is distinct from the rocky strip between the road and the coast which is largely undeveloped other than for the intrusion of the pier at Bruichladdich. This managed agricultural land is contained inland by rising ground which is less managed and only sporadically developed, other than for the nucleated settlement of Conisby. The field pattern is historic and is defined by a mixture of fragmented hedgerows, stone dykes and post and wire fencing. The ground is much improved and heavily grazed on a year round basis and there are few trees other than in discontinuous strips along field boundaries. The Area of Common Landscape Character is distinct from the more open agricultural land towards Port Charlotte which extends further back from the road in terms of numbers of fields, and which is less constrained by the influence of containing topography than the defined area, which is influenced visually by the presence of elevated uncultivated moorland as an immediate backdrop. The accompanying Field Sheet 2 describes the experience of the landscape and is therefore somewhat more subjective than the preceding sheets, but contributes to the evaluation of a sense of place.

Field Sheet 3 informs a prediction of the visual impact of the development upon its surroundings. This entails an assessment of impact in terms of the sensitivity of receptors and the magnitude of impact which informs the likely significance of visual impact. In the case of this application, conclusions are also informed by visualisations which have been prepared by the applicants in support of their application, including accompanying zone of theoretical visibility mapping as part of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). This demonstrates that visibility from surrounding land will be limited to around 1.5km with open views from Loch Indaal itself and from the environs of Bowmore at about 5km. The process concludes that the development will have ‘moderate’ impact upon a short section of the A847 (particularly on the approach towards Bruichladdich from Port Charlotte) and the minor road on the descent from Conisby, ‘moderate’ impact on properties with ready visibility (at Coultorsay and Burnside in particular) and ‘low’ impact on longer distance views over Loch Indaal.

Mr Kerr stated that it was clear from the ACE process and from the Applicant’s LVIA that the acceptability of the visual effects of the development will be particularly influential in arriving at a conclusion as to the acceptability of the application site to accommodate the development proposed. Conclusions in this regard are set out in section e) of Appendix B.

The conclusion is that the implications for the maintenance of landscape character will be limited as a result of the intended location of development against a transition in the landscape with a rising backdrop, a linear and regular form of development addressing the road but separated by intervening fields, and the use of materials and colours which reinforce the character of existing built development. The most significant impact in landscape terms will be the localised loss of agricultural land to development and the consequent diminution of openness, although proposed planting and the establishment of hedgerows along the access route will help reinforce the regular pattern of roadside fields.

In order to maintain landscape character it is necessary to sustain key environmental features and avoid forms of development which do not reinforce local distinctiveness. In longer distance views this development will benefit from a landscape backdrop of rising ground, but there will be an element of contrast between the colour of the buildings and more recessive natural colours. This will reinforce the relationship that the settlement of Bruichladdich already has with its landscape setting in views over Loch Indaal. Despite being set back from the road on higher ground, the buildings will still be sufficiently low in the landscape not to detract from the overall linear appearance of Bruichladdich, which is a typical form of development along the coast of Islay. Overall the development will not undermine the intrinsic qualities of the ‘Rocky Moorland’ Landscape Character Type which extends along most of the Rhinns of Islay.

From the environs of Bowmore and along the lightly used minor road to Gartbreck there is visibility of the application site across the loch at about 4km to 5km. The site forms part of the immediate landscape setting of the settlement of Bruichladdich which adopts the characteristic form of a liner coastal settlement with white painted buildings contrasting with its elevated backdrop. In these views, the proposed buildings will appear closely related to the village and their positioning in the landscape will reinforce the existing relationship between buildings, the land and the sea. Elevation in the landscape will be less than that of the village of Conisby which sits to the rear of the opposite end of the village, and despite being sited on land sloping up gradually from the coast and the road, they will still benefit from a considerable landscape backdrop. By virtue of their scale the buildings proposed will represent an apparent enlargement of the village, but in a manner which is appropriate visually and which does not undermine landscape character.

There will also be an element of distant visibility on the road from Bridgend between 3km and 6km as the road skirts Loch Indaal where views of Bruichladdich and its environs are available across water. A large number of receptors will transit this route as it affords access to both Gruinart and the Rhinns. The existing distillery warehouses are conspicuous in these views as they sit above and to the left of village. The new buildings will appear at a similar elevation at the far end of the village in these views, with close visual association with the existing built form and benefitting from an extensive landscape backdrop of elevated land. (Represented in LVIA VP 8).

Heading towards the site, existing buildings will progressively intervene on the approach, given that the application site lies beyond the other buildings in the village, including the distillery complex. (Represented in LVIA VP 7).

In views on the approach to Bruichladdich from Port Charlotte, and from the roadside war memorial, the development will be viewed obliquely but will skyline.

The development will benefit from separation from the road by intervening fields and the fact that the eye tends to be drawn over open water rather than inland. (Represented in VP’s 6 and 5)

The buildings by virtue of their height and skylining effects will however be that much more prominent in closer quarter views from the private access to Coultorsay (Represented in VP 3), at a greater distance from the road descending from Conisby to the main road (Represented in VP 4) and, from the west facing side of the houses at Burnside (Represented in VP 2).

These locations provide localised views ranging from 0.5km to 1.0km but are generally frequented only by persons living and working in and around the village. Depending on the location, there will be some back-clothing by rising ground, but in other cases the buildings will skyline. With this in mind, contemporary materials and colours that might otherwise be expected to be employed on industrial type buildings (such as the sheet metal clad bonds at the rear of the distillery on the road to Conisby) would not be appropriate in this case.

Isolated bonded warehouses are not an uncommon feature associated with distilleries and despite their utilitarian nature have tended to become accepted features. Indeed, some distilleries with the application of large lettering have sought to attract attention to them. Given that it is not possible by design, landscaping or other mitigation to seek to conceal these large scale buildings, the most appropriate approach is to adopt appropriate roof profiles, external finishes and colours to the buildings so that their purpose is evident, along with their association with the distillery which is the focus of the village.

The ACE process has not identified any sequentially preferable locations for the development within the defined Area of Common Landscape Character. The advantage of the chosen site is that the proposed buildings are sufficiently close to the village to maintain a legible association with the distillery which they are to serve. Sufficient intervening undeveloped agricultural land remains between the main road, occupied properties and the proposed buildings so that despite their visibility their scale is not overpowering; albeit that some properties will have uninterrupted views of the buildings at a distance, which will affect the perception of their surroundings, but not to the extent that residential amenity is compromised. Their elevation in the landscape is not such as to disconnect them from the adjacent settlement in longer distance views over water, and they benefit from being in a transition zone which provides them with a landscape backdrop to the rear. The access route follows established boundaries as far as is possible and secures necessary separation from the occupied buildings at Coultorsay. It respects contours as far as is possible, without cutting across them or requiring significant engineering works, and hedgerow planting and tree planting is proposed in order to help assimilate the route in its landscape setting. Careful control over surfacing finishes will be required to ensure that the initial section of roadway, most visible from public locations, does not appear as an inappropriately harsh feature in contrast to its natural environs.

The Applicant’s submitted Landscape and Visual Assessment concludes that the overall, subject to the design measures adopted, the proposal is likely to have ‘moderate’ negative effects on the visual perception of the landscape by visual receptors, and this broadly accords with conclusions of this ACE undertaken separately.

Part of the application site is located within the Rhinns of Islay European Special Protection Area for Birds. Following consultation with SNH it has been established that the proposed development has the potential to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the designation. As a consequence, an Appropriate Assessment as per the relevant provisions of the Habitats and Conservation Regulations has been undertaken having regard to the anticipated effects of the development and the conservation objectives for the site’s qualifying interests. This assessment is detailed in Appendix C to the main committee report.

It is only part of the access route for the development which lies within the SPA boundary and will give rise to a change to some 0.23ha of the 9,400 ha designated area.

The Appropriate Assessment has been informed by survey work undertaken by the Applicant and consultation of SNH records. It has been concluded by the Applicant, and accepted by SNH, that the most likely consequences of the development are implications for breeding chough, corncrake and hen harrier and for over wintering Greenland white fronted geese.

It is noted that the main body of the application site is dominated by managed improved grassland which is currently subject to year round cropping and as such has limited biodiversity value.

Based on the information provided, the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. The following factors have led to this conclusion:

- Less than 0.01% habitat loss to construction of the proposed access road; - Affected area mainly agricultural and not well used by species of conservation interest; - Loss of foraging habitat for geese outwith the designation is minimal, given the extent of residual habitat; - Disturbance due to construction will be temporary and related to separate phases of construction; - Proposed use of the site and screening proposed will not generate significant operational disturbance to species; - Of the designated interests, chough, corncrake, hen harrier and Greenland White fronted goose are the only species likely to be affected at this location. Habitat affected is not optimal for chough or corncrake. Disturbance to hen harrier and Greenland White Fronted geese unlikely.

To re-cap, Bruichladdich distillery has outgrown the capacity of bonded storage off-site storage at Port Charlotte, and on-site capacity, which has been extended in recent years by the construction of modern storage buildings to the rear of the listed distillery, off the road to Conisby. The distillery owners have identified a need to provide substantial additional maturation capacity in order to meet anticipated future production over the next 15 years. Bruichladdich is unique in that it bottles its production on site rather than elsewhere, so there is an identified need for casked product to remain local to the distillery for this purpose, to avoid the cost and environmental effects of unnecessary transportation.

The Applicants have considered various options which resulted in two sites becoming the subject of Proposal of Application Notices and Pre-Application consultation with the local community. These alternatives were the current application site and a site at Octofad, to the west of Port Charlotte. In the event, the latter was discounted in favour of the former due in part to nature conservation issues, transport distance, and in part in response to adverse feedback from the community during the PAC process, in view of the need for haulage through the village of Port Charlotte. The application site has therefore been selected as the closest location to the existing distillery site which is available for prospective development on the scale proposed.

The principal planning issues associated with the proposal are how appropriate a development on this scale is outwith the existing settlement boundary in open countryside, the extent to which it could be accommodated elsewhere on the island and the degree to which it conflicts with designated nature conservation interests, or prejudices the maintenance of landscape character, or visual or residential amenity. Although it is not necessary for applicants to demonstrate need in support of proposals being advanced by way of planning applications, in the circumstances the Applicants have sought to demonstrate why the development is required and why the site selected is the most suitable location from their operational point of view. Their position is contested by local residents who are opposing the development. In view of the scale of the development and in accordance with the approach dictated by the settlement strategy of the Local Development Plan, an Area Capacity Evaluation has been carried out which can be found at Appendix B. This concludes that the development can be accepted without significantly compromising landscape character, the established settlement pattern or visual amenity. The consequences for protected species both within and outwith the Rhinns of Islay European Special Protection Area for Birds have been considered by SNH, who have provided advice to the Council in its obligation to undertake a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’, the conclusions of which can be found at Appendix C.

In determining this application consideration should be given to the importance of the whisky industry to the economy of Islay, both in terms of direct employment at the distillery and indirect service sector business, and in terms of the wider importance of the whisky sector in terms of tax revenue and Scottish export economy. Insofar as there are adverse landscape and visual effects associated with the proposal, it is considered that they are offset by the contribution which the development will make to both the local and national economies.

Notwithstanding the views expressed by third parties and subject to the endorsement of the ACE and having regarding to the Appropriate Assessment, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions to address matters related to visual and residential amenity, road safety, archaeology and drainage, it is advised that Members grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the main report and the additional conditions recommended in supplementary report No 1 .

APPLICANT

Simon Coughlin advised that he was the current Chief Executive of Bruichladdich Distillery and was one of the four gentlemen who set about rebuilding the business that was established 2000. Since the distillery reopened in 2001, with the creation of 19 new jobs, the business has been based from Islay and not elsewhere. They reconnected all parts of the business with the people and community of Islay, the success of which has resulted in a total of 80 employees. Bruichladdich is the largest private employer on the island. Mr Coughlin stated that a lot of single malt whisky produced on Islay has a relationship with Islay for less than 10 days. He advised that Bruichladdich’s business was not about low costs and maximum profits. He read out a summary of their deeply held beliefs. It was not about efficiency and lowest cost, it was about quality and authenticity and that they believed Islay mattered and they believed people mattered. He advised that all their warehouses sat on or about the shores of Loch Indaal and that this Atlantic marine influence permeated their spirit during the years of maturation and that was why they did not store their whisky on the mainland. He advised that covered 5 groups and that they only produced 100% Islay Single Malt and did not make blended whisky for anybody else. He stated that 8% of whisky sold globally was single malt whisky and that they produced less than 1% of that 8%. He advised that because their business was small they could afford to take care of their spirit. He advised of being in partnership with Islay farmers and that all their barley was Scottish with a quarter of that coming from Islay. He stated that their current production rate was 1.5 million litres of alcohol per annum which represented 11,000 barrels per annum and that they hoped to increase this to 2 million litres in the next 5 years. If this planning permission were granted they hoped to build a warehouse every 2 to 3 years depending on demand and that they would start with the 2 cell warehouse. He referred to the population of Islay decreasing and advised that with a business like theirs investing on Islay hopefully they would be able to help to turn this around. He referred to selling their business to Remy Cointreau (RQ) and stated that RQ was very decentralised and that it still felt that they were running their own business. He stated that this plan was Bruichladdich’s plan. He stated that RQ’s capital had allowed them to double the people that worked for them. He advised that 40 – 45% of the workers were under 30 years of age and that they were the future of Islay. He advised that the vast majority of employees were from Islay. He stated that they had one office based in Glasgow for practical reasons and that 10 of the 80 employees were based in Glasgow. He advised that they were currently looking to recruit a further 5 employees, 4 on Islay and 1 in Glasgow. He said that Bruichladdich Distillery had made significant investment in its business on Islay since it was re-opened in 2001 and that this would continue which would not only bring further employment opportunities but would also bring opportunities to other businesses on the island, from contractors, suppliers, logistics operators and tourism. He advised that they had been open with the community throughout the planning process and that the access road was now costing them £3/4 million more than that originally proposed due to concerns raised by the community. He referred to being very flexible and that they had held public and individual consultations which led to a reduced size of the overall project, changed road entrance, parking places for Port Bhan, minimal lighting, being flexible on working hours, local consultation on landscaping and planting/screening and building materials altered to be more traditional. He also referred to Bruichladdich giving local support over the years to the Gaelic Choir, Bruichladdich boatyard, Islay and Jura Toy Library, Foundation, Islay Pipe Band, Islay Beach Rugby, Islay Natural History Trust, Bruichladdich Village Hall, Islay Museum, the local schools, local football clubs and providing Christmas lights at Bruichladdich and Port Charlotte. He advised that building their new maturation facilities on Islay was not only paramount to their philosophy to mature locally but it demonstrated a fundamental commitment to Islay and its people. If they were not able to mature their casks on Islay, close to the distillery, then it would start an inevitable process of undermining their core values and beliefs. He advised to start chipping away at the business would lead to them just being the same as other distilleries. He asked the Members to give their planning application their full support.

SUPPORTERS

Paul Graham

Mr Graham advised that he supported this proposal as it would bring employment to more people. He referred to the repopulation of Argyll and Bute being a top priority for the Council which he agreed with. He advised that if this proposal was not supported it could lead to a mass exodus from Islay.

OBJECTORS

Philip Neaves

Mr Neaves advised that he represented Mr and Mrs Morrison, the owners of Curlew Cottage. He stated that they had deep concerns about the profound impact on the quality of life and residential amenity this proposal would have on the community. He advised that this proposal was for development in the countryside and that this was a fact accepted by the Planners and the Applicant. He referred to policy LDP DM 1 and advised that this supported small scale or sustainable development. He stated that whilst there was an exceptional circumstances clause to allow development over 600 sqm he believed that the Applicant had not adequately addressed why that clause was triggered by this development. He advised that an analysis of alternative sites was not sufficiently detailed or robust to make the argument that there were exceptional circumstances. He stated that there was no planning policy support for a development of this scale at this location. He advised that Mr and Mrs Morrison objected to this proposal on the following grounds:- the size and scale of the development; timescale of project build; increased traffic, noise, pollution, water run off; site access and road infrastructure; building aesthetics and visual impact; fire, health and safety issues; effect of flora, fauna and ecology. He referred to the supporting statement prepared by Montgomery Forgan on behalf of the Applicant and stated that this submission provided no comfort to his clients and that it simply reinforced their contention that the Applicants have shown little understanding of the impacts of the proposal or sympathy for its consequences and that the application site has been selected because it was the most convenient for the Applicant with little analysis of the alternatives. He advised of reference made to alternative land being in third party ownership and not being reasonably available. He stated that there was no reference to the steps that have been taken to see if this land could be acquired. He referred to the possibility of compulsory purchase and wondered if this option had been explored with the Council. He stated that it was their understanding that the application site can be conveniently acquired because it is in the ownership of a party with whom the Applicant already has an option to purchase other land. Therefore, the Applicant gets its ideal site rather than a site that is simply suitable. He advised that this was convenience and not a good demonstration of good site selection. He referred to a desk top exercise review of alternative sites. He advised that no evidence had been given of land at Port Charlotte not being suitable. He advised that the supporting statement said that the landscape had the capacity to absorb the development fairly well and he stated that “fairly well” was not a sufficient endorsement that in landscape terms this development is acceptable in this location. He advised that the size and scale of this development would dwarf local dwellings and that there would be significant impact during the construction phase. He pointed out that the photo montages highlighted that it would not be possible to disguise these buildings. He advised that if this application was granted it could set a precedent for further development in the future. He stated that the visual impact would be profound for local residents. He also referred to concerns about road safety and the impact on this by the movement of large lorries during construction. He stated that there was no footpath on the road leading to the access road to the site and that walkers had to stop on the verge to avoid any type of vehicle. He referred to the ecology impact and the site being on the edge of a SPA. He stated to the development being in the countryside and that replacing green fields with concrete and alien features would have a profound impact. He referred to light, noise and air pollution and that the construction of the road would take a long time to build which would impact on the local community for a number of weeks and months for up to 15 years. He stated that he was well aware of the need to balance the impact against the economic benefit. He advised that the proposal did not accord with policy LDP DM 1 as exceptional circumstances and locational need had not been sufficiently demonstrated. He advised that the proposal also did not accord with policies LDP 3 and LDP 5 as other locations had not been explored. In terms of LDP 9 he stated that the development was too big and in the wrong location. In terms of LDP 10 he referred to the impact on residents and the local community. In terms of LDP 11 he advised that the roads infrastructure was wrong and in the wrong location and would have a significant impact. He advised that he believed this application was premature as other locations had not been fully investigated and recommended that it should be refused.

Mr Morrison

Mr Morrison advised that he has been coming to Islay since the 1960s and has owned Curlew Cottage for 9 years. He stated that he 100% agreed with the importance of the distillery and that he had nothing against what has been done or achieved over the last 15 years. He stated that none of their objections were linked to holding back what the distillery has achieved or will achieve in the future. He referred to the 6 bonded warehouses and the scheme of works proposed. He advised that the development would be a huge detraction to this tranquil, rural, special area of Islay. He asked why the warehouses required could not be split into segments across the island leading to smaller developments of a more appropriate scale. He advised that the proposal was significantly bigger than any existing development. He advised that he did not believe that this was the only place it could go and that it did not need to be so big.

George Jackson

Mr Jackson pointed out the location of land he owned which was directly below the proposed development site. He also pointed out a nature reserve he had developed and wetlands. He stated that the development would be very close to these areas and to his home.

Douglas Tott

Mr Tott also pointed out the location of his home on the planning slide. He referred to the condition of the Bruichladdich road and advised of his concerns about road safety. He stated that cars regularly crossed the central reservation line and advised that the road was very narrow for buses and lorries to pass at the same time. He said that last September his 87 year old father had fallen into the ditch to avoid being hit by a car while walking on this road into Bruichladdich. He also advised that there was a cancer cluster around the distillery and referred to 4 local residents having cancer and that he feared this would only get worse if production at the distillery was to be ramped up.

MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS

Councillor McCuish asked the Applicant why the proposed development site was chosen. Mr Coughlin referred to the process taking 2 ½ years and that other suitable sites had not been found. He referred to the Octofad site which had been discounted due to a number of concerns. He advised that a full analysis of other potential sites had been undertaken and a matrix of these could be presented if Members wished. He referred to land that had been possibly available to purchase but they had been unable to make contact with the landowner to establish if he was in a position to sell. He advised that the proposed site happened to be closer to the distillery and that this would minimise traffic to and from the distillery. He referred to adjustments made to the proposal and that the site was chosen to minimise impact.

Councillor Trail sought and received clarification from Mr Kerr on when an applicant might be required to demonstrate if alternative sites had been explored.

Councillor Colville sought and received clarification from Mr Kerr on how the conclusions of the ACE were reached. Mr Kerr confirmed that the ACE had concluded that the impact of the development on Port Charlotte, Conisby and Bruichladdich would be moderate which reflected the conclusions of the Applicant’s LVIA.

Councillor Currie stated that his home was the nearest property to the proposed development. He asked the Planners if it was necessary to approve the ACE before determining the Application. Mr Kerr confirmed that this was the procedure that should be followed.

Councillor Currie asked Mr Kerr if it was correct to say that a number of sites were looked at for development of the Distillery and that the only suitable site found was a Conisby. Mr Kerr replied yes that he thought that was the case as he had not been directly involved with that particular application.

Councillor Currie sought and received clarification from Mr Kerr on the relevance of the House of Lords ruling in respect of planning applications in Scotland. Mr Kerr confirmed that the House of Lords ruling was a material consideration as it made a judgement on how the Planning Act should be interpreted.

Councillor Currie sought and received confirmation from Mr Jackson that he owned land up to the boundary of the development site.

Councillor Currie asked if the landscape and planting was necessary and queried whether or not it would be an alien feature to the landscape. Mr Kerr advised that the planting was not intended to screen the development but would help to soften it. He stated that it would not be wholly alien given other tree belts nearby. He advised that this landscaping could be conditioned out if the Members wished.

Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mr Kerr that condition 3 related to the storage of pallets etc in the open.

Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mr Kerr that the visibility spays required as per condition 5 would not involve third party land. Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mr Coughlin that 19 jobs were created in 2001 and that there were currently 83 employees (10 in Glasgow). Mr Coughlin also confirmed that 1.5 million litres of alcohol was produced per annum and that if development went ahead this production would increase over the next 5 to 10 years. He advised that he estimated employing an additional 2 people per year leading to an increase of 10 employees in 5 years.

Councillor Colville referred to the production rate of 1.5 million litres of alcohol representing 11,000 barrels per annum and asked what the increase in barrels would be if development went ahead. Mr Coughlin confirmed that each cell would take approximately 11,000 casks. He advised that they used racking rather than palleting in the warehouses which was one of the reasons why they were bigger.

Councillor Currie referred to planning gain and asked if it would be possible to link community benefit to this development. He suggested improvements to the war memorial. Mr Kerr advised that there was a series of tests for the deployment of planning gain. He said it would be difficult to impose planning gain which was not directly connected to the development. He advised that an Applicant if they wished could volunteer a community benefit. Mr Kerr advised that he did not think improvements to the war memorial would be relevant in terms of this development and that he would not be recommending that Members explore this route.

Councillor Trail sought and received confirmation from Mr Coughlin that the current 73 jobs on Islay were all full time. Mr Coughlin advised that often seasonal part time employees went on to gain full time employment with the distillery.

Councillor Trail asked if the distillery employed modern apprenticeships. Mr Coughlin advised that they had an apprentice engineer at the moment and that all new employees were in a way apprentices as they all received on the job training in new skills. He stated that they would rather train someone in house rather than having someone come in with pre conceived ideas on how the distillery worked.

SUMMING UP

Planning

Mr Kerr advised that it was a basic principle of planning that in decision making the first consideration to be addressed should be the adopted development plan, on the basis that decisions should be made in accordance with that plan, unless material consideration indicate otherwise.

Large developments such as this would normally be expected to be located on land allocated for industrial purposes or on other suitable sites within settlement boundaries. Development in the countryside is normally restricted to ‘small scale’ in accordance with thresholds set out in the plan. However, the plan recognises that it is not possible to anticipate and plan for all types of development, and that from time to time exceptional circumstances will prompt demand for scales of development which do not conform to the strategy which seeks to direct larger developments to locations which are already built up, or which are identified for development by the plan.

Policy LDP DM1 provides that in exceptional cases, medium and large scale developments can be supported on suitable sites in the defined ‘countryside’ zone, but only in circumstances where firstly, a justifiable locational/ operational need has been advanced by the applicant, and secondly, where an ACE has been carried out by the Planning Authority to establish that the wider countryside has sufficient capacity to successfully absorb the development proposed, without significantly compromising landscape character.

It is not normally necessary for a prospective developer to demonstrate a need in support of a planning proposal or to show that alternative sites have been considered, although the need for this site to be accepted as an exceptional case in order to be approved prompts the requirement to consider the availability of suitable alternatives.

The Applicant’s business case is clear that storage is being rapidly exhausted and that there is no land available in the distillery for the required scale of maturation storage, either within their industrially located site, or within the remainder of the settlement.

As might be expected in an island context, there is limited land allocated for industrial development on Islay. One site is allocated at Bridgend but this is only available on a lease basis and the Applicants are unwilling to invest on this scale without being able to secure ownership of the site. PPA’s for business by the airport and by Islay House do not lend themselves to tall structures due to proximity to the listed house and the airport. An alternative site in the countryside west of Port Charlotte has been considered via the Pre- Application Consultation Process, but has been discounted due to nature conservation issues and unfavourable public response to transportation through Port Charlotte village.

The application site is advanced as the most favourable location close to the distillery to reduce the environmental and financial costs of transportation to/from the distillery. It is in a location which benefits from an association with the village, yet which is sufficiently far from the main road and residential property so as not to be overbearing, and which secures separation between hazardous storage and occupied buildings for safety reasons.

The Applicants have undertaken a landscape and visual impact assessment in support of their proposal which has been supplemented by an ACE undertaken by officers. This concludes that whilst there will be moderate adverse effects within 1km, overall the scale of development will be acceptable in its landscape setting. Adverse visual effects will be offset by the economic benefits associated with the proposal.

Potential nature conservation conflicts have been discounted on the basis of Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ and there are no other site specific considerations which would warrant refusal. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions detailed in the main and supplementary reports.

Applicant

Mr Coughlin confirmed that they had drawn up a matrix of the other sites explored and that this could be shared if required. He confirmed that he was aware of the road safety issue and stated that there were already a number of large vehicles passing each other on the road and that this was a pretty standard island road. He referred to planning gain and advised that he would be happy to look into the possibility of providing further support to the local community which they have always done in the past. He referred to Bruichladdich being a significant and exceptional business on Islay which wished to expand its vision for the community. He reiterated the benefits the expansion would bring to the economy on the island and asked for the Members support. Objectors

Philip Neaves

Mr Neaves stated that this development would be a departure from Planning Policy and stated that the exceptional circumstances and locational need had not been demonstrated. He advised that the evidence produced had been in response to the objections raised. He stated that the development would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of nearby residents. He also referred to the phased construction which was unspecified. He referred to an unacceptable impact on the landscape stating that the development would change the character of the landscape. He referred to the impact on ecology, flora and fauna and the impact of light, noise and air pollution. He stated that he recognised the need to balance this against the needs of the economy. He advised that the application was premature as other sites had not been property explored and that it should be deferred or refused and that alternative sites should be properly analysed.

Douglas Tott

Mr Tott said that the major problems with the road lay with the Council. He stated that the carriageway was not wide enough and had been built for 1960s vehicles. He referred to a recent meeting of the MAKI Area Committee on Jura and advised of the presentation given by the Head Teacher of Islay High School who had stated that the pupils left the island for further education and that what they were studying for did not allow them to find jobs back on the island. He stated that for this reason the population on the island would continue to fall.

The Chair asked all those present to confirm if they had received a fair hearing and they all confirmed this to be the case.

DEBATE

Councillor McCuish advised that the basic question was whether the proposal would unacceptably affect the amenity and existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest, not whether owners or occupiers of neighbouring or other existing properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development. He referred to the local economy and the increase in jobs this development would bring. He stated that this was a unique product on a unique island and that he supported the application.

Councillor Trail advised that he did not share Mr Neaves concerns about the impact on the local community. He referred to the young people staying on the island to work at the distillery and to the increase to the workforce expansion of the business would bring. He advised that the distillery should be commended and supported in their efforts.

Councillor Currie referred to the Single Outcome Agreement of the Argyll and Bute Community Planning Partnership. He advised that addressing the depopulation of Argyll and Bute was a high priority and stated that this application would bring work and sustainability to the workforce and help to address the depopulation of the area. He advised that there was the potential to attract new families to the area. He stated that a lot had been said by objectors about other sites not being property explored and advised that there was a lot of evidence within the planning report that other sites had been investigated. He advised that Members could only judge the proposed development in front of them. He stated that he was satisfied that this site was appropriate and that other sites looked at were not. He advised that his home was one of the nearest properties to the proposed development and that his house was only 50 metres from the distillery. He advised that he had never been aware of any complaints about the distillery and that it was just part of island life and that these warehouses would in time become part of the island too. He stated that he supported the application.

Councillor Freeman advised that he had listened to all the representations made and he agreed with Councillor Trail and McCuish. He stated that he believed the benefits of the proposed development outweighed any adverse impact it may have on the community and that he supported the application.

Councillor Colville advised that his first impression of this proposal in a rural area was that it was pretty horrendous. However, he advised that taking account of all that had been said he stated that the ACE was really important and had shown that there was an exceptional need here. He advised that living in Kintyre he was envious of the number of visitors to Islay. He stated that the development over time would blend in once the planting was done. He stated that the exceptional need was proven and that he supported the application.

Councillor MacMillan confirmed that he fully supported the application.

Councillor McNaughton advised that he totally agreed with Councillor Colville’s comments regarding locational need and confirmed that he supported the application.

Councillor McQueen advised that this development would be great for the whole area and that he too supported the application.

Councillor Robert MacIntyre advised that he believed it had been demonstrated that this site was the correct site. He advised that this was a good business which should be encouraged and that he supported the application.

Councillor Neil MacIntyre advised that new developments should not be stopped just because of the condition of the roads. He advised that anything that brought employment to an area was worth it. He advised that he had sympathy for the objectors but stated that investment like this should not be stopped.

Councillor Kinniburgh advised that all the points put forward by all parties had been well made. He advised that he considered that other sites had been considered and that this was the best site. He advised that the proposal would be of immense economic benefit to the area. He referred to the increase in jobs already and advised that he could only see this developing further.

DECISION

The Committee unanimously agreed to endorse the ACE and 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 21.01.2015 and the approved drawing reference numbers:

1 of 18 Site Location Plan 2 of 18 Proposed Site Layout (amended plan) 3 of 18 Site Plan Dimensions to Boundary (amended plan) 4 of 18 Proposed Junction Layout 5 of 18 Proposed Earthworks Cut / Fill Proposals (amended plan) 6 of 18 Overall Drainage Layout (amended plan) 7 of 18 2 Block Warehouse Elevations (1 of 3) 8 of 18 2 Block Warehouse Elevations (2 of 3) 9 of 18 2 Block Warehouse Roof Plan (3 of 3) 10 of 18 2 Block Warehouse Racking Layout 11 of 18 3 Block Warehouse Elevations (1 of 2) 12 of 18 3 Block Warehouse Roof Plan (2 of 2) 13 of 18 3 Block Warehouse Racking Layout 14 of 18 DU Building Plan and Elevations 15 of 18 DU Building Roof Plan 16 of 18 Tanker Loading Bay General Arrangement (amended plan) 17 of 18 DU Drainage/Spillage Containment Plan (amended plan) 18 of 18 Landscape proposals

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.

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.

2. The land and buildings to which this permission relates shall be utilised for purposes within s compliant with Use Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 and shall only be occupied for the storage of production from the Bruichladdich Distillery, unless otherwise agreed in writing in advance by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To define the use class permitted by this permission for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that ensure that development is limited to that required to satisfy the anticipated production requirements of the distillery to which it relates

3. External storage within the planning unit shall only take place on land designated for that purpose and which has the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. A request for the written approval of the Planning Authority shall include the extent and location of the proposed storage area(s), the types of materials to be stored, maximum stacking heights and details of any means of enclosure required.

Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the surroundings of the development.

4. No development shall be commenced until a site specific Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and has been approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The plan shall outline the measures to be taken to protect nearby residential properties from noise and dust during construction of the development, and in particular from access to and from the site. It shall also have regard to the identification and protection of private water supplies in the vicinity of the site during construction works. The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the duly approved Construction Management Plan or any subsequent variation thereof agreed in advance by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the surroundings of the development. 5. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the proposed junction with the public road shall be constructed as per the Council’s Roads Engineers standard drawing SD 08/001 Rev A. Prior to it being first brought into use visibility splays of 136.0m by 2.4m shall be formed from the centreline of the access, which shall be set out at ninety degrees to the alignment of the public road. These visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions in excess of 1.05m in height before the access is first brought into use and shall be maintained clear of all obstructions in excess of this height thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

6. None of the buildings hereby approved shall be brought into use until parking and turning facilities for one articulated vehicle and four other vehicles have been laid out surfaced and made available for use within the application site. These parking and turning facilities shall remain unobstructed and retained available for their intended purpose thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of road safety

7. No excavated material shall be taken off-site and no off-road articulated earthmoving vehicles shall be used on the public road during the construction period(s) without the prior written agreement of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Roads Engineers.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

8. No development shall take place within the development site as outlined in red on the approved plan until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.

Reason: In the interests of archaeology.

9. No HGV movements shall take place along the access route between the public road and the site of the buildings hereby approved, either during the construction or the operational phases of the development, other than between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays and between the hours of 09.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays, unless otherwise agreed in writing in advance by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the area.

10.No development shall be commenced until samples and/or full details of the colour and profile of the sheet roofing to the buildings and the external paint finish of the walls (which shall be off- white) have been submitted to and have been approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details, unless any subsequent variation thereof is agreed in advance in writing. Reason: In order to ensure an appropriate appearance in the interests of visual amenity and to help integrate the development into its surroundings.

11.The development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C697, in accordance with the details shown on the duly approved plans. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding.

12.No development shall commence until full details of any external lighting to be used within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details shall include the location, type, angle of direction and wattage of each light which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the site boundary. No external lighting shall be installed except in accordance with the duly approved scheme.

Reason: In order to avoid light pollution in the interest of amenity

13.The development shall be landscaped in accordance with the tree and hedgerow planting and seeding proposals set out on drawing number 14022E/100/P01, or any subsequent variation thereof as may be agreed in writing in advance by the Planning Authority. Prior to development being commenced, a plan to show the intended phasing of development and the timing of the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the planning authority. This shall indicate which areas of planting are to be implemented in association with the various elements of the development and the intended timing of such, if it is not proposed that construction of the whole development is to be carried out as a single operation. All planting within the wetland areas defined on the approved plans shall be wet woodland tree species in line with published Forestry Commission Scotland guidance relating to the planting of trees within wetland areas. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved phasing plan.

Reason: In order to ensure landscaping commensurate with the development implemented in the interests of visual amenity, biodiversity and to help assimilate the development into its surroundings.

14.Details of the location, design, height and colour of any perimeter fencing and gates shall be submitted to and shall be agreed in advance in writing prior to its installation. No fencing and gates shall be erected on the site other than with such prior approval.

Reason: In order to secure an appropriate appearance in the interests of visual amenity

15.Prior to the commencement of development, details of the intended surface treatment of the access road herby approved shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Insofar as the concrete running surface will be visible from locations along the public road it shall be coloured or surfaced dressed in a manner which helps to integrate the access in its landscape setting. The access shall be completed in accordance with the duty approved details. Reason: In order to secure an appropriate appearance in the interests of visual amenity

16.No development shall be commenced until calculations have been supplied to demonstrate that:

a) the controlled release from the settlement pond shall be no greater than the 1 in 2 year greenfield run-off rate; b) the 1 in 200 year plus climate change event does not constitute a flood risk to the proposed development or increase flood risk elsewhere.

Reason: In order to ensure an appropriate surface water drainage scheme in the interests of avoiding flooding.

17.No development shall be commenced until details of the proposed maintenance regime for the Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDS) scheme have been submitted to and have been approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the SuDS scheme shall be maintained in accordance with the duly approved scheme.

Reason: In order to ensure an appropriate surface water drainage scheme in the interests of avoiding flooding.

(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 11 May 2015 and Supplementary Report No 1 dated 9 June 2015, submitted)