Application No: Proposed Development:

11/00122/FUL Erection of Clinical Waste Treatment Facility, incorporating Thermal Treatment Plant

Site Address:

Hassockrigg Former Opencast Site Shotts Road Shotts

Date Registered:

7th February 201 1

Applicant: Agent: Healthcare Environmental Services Ltd RPS Planning & Development Mr Garry Pettigrew Alan Pollock Calderhead Road Ocean Point One Shotts 4th Floor ML7 4EQ 94 Ocean Drive Edinburgh EH6 6JH Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Major Application Yes

Ward: Representations: 01 2 Fortissat 162 letters of representation received. Charles Cefferty, Malcolm McMillan, James Robettson,

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditione

Reasoned Justiflcatlon:

The proposed development allhough contrary to the Southern Area Local Plan and the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire local Plan is considered acceptable in this instance given overriding material considerations. The impact of the proposed development is considered to have been adequately addressed by the ES, and is considered to accord with the majority of the policy criteria in terms of the impact of the proposed development. Furthermore it is considered that the proposed development generally accords with the main alms, principles, policy and guidance contained within the Zero Waste Plan (MIP), the National Planning Framework 2 (NPFP), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and advice set out in Planning Advice Note 63 (PAN 63). In addition the economic benefits of securing the existing employment of the current workforce and the provision of additional employment within North Lanarkshire are considered to be of sufficient weight to warrant approval of the application in this instance.

47 PLANNING APPLICATION 11~012~FUL

Erection of Clinical Waste Treatment Facility, Incorporating Thermal Traatment Plant

Hassockrigg Former Opencast Site, Cunbmaufd Shotts Road, Shotts. 067 1Jw * Representation 48 Proposed Conditions:

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within three years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 2. That the development hereby permitted shall not start until a Notice of Initiation has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with the provislons of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

3. That within 4 weeks of completion of all bullding works on site, of the development hereby permitted, a Notice of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Authority, Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, to monitor the development, to enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control. 4. That the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly In accordance with the approved detalls submitted as part of the application and no change to those details shall be made without prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To clarify the details on which thls approval of permission Is granted.

5. That no development shall commence on site until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) as outlined in section 9 of the Environmental Statement is submitted and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with SEPA. The CEMP shall incorporate detailed pollutlon avoidance and mitigation measures for ail construction elements potentially capable of giving rise to pollution including Issues relating to the construction of the building, impacts on hydrogeology and disposal of contamlnated land. Speciiically the statement shall address the following and the construction of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. 0 How contamlnated land will be dealt with; treated and disposed of as necessary 0 Details of how disturbance to groundwater will be minimised, including any de watering proposals Details of the storage of construction fuels, materials, raw materials and by- production 0 Temporary SUDS measures 0 Dust mitigationmethods. Vehlcle maintenance and refuelling 0 Welfare Facilities 0 Cement and Concrete 0 Contingency Plans 0 Inspections Reason: To protect the water environment from any damage arising from the construction and operation of this facility, 6. That before any development commences on site, details of a Site Waste Management Plan as outlined in section 9 of the Environmental Statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA and Implemented thereafter in accordance with the approved details during the construction of the development, Reason: To ensure best practice is adopted in dealing with waste during the

49 construction phase of the development in accordance with Scottish Government policy.

7. That PRIOR to any works of any description being commenced on the applicatlon site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in terms of the relevant ClRlA Manual and other advice published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).

Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater, and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future users adjacent to and within the development site respectively. 8. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 7 above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Following the constructionof the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS have been constructed in accordance with the relevant CIRIA Manual and the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard any adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future users.

9. That before any works start on site, the applicant must confirm in writing to the Planning Authorii that the foul drainage can be connected to the public sewer in accordance with the requirements of Scottish Water. The surface water must be treated in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland published by ClRlA in March 2000. Reason: To prevent groundwater or surface water contamination in the interests of environmental and amenity protection.

10. That BEFORE any works of any description start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, a comprehensive Phase I1 site investigation report shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority, The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice advice, such as BS 10175: 'The investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sltes' or CLR 11. The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required.

Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required in the Interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future employees and visitors to the waste management facility.

11. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 10, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy. Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future employees and visitors to the waste management facility.

50 12. That no audible vehicle movement alarms should be sounded in the open air in connection with night time operations of the premises between 23:OO hours and 07:OO hours.

Reaeon: In the interests of residential amenity and to minimise noise disturbance from the site.

13. That prior to the commencement of development on site details of the noise attenuating bunding to be formed within the loading yard area, shall be submitted to and approved in writlng by the Planning Authority. The approved bunds shall thereafter be formed in accordance with the approved details and be in place prior to the importation of waste on site.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to minimise noise disturbance from the site.

14 That unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Planning Authority, the finishing materials for the buildings hereby approved shall be as noted in the ES Figure 3.2 (Proposed Building Elevations).

Reason: To ensure the provision of appropriate finishing materials in the interests of the visual amenity of the buildings.

15. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authorii. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail,

16. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted is operational, all the fences, or walls, as approved under the terms of Condition 15 above, shall be erected. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and security for the site.

17. That BEFORE the facility hereby permitted becomes occupled, all of the associated parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintainedas parking and manoeuvring areas. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and vehicular safety and to prevent deleterious material being carried out on the highway.

18. That notwithstanding the plans hereby approved or unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, details of the amended access scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Plannlng Authority. The amended access scheme shall include:-

0 Details of a right turn storage bay. 0 Details of a junction visibility splay of 4.5m by 215m on both sides of the access along the 87057 or the maxlmum achievable. Details of the positioning of the entrance gates. 0 Details of the drainage facility to prevent surface water flowing onto the public road

The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to ensure adequate access to the site.

51 19. The before the occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of all external lighting and CCTV for within the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. The design of the lights sbali incorporate downward reflectors in accordance with the biodiversity enhancement measures required under the terms of condition 21 below.

Reason: To ensure that there will be no distraction or dazzle to drivers on the 87057 in the Interests of road safety at the locus.

20 That prior to the commencement of development on site the measures for protection of wildlife detailed in section 6 of the Environmental Statement shall be fully implemented. These shall include the following mitigation measures:.

Otters

0 The mitigation measures as outlined in sections 6.55, 6.5.6 and 6.5.9 of the Envlronmental Statement. 0 Details of a 15m minimum developmental standoff off implemented from the west bank of the unnamed burn if it is considered to be suitable for Otters.

Badgers

0 An updated survey for badgers if more than 6 months pass between the date of the initial survey and the start date of the proposed works. 0 Details of a Badger Protection Plan If a badger sett is recorded within 30m of the application site.

Water Voles

0 A Water Vole habitat suitability assessment. An updated survey for water vole if more than 6 months pass between the date of the initial survey and the start date of the proposed works if a suitable habitat for Water Voles is present.

Nestlng Birds

0 A qualified Ecologist checks the site for nesting birds prior to the commencement of the works if to be undertaken during the bird nesting season (March - August inclusive). If active nests are found then mitigation should be proposed, approved in wrlting by the Planning Authority and implemented in accordance with the approved mitigation scheme. 0 Any Felling works undertaken during the bird nesting season (March - August inclusive) require a qualified Ecologist to check for nesting birds prior to any felling works.

Amphibians

0 All shallow pools within the development footprint shall be infllled prior to the amphibian breeding season.

Great Crested Newts

The erection of temporary newt fencing around the development site during the construction phase. 0 The retention of all temporary pools outwith the development footprint.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation within the site and surrounding area,

52 21. That prior to the commencement of development on site a scheme including measures for biodiversity enhancement detailed in section 6 of the Environmental Statement shall be fully implemented. In addition the scheme shall include:-

* Details for the Creatiodretention of open stone areas within the proposed grasslands for ringed plover. 0 The creatlon of an Otter holt. 0 The planting of Phragmites at the deeper ponds margins. 0 The erection of bird Boxes, including Kestrel Boxes in the woodland edge within the land ownership area. 0 The creation of amphibian hibernacula 0 The appropriate management of Semi-improvedgrassland

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation within the site and surrounding area.

22. That SEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping incorporating biodiversity enhancement measures and native tree planting shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Plannlng Authorii, in consultation with NLC Ecology and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, wild grass seeding and turflng; (b) a scheme of native tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development (d) a detailed timetable for all landscaping works which shall provide for these works belng carried out contemporaneously with the development of the site. (e) a management and maintenance scheme for these works

Reason: To enable the Planning Authorii to consider these aspects in detail.

23. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and native tree planting, approved under the terms of condition 22 above, shall be completed in accordance wlth the approved timetable, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site, to mitigate adverse effects on views of the development from outlying residential areas and to benefit local biodiversity.

24 That prior to the commencement of development on site, an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECOW) shall be appointed, with the approval of the Planning Authority, all costs associated with the appointment shall be met by the developer. The ECOW shall be present on site during construction and shall oversee the pre-construction pollution prevention measures and measures to minimise the impact on Otters. The ECOW will provide monitoring of the construction at the site until completlon of the works and will ensure works are carried out in accordance with ail relevant Construction and Environmental Method Statements. The ECOW shall oversee and advise on the resolution of ecological issues, protect on site features, habitats and species, provide on site guidance to the operators and ensure legal compliance with respect to protected species. Reason: To ensure compliance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992,

25, That for the duration of the construction works one or more Site Notices, printed on durable material, shall be displayed in a prominent place at or in the vicinity of the

53 development such that it is readily visible to the public; the Notice must accord with Schedule 7 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 and must give details of the approved development, its address, details of the planning permission and information on where further information about the development can be obtained.

Reason To accord with the provisions of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, to monitor the development, to enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.

26. That unless subject to a fumer separate planning application to the Council the maximum amount of waste to be imported into the facility shall not exceed 34,000 tons per annum.

Reaoon: To clarify the details on which this approval of permission is granted,

54 Backaround PaoerE

Representation Letters

Letter from Mrs Anne Fleming, 27 Victoria Road, Harthill, ML75QF received 13th April 201 1 Letter from Mr Adrian Bee, Brownhill Kennels, West Benhar Road, Harthill received 20th April 201 1 Letter from Mr Derek Cefferty, 55 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, HARTHILL received 17th May 201 1 Letter from William Fisher, 9 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 5th July 201 1 Letter from Mr Frank Buggy, Harthill Environmental Actlon Group, C/o 43 West Benhar Road, Harthill received 20th June 201 I Letter from Mr George Wood, 10, Livingstone Quadrant, Harthill received 13th April 201 1 Letter from Mr Frank Buggy, 43 West Ben Har Road, Harthill, ML7 received 13th June 201 1 Letter from 0 McAvoy, 2 Dewshill Cottages, Near Salsburgh, North Lanarkshire received 17th June 201 1 Letter from Mr George Cefferty, The Windermere, 2 Hob Hill, Stalybridge received 13th April 201 1 Letter from Karen Whitefield, 858 South Bridge Street, Airdrie, ML6 6JH received 21st April 201 1 Letter from todd george todd, 6 hawthorn drive, harthilt, shotts received 13th April 201 1 Letter from mr laurence ferguson, 171 shotts road, harthill, shotts received 20th May 201 1 Letter from Mr Scott Corrigan, 7 Sidehead Road, Harthill, North Lanarkshire, ML7 5QH received 13th April 201 1 Letter from Mr Andrew Williamson, 17 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, ML7 5NY received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr Gareth Jeffrey, 57 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received Letter from Mr Kevin Jeftrey, 70 Cunningham Drive, Harthill , Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Louise Lewis, 70 Cunningham Drive, Harthill , Shotts received 3rd August 201__ 1 Letter from L McDonald, 1 Paxstone Drive, Harthll, M17 5RT received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from F Thomson, IQBaird Terrace, Eastfield , Harthill recelved 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Mark Jamieson, 35 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Harthlll received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr Wllliam Murray, 71 Covenanter Road, Eastfleld, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Marion Swan, 85 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr George Clelland, 19 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Hamill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Maralyn Miller, 42a Victoria Road, Harthill, received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Nancy Wright, 17 Mains Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Evelyn Jones, 87 Covenanter Road, Harthill, ML7 5PA received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr Graham Swan, 85 Covenanter Road, Harthill, ML7 5PA received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr Derek Wilson, 22 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr & Mrs A Smith, 12 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, ML7 5RJ received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr K Wilson, 50 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Robert Hilditch, 14 West Benhar Road, Harthill, received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from C. Ferguson, 83 St Catherines Crescent, Dykehead, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Margaret Mitchell MSP, Constituency Office, 104 Cadrow Street, Hamilton received 4th October 201 1 Letter from Mr & Mrs Hilditch, 3A Stewart Grove, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from A Mackenzie, 4 Deer Path, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 2011

55 Letter from Agnes Walker, Windyknowe, Stewart Grove, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from John D Walker, Windyknowe, Stewart Grove, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from L McDade, 4 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from G McDade, 4 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Hatthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Louise Quinn, 3 Deer Path, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Donna Quinn, 38A Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Nanette Quinn, 16 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Robert Quinn, 16 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Karen Corrigan, 7 Sidehead Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Scott Corrigan, 7 Sidehead Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Lila Gibson, 1 Sidehead Road, Harthlll, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Betty Weir, 10 Heatherbell Court, Harthilt, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Scott Armitage, 8 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 20 1 1 Letter from Derek Armitage, 8 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Alex Armitage, 8 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Anne Gilmore, Old Eastfield Street, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Colin Gilmore, 13 Old EastfieldStreet, Harthill, ML7 5NX received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Scott Qilmore, 13 Old Eastfield Street, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Jim Weir, 10 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Kristin Weir, 10 Heatherbelt Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Angela Armitage, 8 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Loma McAllister, 2 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Wllliam McAllister, 2 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Alex Stewart, 35 Cunnlngham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Anne Stewart, 35 Cunningham Drive, Eastlield, Harthill received 3rd August 2011 Letter from R Galloway, 4 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from J Galloway, 4 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 I Letter from Andrew Smith, 12 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Jacqueline Smith, 12 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 , Letter from Shitiey Carson, 14 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Leanne Carson, 14 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from David Carson, 14 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Robbie Carson, 14 Heatherbell Court, Harthill, North Lanarkshire received 3rd August 201 1 Leter from Mr Frank Buggy, 43 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 4th August 201 1 Letter from mr thomas fisher, 16 west benhar road, eastfield, harthill received 11th September 201 I Letter from Shannon Biuilk, 12 Reid Street, Salsburgh, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Mr William Wylie, 27 West Main Street, Harthill, ML7 5QD received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Laura Wylie, 27 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Fiona Cassidy, 174 Station Road, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 8th August

56 201 1 Letter from Frances Vance, 17 Hill Road, Harthill, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Raymond Vance, 17 Hill Road, Harthill, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Jean Bissett, 143 Herbison Crescent, Torbothie, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Yvonne Parish, 34 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 8th August 201 1 Letter from J B Paterson, 1 Pipers Court, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Andrew Allan, 11 Currieside Place, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Mary Watson, 40 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from David Jamieson, 73 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Carol Allan, 67 Polkemmet Drive, Greenrigg, Harthill received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Pameia Nash MP, Airdrie And Shotts Constituency, 100 Stirling Street, Airdrie received 15th August 201 1 Letter from Mr David McKee, 17 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Mr D McKee, 17 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Mr Gary McKee, 18 Miller Street, Harthill, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Caroiine Close, 18 Milter Street, Harthill, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Tom Rennie, 10 Mollison Avenue, Harthill, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Lorraine Rennie, 10 Moliison Avenue, Harthill, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Councillor Charles Cefferty, Member Services, Civlc Centre, Motherwell received 23rd February 201 1 Letter from Councillor Jim Robertson, Member Seffices , Civic Centre , Motherwell received 18th April 201 1 Letter from Shotts Community Council, C/o Councillor Ceffetty, , received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Dave Barran, 45 West Benhar Road, Harthill, ML7 5PG received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Natalie McKee, 174 Station Road, Shotts, ML7 4AW received 9th June 201 1 Letter from Ms Elizabeth Wylie, 27 West Main Street, Harthill, ML7 5QD received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr Kenny Thomson, 29 West Main Street, Harthill, ML7 5QD received 3rd August 201 I Letter from Ms Janice Thomson, 1Q Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Claire Thomson, 29 West Main Street, Harthill, ML7 5QD received 3rd August 2011 Letter from Lindsay Burt, 31 West Main Street, Harthill, ML7 5QD received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Claire Jamieson, 8 Almond Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr Graham Jamieson, 1 Baird Terrace, Eastfield , Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Margaret Jamieson, 1 Baird Terrace, Eastfield , Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr Fraser Perry, 8 Almond Terrace, Harthill, ML7 5NS received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Linda Jamieson, 73 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr Michael McPake, 56 Carvale Avenue, Salsburgh, ML7 4NQ received 3rd Aunust 201 1 Lehr from Ms Marie McPake, 56 Carvale Avenue, Salsburgh, ML7 4NQ received 3rd August 201I Letter from Mr George Mckee, 83 West Main Street, Harthill, ML7 5PU received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Sharon Williamson, 17 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, ML7 5NY received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms lrene Jeffrey, 57 Coveneter Road, Eastfield Harthill received Letter from Ms Michelle Wightman, 69 Cunningham Drive, Harthlll, M17 5NY received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Elizabeth Fisher, 16 West Benhar Road, Harthill, ML7 5PB received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr Scott Fleming, 27 Victoria Road, Harthill, ML7 5QF received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr Eric Fleming, 27 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1

57 Letter from Ms Anne Fleming, 27 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Shona Brown, 13 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Ann Brown, 13 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms lsabelle Fisher, 9 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr David McMullan, 27 Liviston Crescent, Eastfield , Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Miss Sally McCormick, 10 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr John Mcmullan, 12 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Gardner Brown, 13 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Jean Mcmullan, 12 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ursuia McMullan, 27 Livingston Quadrant, Hatthill, received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from John McMulian, 12 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Robert Swan, 15 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Barbara Graham, 1 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts recelved 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Manryn Swan, 15 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from L Scott, 5 Bank Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Ms Kerrl-ann Guest, 87 Edinburgh Road, Harthill, received 4th August 201 1 Letter from Amy Swan, Windyknowe, Stewart Grove, Harthill received 4th August 201 1 Letter from Lynsey Canon, 21 Dunn Terrace, Harthlll, Shotts received 4th August 201 1 Letter from Robert & Agnes Marshall, 37 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 4th August 201 1 Letter from Sharon Kerr, 56 Westcraigs Road, Harthill, Shotts received 4th August 201 1 Letter from C Brown, 25 Edinburgh Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 4th August 201 1 Letter from A Cefferty, 19 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthlll received 4th August 201 1 Letter from Laura Grieve, 40 lnverkip Drive, Dykehead, Shotts received 4th August 201 1 Letter from Jam@ Buggy, 55 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 4th August 201 1 Letter from Samantha Buggy, 55 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 4th August 201 I Letter from J Miller, 77 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 4th August 201 1 Letter from M MacKay, 1 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 4th August 2011 Letter from Vivien Cameron, 25 Victoria Street, Harthill, Shotts received 4th August 201 1 Letter from KerryAnne Furnecwx, 27 Victoria Street, Harthill, Shotts received 4th August 201 1 Letter from Karen Burt, 31 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 4th August 201 1 Letter from Robert Steel, 41 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Llnda Steel, 41 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Harthlll received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Owner Occupier, 41 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from P Buggy, West Benhar Road, Harthill, ML7 5PG received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from M Barron, 45 West Benhar Road, Easffield, Harthill recelved 3rd August 201 1 Letter from E Buggy, 43 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Darren Robinson, 40 lnverkip Drive, Dykehead, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Sandra Stephenson, 14 King Street, Dykehead, Shotts received 8th August 201 1 Letter from Susan McCulloch, 25 Victoria Road, Harthill, M17 5QF received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from 0 McDonald, 5 Hawthorn Drive, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from T Borthwlck, 3 Minthill Place, Easlfield, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from John Brodie, 16 Hill Road, Harthill, Shotts received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from George Steel, 6 Livingston Quadrant, Harthill, ML7 5PJ received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mrs S Borthwick, 3 Mlnthlll Place, Eastfleld, Harthill received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from John McCulloch, 25 Victoria Road, Harthlll, ML7 5QF received 3rd August 201 1 Letter from Mr James Tait, Brownhill Farm, West benhar road, Harthill received 6th March 201 1 Letter from Margaret Mitchell MSP, Constituency Office, 104 Cadzow St, Hamilton, ML3 6HP Letter from Ms Alison Bryce, 16 Regal Grove, Shotts, ML7 4PD

58 Consultation Responses:

Transportation (SouthernA received 24'h August 201 1 Greenspace received 22 February 201 1 Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 13thAprll, 21" April and 21" June 201 1 West Lothian Council received lothMarch and 1lth May 201 I Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 25'h March and 14" July 201 1 Scottish Natural Heriige received 29* March, 22"6 and 2sthAugust 201 1 Scottish Water received 13'h February 201 1 Central Scotland Forest Trust received 15Ih February 201 1 Historic Scotland received 15'h February 201 1 Scottish Gas Network received 17'h February 201 I Scottish Government received Isth February and letMarch 201 1 Salsbugh Community Council received 17Ih June 201 1 Councillor Charles Cefferty received 24'h February 201 1 Councillor James Robertson (Depute Provost) e-mail received 19" April 201 I

Contact Informatlon:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01 236 632496

Report Date:

23rd August 201 1

59 APPLICATION NO. 11/00122/FUL REPORT

1. slkmxhm 1.1 The application site and wider land ownership area comprises the former Easter Baton opencast site, to the east of Shotts Road (87057)and north of West Benhar Road (B717). The application site has no nature conservation designations but sits adjacent to Hassockrigg and North Shotts Mosses Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), with North Shotts Moss also a Special Area of Conservation. The site is comprised of marshy grassland with a number of small ponds existing throughout the site and one large pond to the north west of the site. A small watercourse runs along the western edge of the site while the river Almond runs along the eastern edge of the site. Conifer and mixed plantation screen woodland is located around the periphery of the site and predominantly along the western edge. The site also includes a large concrete pad which was the yard Area previously used in conjunction with the site’s previous use for opencast coal extraction. The application site measures approximately 2.7 ha within the overall 13.93 ha land ownership boundary. The nearest settlements are Eastfield, approximately 1Skm to the north-east, with Harthill beyond, and Shotts 1.5km to the south-west, The site is bounded to the north-west, nodveast and south-west by conifer plantation, to the west by Shotts Road and to the north, south and east by agricultural land, with an addfflonal plantation further to the south. The intenwing topography including the existing colliery bing and vegetation is such that the site is unlikely to be visible from the nearest settlements of Shotts, Eastfield and Salsburgh and any views that may be experienced would not be significant. The nearest residential properties are located at 120 and 122 Shotts Road approximately 150m northwest of the site, Easter Hassockrlgg sits 270m north of the site, Brownhill Farm 300m southeast and Wester Hassockrigg 370m northwest of the site.

2. 2.1 -Planning permission is sought for the erection of a clinical waste treatment facility with the capaclty to treat a total volume of 34,000 tons per annum (tpa). The proposed relocation of the facility currently operating within Shotts would provide a custom built facility with the only additional process belng the Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT). The principal building of the proposed waste facility would be 12.2 metres at its highest point with one external 18m stack assoclated with the ATT process located to the rear of the building and one 16m stack associated with the autoclavedboiler, located within the building. The main building incorporates a main warehouse style portal frame with adjoining Vehicle Maintenance Unit (VMU) with a total building footprint of 4,468 m2 and canopy located on the northsastern side of the building. The building incorporates a standing seam curved roof and walls clad with horizontally laid, semi circular profiled, Telegrey coloured cladding panels. The proposed offices and VMU which protrude from the main building are to be lower in height and constructed in horizontally laid, flat wall white aluminium cladding panels. The office section of the building incorporates a flat roof, setting it apart and highlighting it from the main unit and adds additional detailing whilst breaking up the mass of the proposed building, The building would be accessed by a dedicated access road off the main 87057 Shotts Road and would be serviced by a main yard and parking area adjacent to the building. In addition the proposals include a gatehouse/transport off ice adjacent to the weighbridge, vehicle fuelling island, vehicle wash facility and two hot char container tanks associated with the proposed ATT process. A 2,4m high palisade perimeter fence would enclose the entire facility within the planning application boundary. The proposals also include additional woodland, hedgerow and wlllow planting at the north, east and south of the land ownershlp boundary, additional biodiversity enhancement and hedgerows along the access road

60 to provide ecological benefit and a measure of additional screening of the development from the surrounding area.

2.2 The proposed facility would carry out the following activities to treat the waste streams received; the shredding of waste paper into bales for transportation off site for recycling; non hazardous wastes would be shredded pending storage andlor treatment via the autoclave (process used to sterilise waste using high pressure steam); clinicai waste treated by means of autoclave to render it harmless for transfer to landfill for disposal; clinical waste treated by means of advanced thermal treatment (the high temperature combustion of waste in the absence of oxygen which destroys and reduces the volume of clinical waste); anatomical wastes would be accepted and stored in the refrigerated unit within the warehouse building pending treatment or transfer elsewhere; pharmaceutical wastes would be accepted and stored in the secure compound pending transfer for off-site disposal; the decanting of full discharged sharps from Healthcare Sharp containers into wheeled binshulk containers for treatment in the warehouse building via the autoclaves; the compaction of waste pending transfer elsewhere; the washing and remuse of Healthcare Sharps contalners; the decanting of pharmaceutical wastes to allow the re-use of containers and the washing of vehicles within the external yard area. All wastes will be stored on hardstanding withln the warehouse building in cappedjidded containers with all lids, caps and valves secured in place. The steam for the autoclave process will be supplied from the waste heat generated during the ATT process and from a backup boiler when the ATT is not operational.

2.3 The existing facility currently operating from Centrelink 5 (farmer Shotts Cummins Factory) has a Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) license from SEPA to handle 34,000 tpa of clinical waste. HES previously examined the feasibility of modifying the exlsting building to incorporate the ATT process at its current location, The existing constraints of the site including; the building’s status as A-Listed, the current disrepair of the adjacent units and uncertainty over the long term viability of the site coupled with the companies wish to secure its long term future resulted in HES seeking an alternate site that would be owned and controlled by HES. As part of the site selection process HES undertook an extensive site search of all potential sites above 1.4ha to establish if the proposed development could be accommodated on any exlsting or promoted general industrial site, The search for alternate sites proved unsuccessful for a variety of reasons which included; Eurocentral declining to offer HES any sites; proximity to housing areas; transportation and access issues and site Infrastructure costs. Healthcare Environmental Scotland HES Ltd currently services 95% of the clinicalhealthcare waste management contracts In Scotland. It is currently contracted with the NHS in Scotland for the two largest contracts of this type, namely the Greater Glasgow Health Board and the Pan-Scotland Health Board Contract. HES Ltd currently provides the main treatment options for clinical waste withln Scotland, mainly based on autoclaving. In respect of treatment options for the wastes which require incineration type treatment (i.e. the high Infectious wastes) at present there are no facilities in Scotland and transports this portion of the waste stream (under the PPC Permit at its existing facility) is transported for incineration in England,

2.4 The design and scale of the proposed building allows for all required waste treatment and processing plant to be housed Internally, including for the potential future expanslon of the ATT process up to the maxlmum processing capacity of 10,000 tpa. Adequate storage of associated items is provided in allocated areas within the building and secure storage areas have been provided where necessary, The staff facilities are split between office staff and warehouse operations staff to allow an efficient working environment.

2.5 Traffic associated with the proposed development (both construction and operational) will access the site from the main B7057 Shotts Road, then follow a new dedicated internal access road into the proposed facility. The facility has been designed to accommodate 71 parking spaces for operations and office staff; and 18 loading bays

61 to accommodate the main operational vehicles (ranglng from HGVs to vans). The proposed parking and loading bays are located on the northern and eastern boundaries of the building respectively.

2.6 The facility would employ approximately 121 staff comprising operating shift staff, maintenance employees, weighbridge operators, clerical and administrative staff and plant maintenance staff. Ail of the existing operational workforce (SO staff) would transfer directly from the current facility. It is anticipated that the introduction of AT plant would also create up to 31 new full time equivalent jobs. Operational hours would be 24 hours per day, seven days per week, although transport operations would be limited during the eveninghight period and on Sundays.

2.7 External safety and security lighting will be provided around the perimeter of the building. The perimeter fence will not be illuminated except at the site entrance. Further security would be provided by means of a CCTV monttorlng system and the presence of security guards if required.

3. /imlicant’e Sumortincl lnformatton

3.1 An Environmental Statement, Pre-Application Consultation Report, Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement and Supplementary Environmental Information in response to both SNH and SEPA consultation responses. The submitted Environmental Statement and Supplementary Environmental Information that accompanies this application include assessments on the following topics: planning policy; landscape and visual assessment; ecology and nature conservation; air quality; noise and vibration; hydrology and drainage design; land contamination and hydrogeology; cultural heritage and archaeology; transportation and traffic and socio economic assessment.

4.

4.1 The applicatlon site has been subject to plannlng permission for open cast coal mining covered by four planning permisslons M/4/89, Mid91 , M/4/92 and M/4/93and an application S/96/00380for continued use of a yard area for a temporary period for the purpose of importing, processing and marketing of coal products. 4.2 The application site and wider ownership boundary operated from the late 1980’s to the mid to late 1990’s as an opencast coal site and latterly as a facility to import, process, and market coal products. Following the cessation of opencast working the site was restored in a phased manner, however notwithstanding this phased restoration the area principally surrounding the yard area and directly to the south was never fully restored. The Council sought agreement with the previous operator for the submission and implementation of an agreed restoration scheme to complete restoration of the site. The operator submitted a scheme including the retention of the concrete pad (yard area), under instructlon from the previous landowner, which the Council considered unacceptable given Its failure to include the removal of this area. A restoration scheme for this area has thus far failed to be agreed, however a bond for the sum of f50,OOO Is in place for the Council to call upon and complete the restoration of the site if reqUlr8d.

5.

5.1 The site is covered by Policy ENV8 (Rural Investment Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.

5.2 The application site is zoned as NBE 38 Assessing Development in the Rural Investment Area in the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2009.

62 6. Consultationq

6.1 The following consuitees have no objection to the proposed development:- Scottish Water Historic Scotland Scottish Gas Scottish Government West Lothian Council Rathmell Archaeology

6.2 Transportation have no objections subject to conditions that the access across from the proposed application access is removed or relocated to establish a staggered junction and the provision of a right turn storage bay for vehicle manoeuvres into the site. In addition a junction visibility splay of 4,5m by 215m shoufd be achieved and maintained from the access along the 87057 in both directions. The proposed new access road should be fully paved and a drainage facility provided to prevent surface water flowing onto the public road. Any gates associated with the development should be located a minimum of 20m from the public road.

6.3 Greenspace comment that the site itself has no nature conservation designations, however, there are two European and Nationally designated sites in the neahy area. Hassockrigg and North Shotts Mosses which are both sites of Speclal Scientific Interest with North Shotts Moss also a Special Area of Conservation. Greenspace accept the findings of the EIA and wish to be further consulted regarding the landscape plan and ecological enhancements for the wider site. In addition they comment that they are happy with the mitigation proposed for air quality and pollution control and wish to see additional planting and biodiversity enhancement to improve the wider site.

6.3 Protective services have no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to the submission of a Phase I1 Site Investigation report, the steam vent flue location and operatlon, limitation of vehicle movement atarms during night time operations and the creation of noise attenuating bunding in sensitive iocatlons within the site.

6.4 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has offered no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions requiring the submission of a construction environmental management plan and an environmental management plan. SEPA however still consider that insufficient information has been submkted to demonstrate that there will be no significant effect on the adjacent North Shotts Moss SAC and / or the Hassockrigg SSSI. SEPA are satisfied however that these concerns can be assessed further at PPC consent stage. In line with this and in order to clarify the potential Impact on surrounding habitats, SEPA recommend that prior to determining the application, the Planning Authority (as competent authority), in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the Implications for the site’s conservation objectives. The proposed development will require authorisation from SEPA under PPC legislation and SEPA would be unable to grant a PPC Permit unless it had been demonstrated beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that the proposed plant would not have a significant effect on the qualifying features of any Natura sites.

6,5 Scottish Natural Heritage comment that the proposal raises natural heritage Issues of national interest due to the potential impacts of deposition of emissions from the proposal on the raised bog features of North Shotts Moss SAC and Hassockrigg and North Shotts Mosses SSSI, In terms of the original submission SNH previously objected on the basis of lack of information had indicated that an Appropriate Assessment would also be required given the likely impact on the North Shotts Moss Special Area of Conservation (SAC), The requested additional information was

63 subsequently submitted by the applicant and SNH altered its position that it did not object to the proposals provided that the Council make clear by condition or appropriately worded advisory note that the facilities process contribution to total acidic deposition over the SSSl shall not exceed 10% of the critical load. SNH also carried out an appraisal of the submitted additional infomation in the form of an Appropriate Assessment which they indicated could be adopted by the Council. This therefore forms the basis of the Council’s Appropriate Assessment of the impact on the SAC. SNH also comment that there would be benefit in including detailed monitoring of the impacts of emissions on the SAC and SSSl as part of any conditionshegal agreements for the development. In addition SNH recommend a condition on updated ecological surveys if 6 months have elapsed from the initial survey to determination of the application and the inclusion of an additional water vole survey. Furthermore SNH recommend that should works be undertaken during the bird nesting season checks for nesting birds and if necessary mitigation put in place. Felling works should be undertaken outwith the nesting season or if not possible then a suitably qualified ecologist should be employed to check for the presence of nesting birds prior to felling.

6.6 Central Scotland Forest Trust comment that the deVelOpm8nt appears to have been handled sensitively and thoroughly in terms of the landscape and ecological impact. The suggest that the applicant should consider the use of a higher proportion of Alder to replace the Beech which is not a native tree and the use of Downy Birch in place of the proposed Silver Birch. 6.7 Saisburgh Community Council has objected to the proposed development on the grounds that the proposals are contrary to the Development Plan, Scottish Planning Pollcy (SPP), National Planning Framework 2 (NPF2), The Zero Waste Plan (ZWP), Planning Advice Note 63 (PAN 63) and wider Scofflsh Government policy and advice as well as EU Directives and European Environmental Pollcy. In particular they highlight concerns regarding;

b The amount of waste proposed to be treated wlthin the facility. 0 The lack of need for the new facility and the failure of the ES to suitably justify the proposed development in terms of the development plan and wider policy context. b The impact of the development on the amenity of the surrounding residents in terms of pollution, air quality, odour and noise. The ecological impact of the proposed development on the adjacent SSSl’s and SAC as well as wildlife within the site and potential for deposition of emissions on these protected sites. The safety of the processes involved in autoclaves and AlT and the potential for adverse impact on public safety including potential for asphyxiation or explosion due to mine gases. 0 The suitability of the development in terms of the proximity principle and the minimisation of unnecessary travel. 0 Failure of the ES to suitably address the cumulative impact of the proposed development in terms of air quality and its impact on the air quality management area (AQMA) at Harthill and wider settlements. 0 The impact of traffic of and its effect in terms of emissions, damage to the public road, noise and disturbance and road safety. Concern that the pre-application consultation with the community and public exhibition was substandard given the nature of the proposed development. 0 The failure of the proposed development to comply with NPF2 In terms of its locational criteria. 0 The failure of the proposals to comply with SPP and PAN 63 in terms of accessibility to the site and reduction on the dependency of the private car and minlrnisation of traffic 0 The failure to meet the requirements of SPP in terms of the recommended 250m buffer to residential properties for such facilities.

64 7.

7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process and newspaper advertisement, 162 letters of representation have been received. The representations include one from the Depute Provost Councillor James Robettson regarding potential for emissions from the facility, and one from Councillor Charles Cefferty regarding potential adverse impacts on health, noise disturbance, impact on the general amenity of the area and transportation issues. Margaret Mtchell MSP has submitted a representation which includes concerns regarding the adverse impact on wildlife and ecology, the unsuitability of the site given Its rural deslgnation, In addition concerns regarding the impact on air quality and odours given previous complaints to SEPA regarding the existing facility, potential for contamination of the River Almond and the failure of the applicants to adequately engage with the surrounding community in terms of the pre-application consultation process, The former MSP Karen Whitefield submitted a representation Indicating reservations regarding the proposed pyrolysis facility and the potential health risks associated with the operation of the new facility. The representations received from the wider community include WO petitions with a total of 1t37 signatures objecting to the proposed clinical waste facility, The reasons for objection are outlined below:-

Planning Poiicy Emissions - air pollution and odours (13 Complaints to SEPA regarding the existing facility cited) Noise Transportation Pollution of watercourses. Wildlife, Ecology and the SSSl's and SAC Proximity of the facility to the local community. Potentiat contamination of farmland and the food chain. The storage and handling of radioactive materials. Failure to fully restore the site. Visual impact Failures of the pre-application consultation Detrimental Impact on surrounding property values

8 Plannina Asserament

8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made In accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 In terms of the Structure Plan and In particular Strategic Policy 9 (Schedule 9) the scale of development that is likely to be significant is identified as waste management developments exceeding 1Oha or general industry (class 5) exceeding 5ha outwith existing sites zoned for industry, business or distribution. The proposed application site boundary covers an area of 2.7ha with the proposed building footprint of approximately 4,500m2. The proposals are therefore not of strategic significance and do not require to be assessed against the Structure plan, The application still requires to be assessed under the terms of the adopted Southern Area Local Plan 2008. Southem Area Local Plan 2008 8.3 The site is identified as Policy ENV8 (Rural Investment Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008. Policies MIN11 (Proposals for Waste Disposal Facilitles); ENV 1 (The Environment); ENV 4 (Contaminated Land); ENV5 (Assessment of Environmental Impact); ENVS (Fiooding); ENV13 (Biodiversity); ENV14 (Nature

65 Conservation); ENV21 (Archaeology) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation implications of Development) are also relevant to the assessment of this application. 8.4 Policy ENV 8 sets out that the Council will seek to promote and protect the Countryside and will not normally permit development other than that which relates to agriculture, forestry, the generation of power from renewabte energy sources, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecommunications or other appropriate rural uses. The proposais are therefore considered contrary to policy ENV 8.

8.5 Policy MIN 11 sets out that proposals for waste disposal facilities will be assessed against the following crlteria; convenience to waste producers; the impact on visual amenity: the impact on local residents, due to noise, odours and other disturbance; the impact on traffic and highway safety; the requirement for landfilling the by products of any processing and the impact on the natural and built environment. The impact criteria are discussed in more detaii in paragraphs 8.6 to 8.12 below, however in summary, with respect to the convenience to waste producers it should be noted that the waste to be managed is of a specialist nature that is generated in relatively small quantities over a very broad area, The proposed development will by necessity serve a wider area than that covered in the local plan in order to be economically viable. Its convenience to waste producers is therefore considered acceptable in this instance. The submitted ES is considered to adequately cover the impact of the development in terms of visual amenity, noise, odours, transportation issues and other disturbance. Furthermore it should also be recognised that the proposal ig for the relocation of an existlng facility which currently operates within North Lanarkshire albeit that the new facility will include the addition process of the Advanced Thermal Treatment. Furthermore its relocation is consldered the best option for the operator given the constraints of maintaining and refurbishing the existing A Listed facility, The envlronmental impacts of the proposed development are discussed in paragraph 8.6 to 8.1 1 below and are considered acceptable. The proposed development Is therefore considered to accord with policy MIN 11,

8.6 Policy ENV 1 supports sustainable development by seeking to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment of the plan area through promoting the long term environmental interest and reducing, where possible, the damaging effects of development on this long term interest. The proposed development would create new areas of woodland, hedgerows, meadow and wetland in addition to conditions which requlre further biodiversity enhancement of the site that would provide enhancement of the existing countryside environment, improve landscape aesthetics and provide increased biodiversity and nature conservation value. In addition the development is located on previously developed land for an opencast coal site that has not completed restoration (see paragraph 4.2 above). Having consulted the Council's Greenspace section they are satisfied that the wider improvements proposed by the applicant sufficiently offset any negative impact of the construction of the proposed facility and have recommended further habitat enhancements to be included in the scheme of works proposed by the applicant on the wider site. Having consulted both SNH and Oreenspace they have no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of suitable conditions and advisory notes. On balance, the proposed development is therefore considered to accord with policy ENV 1.

8.7 Policy ENV4 (Contaminated Land) requires deVelOp8rS to Investigate the conditions of contaminated land prlor to development and to detail remedial action to be undertaken, The proposed development Is located on a former opencast coal site and consequently the land may potentially be contaminated. Chapter 10: Land Contamination and Hydrology of the ES details the existing baseline conditions at the site (a Phase I Desktop Study) and assesses the potential future risks to the proposed development from land contamination. The assessment concludes that potential risks can be mitigated through the implementation of construction management practices and the proposed engineering design principles. Having consulted the councils Protective Services section they are satisfied with the content of the ES and have no objections subject to the submission of a phase II site

66 investigate report and approval of any remediation works if required. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with policy ENV 4.

8.8 Policy ENVS (Assessment of Environmental Impact) sets criteria for assessing the environmental impact of proposed development. These include; suitability of the proposal to the character of the area in which it is set; the landscape and visual impact of the proposal; the extent of traffic generation, noise, dust, pollution and flooding risk; the loss of natural habitats and protected species; the extent to which derelict land is regenerated; and the need for specific measures to ensure satisfactory restoration of the site. Having assessed the proposals and the submitted Environmental Statement and in view of the consultation responses detailed above, it is considered that:-

The proposed development can be accommodated within the site although not a typical design or scale of building to be found In the rural area. The assessment of the visual effects in the Environmental Statement concludes that from Easter Hassockrigg and Brownhill Farm direct views of the proposed development may be experienced, albeit that the signiflcance of this visual impact would be no worse than moderate to minor and would therefore not be signiflcant. The proposed landscaping 'scheme incorporates an area of woodland planting to the north of the proposed development to screen the direct views, albeit that the proposed planting would take several years to become established. Views from the other residential properties in the vicinity of the site towards the proposed development would be screened by the existing intervening vegetation. Given the distance to the site, the intervening topography (including the exlsting colliery bing) and vegetation, the landscape and visual assessment concludes that proposed development is unlikely to be visible from the nearest settlements of Shotts, Eastfield and Salsburgh and any views that may be experienced would not be signiflcant. The visual impact of the proposed development on the 87057 Shotts Road, the 8717 West Benhar Road, the 67076 and other local roads in the vicinity of the site are also assessed in the landscape and visual assessment. It concludes that although potential views may be experienced from the 87057 and the 8717, these views would be intermittent and of short duration only and will therefore not be significant. b The extent of traffic generation is considered in more detail in paragraph 8.12 below, however having consulted Transportation R Is considered that the proposed development can be accommodated at this locatlon without detriment to the wider area. Having consulted both SEPA and Pollution Control it is noted that the ES and supplementary information has satisfactorily addressed the noise and dust and pollution issues affecting the site. In terms of flood risk SEPA have offered no objections to the proposed development and dralnage matters are covered by recommended conditions. in terms of the loss of natural habitats and protected species these issues are considered tn more detail in paragraph 8.10 below. The impact of the proposed development and the proposed mitigation measures outlined in the ES and additional supporting documents in conjunction with the proposed habitat enhancement are considered to adequately address these issues.

Therefore having considered the above criteria it is considered that the proposed development accords wlth policy ENV 5.

8.9 Policy ENVQ (Flooding) indicates that where development is proposed in areas with a history of, or potential for flooding, the Council will require a statement from the applicant showing measures to ameliorate the potential effects of flooding at the site or elsewhere as a result of the development, The submitted Environmental Statement has adequately covered all drainage and flooding matters and concludes that the she is not recognised as having a history of flooding or as being at risk of flooding. The

67 proposed development is designed to manage surface water runoff , thereby reducing the potential for flooding elsewhere. Having consulted SEPA they have offered no objections to the proposed development. The application is therefore considered to accord with policy ENVQ.

8.10 Policy ENV13 seeks to maintain and enhance the nature resources of the plan area by the protection of habitats, species and natural features which are vulnerable and/or specifically protected, and by a requirement to take account of the needs Of wildlife where new development is proposed. Greenspace and SNH have indicated no objections to the proposed development. Having assessed the proposals and the submitted ES it is considered that the proposed development will have no significant impact on any species located on or adjacent to the site and conditions are recommended to further minimise the effects of the development on indigenous species at the site. In addition it is also considered that the wider landscape, biodiversity and habitat improvements proposed by the applicant will help to offset any negative effect that the construction and operation of the facility will have on the wider site. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with policy ENV13,

8.11 Policy ENV21 indicates that the Council will not normally allow development which would have an adverse impact on archaeological sites and industrial archaeological resources and their setting. The Council’s archaeological advisors had no objections to the proposed development as the site has only a low potential for the presence of archaeological remains. The application therefore accords with policy ENV2l . 8.12 Policy TR13 requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria including: the level of traffic generated; the impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety; and provistons made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. The ES concludes that the level of trafflc generated from the new facility would resuit in a reduction of traffic flows along the adjacent highway network in comparison to the existing traffic flows. In terms of the level of trafflc generated; road traffic circulation and road safety the ES concludes that the proposed development is acceptable and will not In any significant detrimental effect. The proposed development Incorporates sufficient provision for access; parking and vehicle manoeuvring and Transportation have no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions regarding the proposed access. The proposals are therefore consldered to be in accordance wlth policy TR13. 8.13 In terms of the wider policies of the SALP including MIN 11, ENV 1, 4, 5, 9, 13, and 21 and TR 13 it is concluded that the application is acceptable in terms of waste policy, environmental impact and other consideratlons such as transportatlon and flooding. It is acknowledged, however, that due to the location of the site within the Rural Investment Area that the application is technically contrary to the primary policy zoning. The planning system does however allow for other material considerations to be taken into account.

8.14 The principal other material conslderatlons relevant in determining a planning view of the proposed development are discussed below. The material considerations include the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire local Pian, national planning policy and advice and guidance, namely the National Planning Framework 2 (NPFP), The Zero Waste Plan (ZWP), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and advice set out in Planning Advice Notes 63 (PAN 63). Finalised Draft North La narkshire Locai Plan

8.15 Policy NBE 3: Assessing Development in the Green Belt and Rural Investment Area provides that the Council will protect the character and promote development in the Rural Investment Area through restricting development to acceptable types and operating assessment criteria. The relevant acceptable types of development in the

68 Rural Investment Area include business, industry or tourism up to 1,000m2 gross floorspace demonstrating economic benefit. In addition proposals are required to demonstrate that they minimise any adverse environmental impacts, do not pose undue infrastructure implications, have a specific locational need, be of a suitable scale and form for the location and include high quality landscape enhancement of the site. Having assessed the proposals and the submitted Environmental Statement and in view of the consultation responses detailed above, it is considered that:-

The proposed development is contrary to the criteria limiting acceptable development to business and industry up to 1,000m2 as the proposals are for a waste management facility with a footprint of 4,468m2. The proposed development does however demonstrate economic benefit in that it will secure the existing employment of the current workforce and the provision of an additional 31 jobs whilst securing these posts within the North Lanarkshire area for a significant period of time. The submitted ES as outlined in paragraph 8.8 above has demonstrated that the proposed development will not cause any significant negative environmental impacts. Having examined the ES and consulted Transportation it is considered that the proposed development does not pose any undue infrastructure implications and can be accommodated at the proposed site without detriment to the surrounding area. e In terms of locational need it is accepted that the proposed development does not meet the Council's locational criteria for waste management facilities which seeks to locate with established industrial and business areas or on sites forming part of the land supply for industry and business. The ES concludes that having examined all the alternative industrial areas allocated wlthln the development plan area none were considered suitable for the proposed development, with a key factor being the potential for adversely affecting amenity both actual and perceived. In addition given the specialist nature of the waste stream and the perception of harm associated with clinical waste, In this instance the proposed siting in the rural area was considered an appropriate alternative to an industrial zoned or brownfield location. In terms of the proximity to waste producers it is accepted that the waste to be managed is of a specialist nature that is generated in relatively small quantities over a very broad area. The access to the site is good and the site is located in close proximity to the prlmary road network and does not lie in close proximity to sensltive receptors, including residential areas. In addition the submitted ES as outlined in paragraph 8.12 above has demonstrated that the proposed development will not cause any significant negative transportation impacts. The ES confirms that the site is well screened from public view, the applicant has offered to incorporate additional screen planting to limit any existing views and a scheme of landscape and habitat enhancement for the wider area surrounding the application site.

Although exceeding the threshdd for business and industry, a case for the location can be justified and the remainder of the policy requirements are met. 8.16 The FDNLLP also requires proposed developments to be assessed against policies DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP 3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development). Having assessed the proposals and the submitted Environmental Statement and in view of the consultation responses detailed above, it is considered that:.

In terms of policy DSP 1 and DSP 2 it is considered that the amount, location and the demand for the addition of the site to the land supply has been adequately considered by the ES. The ES concludes that having examined all alternative industrial areas allocated withln the development plan area none were considered suitable for the proposed development, with a key factor being the

69 potential for adversely affecting amenity both actual and perceived in particular given the specialist nature of the waste stream and the perception of harm associated with clinical waste. a The impact of the proposed development is considered to accord with policy DSP 3 and has been assessed in paragraphs 8.4 to 8.1 6 above. Having assessed the submitted ES and in light of the consultation responses received the proposed development is considered to have no significant detrimental impacts on the site or surrounding area. Furthermore the improvement of the wider area with the new planting and habitat enhancement will only serve to further improve the site. With respect to policy DSP 4, it is considered that the design of the proposed facility and its integration within the existing land form have been suitably justified within the submitted ES, as such, it is considered that the proposals accord with policy DSP 4. 8.17 In terms of the policies of the FDNLLP and in particular NEE 3 and policies DSP 1-4 it is concluded that the application is acceptable in terms of waste policy, environmental impact and other considerations such as transportation and flooding. It is acknowledged, however, that due to the location of the site within the Rural Investment Area that the application is technically contrary given that the proposals exceed the threshold for business and industry.

8.18 The revised EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) [Directive 2008/98/EC]states that Member States must have a National Waste Management Plan or Plans. In practice, the EC recognises that the WFD can be fuifilled by Scotland's tiered system of planning whlch includes national waste documents and development plans. The Zero Waste Plan (June 2010) now supersedes some references to waste policy in the National Planning Framework 2 and Scottish Planning Pollcy. It should therefore be noted that the Zero Waste Plan and the documents listed below constitute Scotland's new National Waste Management Plan for planning purposes.

0 The National Planning Framework Scottish Planning Policy Planning Advice Note 63

Planning declsion-making should, for all new developments, not just waste facillties, recognlse the hierarchy's preference for prevention, reduction, reuse, recycling and energy recovery over waste disposal. The Area Waste Plans have been superseded by Scotland's Zero Waste Plan. Thus the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Area Waste Plan (and National Waste Plan 2003) and the relevant parts of the Glasgow end Clyde Valley Structure Plan are superseded. In due course the Blasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Plan will provide a more detailed local framework for the Zero Waste Strategy. An objective remains to improve resource efficiency, stimulate investment and maximise the economic opportunities arising from waste.

8.19 The Zero Waste Plan (ZWP) sets out the Scottish Government's vision for a zero waste society, highlighting the role of planning in delivering waste management facilities, objectives and targets. It also notes that there will be opportunities to harness heat and power generated from waste recovery processes. A zero waste society will also support sustainable economic development as new waste facilities mean new investment and job opportunities. The ZWP sets out locational criteria that should be consldered by planning authorities which are listed below:.

0 Potentlal Sites which include industrial areas: degraded, contaminated or derelict land; working and worked out quarries; sites that have the potential to maximise the potential for the re-use of waste heat through co-location with potentlal heat users; existing or redundant sites or buildlngs that can be easily adapted; existing waste management sites, or sites that were previously occupied by waste management facllities and sites accessible to railways, waterways or the trunk and principal road network junctions. 0 Link8 to Transport Infrastructure which requires the siting of installations to

70 include access to the transport network, including road, rail and waterways and the minimisation of unnecessary travel. Impact on Environment requiring proposed waste management facilities are located in sites where potential impacts on the human, built and natural environment can be minimised, Heat and Power Use requires that any sltes identified specifically for energy from waste should allow links to be made to potential users of renewable heat and energy especiafly in locations where there are premises nearby with a tong-term demand for heat. 4 Construction and Demolition Waste requires that Development Plans should identify suitable sites for the processing of all waste types, including construction and demolltion wastes including existing minerals workings or industrial sites.

The proposed development site is located on a former opencast coal site which does benefit from good links to the principal road networks. As outlined in the assessment above the submitted ES has shown that the proposed development is located on a site which minimises the impacts on the surroundlng residents and the built and natural environment. The requirement to locate in close proximity to other potential users of waste heat and energy is noted but not considered significant in this instance given that initially only 6% rising potentially to 30% of the total waste received by the plant will be dealt with through All plant. furthermore, given that the waste heat from the ATT facility will be reused for the steam autoclaves and the heating of the building itself it is considered that it is in accordance with this criteria. In terms of the location of the development it Is considered that with respect to the convenience to waste producers it should be noted that the waste to be managed is of a specialist nature that is generated in relatively small quantities over a very broad area. The proposed development will by necessity serve a wider area than that covered In the local plan in order to be economically viable. In addition the ES concludes that having examined all the alternative industrial areas allocated within the development plan none were considered suitable, with a key factor being the potential for adversely affecting amenity both actual and perceived. In this instance the proposed siting in the rural area was considered an appropriate alternative to an industrial zoned or brownfield location. Having due consideration of the ZWP it is therefore considered that the proposed development is generally acceptable and complies with the aims and intentions of this plan.

8.20 The National planning Framework 2 (NPF2) sets out a framework for strategic development priorities in Scotland to 2030 to support sustainable economic growth. It recognises the importance of waste management Infrastructure, the move away from landfill, and the potential of waste as a resource as weli as highlighting the importance of planning in allowing these targets and aspirations to be met. In addition NPF 2 details more specific matters such as siting, proximity to waste source, transport networks and minimising the movement of waste. The proposed development is therefore considered to broadly accord with the objectives of NPF2 and on balance is considered acceptable in terms of the guidance within this document.

8.21 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) seeks to encourage a move away from landfili toward other forms of waste management infrastructure. The SPP identifies the Important role of planning in realising this strategic policy in meeting the targets set, It recognises the importance of the Zero Waste Plan which this application broadly accords with, The SPP encourages appropriate sites to be identified for waste management faclllties and a pollcy framework which facilitates the development of these facilities. While both the adopted and emerging local plan do not specifically zone sites for waste facilities a policy framework is provided as discussed in paragraphs 8.5 and 8.15 above. Furthermore the SPP highlights the potential suitability of former minerals workings in addition to industrial zoned sites, noting other requirements including accessibility, the need for buffer zones and sensitivity of surrounding uses, whilst also acknowledging the regulatory role of SEPA.

71 In assessing the proposed development in terms of the above it is considered that a needs case has been demonstrated, the application broadly complies with the aims of the ZWP, and whilst not in an industrial area is located on a former opencast site. The appropriateness of the locatlon has been considered above and has been accepted in this instance given the specialist nature of the waste and the perception of harm. In terms of buffer zones and SEPA guidance the facility exceeds the minimum distance of 1OOm from the nearest residential property. In terms of the relationship with the energy grid and users, no such linkages are proposed. However it is noted that in this instance that the waste heat from the ATT facility will be reused in the industrial processes and the heating of the building itself. In terms of minimising impacts on, transportation, the environment and local communities it is considered that these issues have been addressed in the assessment above and found to be acceptable. The proposed development is therefore considered to take substantial support from the provisions of the SPP in relation to waste management.

8.22 PAN 63 Waste Management Planning complements SPP and provides locational advice for waste management developments. In generai, the most appropriate locations will be those with the least adverse impacts on the local population and the environment, although other potential locations for facilities may include; degraded, contaminated or derelict land and other sites with good transportation Ilnks, Planning authoriiies should consider sensitive siting and design to allay public concerns about health while operators should provide evidence that consideration has been given to siting. Sensitive issues, including; amenity; visual impact; operational impacts; access; heritage interests; siting and design; ecology and infrastructure. It is considered that the issues highlighted have been adequately addressed in the submitted ES and are covered in the assessment of the proposals in paragraphs 8.4 to 8.16 above. For these reasons it Is considered that the proposed development is supported by the advice contained within this document. In respect to policy compliance it is considered that in this instance there are overriding material considerations which justify the departure from the rural investment zoning of the site.

8.23 It is considered that the proposals would accord with the main aims and principles of the above noted national policy and guidance on waste management development. SEPA are content that the supporting information provided by the developer adequately demonstrates need for the facility. The energy from waste facility will also help divert waste from landfill and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfill. In addition the proposed facility would also create a new source of energy therefore reducing its own energy demands to operate the plant. Given these factors the proposals are considered to be in line with the requirements of Scottlsh Planning Policy and PAN 63.

Consultations:

8.24 The objections raised by Salsburgh Community Council are considered to have been addressed in paragraphs 8.3 to 8.23 above. In terms of the comments from SEPA that an Appropriate Assessment is required to be underteken by the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH it should be noted that the SNH response dated 1Oth August and the appraisal carried therein by SNH forms the basis of the Council's Appropriate Assessment and are considered acceptable, The remaining consultation responses received offer no objections and all issues raised can be addressed by suitable planning conditions, submission of further details and the inclusion of appropriateiy worded advisory notes. Remesentations: 8.25 In terms of points of objection, I would comment as follows:- 1. The concern regarding emissions from the facility and the potential for an adverse impact on the health of residents in the surrounding communities is noted. SEPA and Protective Services had no objections to the proposals

72 following consideration of the assessment on air quality impact information contained in the Environmental Statement. It was concluded that the proposals would not have a significant impact on air quality due to the operation of the proposed facility. Furthermore all waste would enter the site in rigid cappedlidded containers with all lids, caps and valves secured in place that are colour coded appropriate to the nature of the waste. The waste would then be treated via the autoclave and/or the ATT plant. With the adoption of standard waste handling and storage procedures, dust and odour are unlikely to be a significant problem. Odour generated from the waste prior to treatment would be minimal as all waste entering and exiting the site would be in covered containers and there would be a quick turnaround of all waste. The autoclaves are sealed units and consequently no hazardous or harmful materials would be released to the air. In terms of the AlT treatment process, the ES specifically considered the likely impact of air borne particulates from the ATT plant on sensitive receptors including local residential areas. It was concluded that there would be no significant impact on human health. 2. The potential for noise disturbance caused by the construction and operation of the facility, given that it is proposed to operate 24 hours a day is considered above, Having consulted Pollution Control they have indicated no objections to the proposed development in terms of noise subject to appropriate conditions. Furthermore chapter 8 of the ES confirms that no significant noise effects will occur to the nearest affected properties during either construction or operation of the proposed facility. 3. The concerns regarding the transportation impact that the proposed development will have on the surrounding area given the number of vehicles involved in the operation of the facility, the substandard nature of the surrounding road network, its capacity to accommodate the proposals and the detrimental impact on road safety are noted. Having consulted Transportation they have offered no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions. Furthermore the traffic impacts of the development are assessed in chapter 12 of the ES and conclude that the proposed development will result in an overall slight decrease In traffic levels than those generated at the existing facility In Shotts, Although It is anticipated that staff and management vehicular use will increase from 120 to 142 daily trips, with transport staff increasing from 68 to 100 trips, this is off-set by a decrease in the estimated HGV movements from 120 at present to 57 when the proposed facility Is fully operational. In mitigation of potential impacts, HES Ltd would introduce an operational management plan that would encourage contracted waste delivery companies to avoid routes through residential areas. 4. The concerns regarding the potential for air pollution and odours emanating from the new facility and its related processes (including pyrolysis), and any detrimental impact on amenity are not found to merit refusal of the application. SEPA and Protective Services had no objections to the proposals following consideration of the assessment on air quality impact information contained in the Environmental Statement. As all of the waste management processes would be contained within a large building that would be subject to filters and odour emissions would be adequately controlled, SEPA is satisfied that control of odours through the use of a condensing system complies with the principles of ‘best available techniques’ (BAT) and advised that adequate controls over such problems would be controlled via their PPC permit regulations, The ES concludes that the proposals would not have a significant impact on air quality due to the operation of the proposed facility. it should also be noted that the proposed location of the new facility is far more isolated than that of the existing facility and given Its proposed location, modern design and the nature of the prevailing wind at the new location it is envisaged that the issue of odours should be further mitigated. 5. The concerns regarding the potential for the facility to cause discharge of pollutants into the adjacent watercourses, in particular the river Almond, and the subsequent detrimental impact on wildlife and potential recreational users

73 of the watercourse for activities such as fishing are considered in paragraphs 6.4 and 8.9 above. Having consulted SEPA and Scottish Water they have indicated no objections to the proposed development in terms of dlscharge into the River Almond. Furthermore ali discharges and emissions from such a facility are regulated through SEPA and the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) regulations. The proposals are therefore considered acceptable and will not have a detrimental impact on wildlife or the recreational use of the watercourse. 6. The concerns regarding the detrimental impact of the proposed facllity on wlldlife and protected species currently located on the site and in addition the wider environmental impacts of the proposals, in particular the potentlal detrimental impact on the adjacent SSSl Hassockrigg Moss are considered in the assessment above. The ES has demonstrated that there would be no significant impact of natural heritage interests including protected species, Scottish Natural Heritage agreed with the conclusions of the ES and had no objection subject to conditions relating to standard protection measures for adjacent habitats and protected species. Having consulted Greenspace they have offered no objections to the proposed development subject to the imposition of suitable planning conditions and appropriately worded advisory notes. Both SNH and SEPA are satisfied that the levels of emissions from the facility will not have a detrimental impact on the adjacent SSSl or the river Almond. It should be noted that as part of the proposed development the applicant has indicated that they are willing to provide additional habitat enhancement in the land surrounding the application site which is within their ownership which is controlled by conditions. 7. The concern that the facility is located too close to the local community and that it would be better situated in a more remote location is highlighted in the assessment above. The application site was considered the most suitable for a development of this nature In terms of its size, long term commercial viability, previous use as an opencast $&e, immediate access to the primary road network, proximity to sensitive receptors and its minimal visuaVlandscape impact. The ES considered a comprehensive range of envlronmental impacts on sensitive receptors at and around the site, including the predicted impact on adjacent resldentlal areas and concluded that such impacts would not be significant. Where some minor concerns were identified, mitigation measures are proposed to enable the development to be considered acceptable. Furthermore the existing clinical waste facility at Centrelink 5 is located approximately 70m away from the nearest residential property and approximately lOOm away from the edge of the settlement of Bridgend in Shotts. The new facility would be located approximately 150m away from the nearest residential property and 1.5Km away from the nearest settlement of Eastfield. Given the requirements that such facilities are located close to major transport links it is considered that the proposed location is as isolated as could be expected given the various constraints to the siting of such a facility, 8. The concern that the proposed development is contrary to planning pdicy is addressed in paragraphs 8.4 to 8.23 above. 9. The concern regarding the potential for pollutants to contaminate farmland and subsequent contamination of the food chain as a result is noted. The control of emissions are covered by the Waste Incineration Directlve (WID) and the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) legislation and having consulted SEPA and Protective Senrices they have no objections to the proposals following consideration of the assessment on air quality impact information contained in the Environmental Statement. 10. The concerns regarding the handling and storage of radioactive materials on site are noted. The transportation, handling and disposal of such materials are licensed through SEPA under the PPC legislation. Having consulted SEPA they have no objections to the proposed development. 11. The concerns regarding the issues that the land has not been fully restored from its previous use as an open cast site and why the outstanding bond has

74 not been called on to complete the restoration of the site are accepted. The Council had been in negotiation with the previous site operator and landowner on the content of a restoration scheme to complete the restoration of the site. The Council has thus far failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion to those negotiations which have been suspended in light of the current proposals for the site. Should the committee refuse the application or the proposal not proceed the Council may elect to call on the existing bond for the site to carry out the outstandlng restoration works. 12. The concerns regardlng the visual impact of the proposal and in particular the visual impact on the owner of Brownhlll Farm glven the proximity of the proposals are considered in detail above. Chapter 5 of the ES concludes that from Easter Hassockrigg and Brownshift Farm direct views of the proposed may be experienced, albeit that the significance of this visual impact would be no worse than moderate to minor. In addition, the proposed landscaping scheme incorporates an area of woodland planting to the north of the proposed development to screen these views, albeit that the proposed planting would take several years to become established. The views experienced from the other residential properties In the viclnity of the site towards the proposed development would be screened by the exlsting intervening vegetation. Given the distance to the site, the intervening topography (including the existing colliery blng) and vegetation, the landscape and visual assessment concludes that proposed development is unlikely to be visible from the nearest settlements of Shotts, Eastfield and Salsburgh and any views that may be experienced would not be significant. The visual impact of the proposed development on the 87057 Shotts Road, the 6717 West Bernhar Road, the 87076 and other focal roads in the vicinity of the site are also assessed in the landscape and visual assessment. The ES concludes that although potential views may be experienced from the 67057 and the 8717, these views would be intermlttent and of short duration only and will therefore not be significant. 13. The concern that the applicants failed to engage with the community sumciently in the pre-application process is noted. The applicant submitted a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) Reference 10/01175/PAN under the terms of Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 to North Lanarkshire Council, Harthill and Eastfield, Saisburgh and Shotts Community CouncH's. The PAN provided a description of the proposals, location plan and details of the proposed pre-appllcatlon consultation activlty. In addltion the applicant placed a newspaper advertisement in the Wishaw press on the 3' November 2010 detailing the time and date of the public exhibition that was held in Shotts Community Centre on 17" November 2010. In addition the applicants met with Harthill and Eastfield Community Council on the 2"6 February 201 1 to further discuss the proposed development. It is therefore considered that the applicant has sufficiently engaged with the community prior to the submission of the application. 14. The detrimental impact of the proposed development on the value of the surrounding properties or any perceived loss of property value is not material to the conalderation of a planning application.

9 Conclueions 9.1 In conclusion, the proposed development is contrary to the Southern Area Local Plan 2008 and the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire local Plan as the proposed location of the facility fails to accord with the land use policy criteria for the location of such facilities. In terms of the wider policies of both these plans and the assessment of the development in terms of the impact of the proposed development. It is concluded that in terms of convenience to waste producers; the landscape and visual impact; the extent of traffic generatlon; the impact on local residents, due to noise, odours and other disturbance; the loss of natural habitats and protected species: flood risk and

75 the measures included to ensure satisfactory restoration of the site, the proposed development is acceptable and accords with the relevant policies contained within both plans. The ES has adequately demonstrated that the proposals are acceptable in terms of need and comply with the proximity principle for dealing with the identified waste stream. The proposals although failing to comply with the locational criteria outlined in local plan policy, do meet the majority of the policy criteria with respect to the impact of the proposed development.

9.2 In terms of the other material considerations it is considered that the proposed development generally accords with the main aims, principles, policy and guidance contained within the Zero Waste Plan (ZWP), the National Planning Framework 2 (NPFP), ), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and advice set out in Planning Advice Note 63 (PAN 63). In terms of the need for the facility SEPA are content that the supporting information provided by the developer adequately demonstrates the case. Furthermore the Inclusion of the Allprocess to generate energy from waste will also help divert more waste from landfill and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition the proposed facility would also create a new source of energy therefore reducing its own energy demands to operate the plant and further reduce Its carbon footprint.

9.3 The proposed re-location of the facility is also considered to demonstrate economic benefit in that It will secure the existing employment of the current workforce and the provision of an additional 31 jobs whilst securing these posts within the North Lanarkshire area for a significant period of time. In addition short term employment will also be generated by the jobs associated with the construction of the facility and the supply of building materials and services.

9.4 In assessing the proposals the application site was considered the most suitable for a development of this nature in terms of its size, long term commercial viability, previous use as an opencast site, immediate access to the primary road network, proximity to sensitive receptors and its mlnimal visuaMandscape impact. The ES considered a comprehensive range of environmental impacts on sensitive receptors at and around the site, including the predicted Impact on adjacent residential areas and concluded that such impacts would not be significant. Furthermore the existing clinical waste facility at Centrelink 5 is located approximately 70m away from the nearest residential property and approximately 100m away from the edge of the settlement of Bridgend in Shotts. The new facility would be located approximately 150m away from the nearest residential property and 1.5Km away from the nearest settlements of Eastfield and Shotts. Given the requirements that such facilities are located close to major transport links it is consldered that the proposed location Is as isolated as could be expected given the various constralnts to the siting of such a facility. The ES has adequately demonstrated that the proposals are acceptable in terms of need and comply with the proximity principle for dealing with the identified waste stream.

9.5 In terms of locational need it is accepted that the proposed development does not meet the Council's locational criteria for waste management facitities which seeks to locate with established industrial and business areas or on sites forming part of the land supply for industry and business. The ES concludes that having examined all the alternative industrial areas allocated within the development plan area none were considered suitable for the proposed development, with a key factor being the potential for adversely affecting amenity both actual and perceived. In addition given the specialist nature of the waste stream and the perception of harm associated with clinical waste, in this instance the proposed sitlng in the rural area was considered an appropriate alternative to an industrial zoned or brownfield location.

9,6 There was no objection from statutory consultees including the Scottish Government, SEPA, SNH, and Scottlsh Water. There was no objection from the respective NLC Services requested to comment on the application, The accompanying ES demonstrates that environmental impacts from the development would not be

76 significant and It is agreed that the suggested mitigation measures can be controlled through appropriate conditions and suitably worded guidance notes. 9.7 Despite the significant volume of representation received in regards to the application, the points of objection have been carefully assessed. It has been determined that the objections cannot be sustained and do not raise sufficient reason or concerns that would justify a recommendation that planning permission should be refused.

9.8 It has been concluded that although the proposals fail to accord with the terms of the development plan, there are, in this instance overriding material considerations which conclude that, on balance, the proposed development is acceptable when assessed against the other material considerations noted in the main report. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions,

77 2 Dewshill Cottages N'. Salsburgh North Lanarkshire ML 74 NX gthDecember 201 1 Mr John Fleming Head of Central Services North Lanarkshire Council Civic Centre Mo t he rweI I ML1 1AB

For the attention of Ms Susan Mitchell

Dear Ms Mitchell

Further to our telcon regarding the Planning & Transportation Committee site visit and hearing relative to Hassockrigg waste treatment facility - application no 11/00122/FUL.

The community council decided to add supplementary objections relative to the proposed development.

We would like to be represented at the hearing on Monday 1gth December 201 1 @ 1 lam to make our supplementary objections known to the Planning & Transportation Committee.

Yours sincerely

0. McAvoy

8 Sa Is burg h Co mm u n ity Cou nci I - Supplementary 0bj ect ion

Supplentary Objection to Healthcare Environmental Services - Proposed Clinical Waste Treatment Facility & Thermal Treatment Plant at Hassockrigg.

Planning Application - 11/00122/FUL Planning Application Committee Hearing - Monday 1gth December 201 1.

Salsburgh Community Council in addition to their objection dated 1gfh June 201 1 to planning application 11/00122/FUL deposit this supplementary objection for consideration by the Planning & Transportation Committee prior to the committee decision being taken on planning application 11/00122/FUL.

Within Healthcare Environmental Services [HES] Environmental Statement [ES] and their additional planning productions to support their ES and planning application, the following is stated;

[ES 2.10 & PS 3.10.11

2 10 WES Ltd moved to the Centrelink 5 site in 2001 from Bellshiil and established the currertt facil :y in 2004, The facility did not require planning permission as the buildlng atready had plar permission for Classes 4 (office), 5 (general industrial) and 6 (storageldistrrbution) Hol& the facility does operate under a Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Permit issued by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) on 31 March 2009, And,

f6 As the proposed development constitutes a Major Development. a Design and Access Statement has also been prepared to accompany this planning application explatniriy the design principles that have been applied and how issues relating to access have been dealt with

A planning committee re ort lanning assessment] compiled by North Lanarkshire Council [NLC] dated 23' EpAugust [p 201 1 on the application was tabled to the Planning & Transportation Committee, following deliberation, the Committee decided on a site visit and hearing prior to making their decision on the planning application.

The NLC Committee report noted that the application level was a major development and was contrary to the Development Plan [Southern Area Local Plan €4 Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan] and; Other material considerations were taken into account such as - National Planning Policy and advice/guidance, National Planning Framework 2, the Zero Waste Plan, Scottish Planning Policy and advice set out in PAN 63.

The report compiler in his planning assessment to committee stated;

Planning Assessment 8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 In terms of the Structure Plan and in particular Strategic Policy 9 (Schedule 9) the scale of development that is likely to be significant is identified as waste management developments exceeding 1Oha or general industry (class 5)

1 9 Salsburgh Community Council - Supplementary Objection

exceeding 5ha out with existing sites zoned for industry, business or distribution. The proposed application site boundary covers an area of 2.7ha with the proposed building footprint of approximately 4,500m2. The proposals are therefore not of strategic significance and do not require to be assessed against the Structure plan. The application still requires to be assessed under the terms of the adopted Southern Area Local Plan 2008.

HES ES states; 2 16 The proposed development will be housed wtthin a purpose built facility at the f~~rriv#r Hassockrigg opencast coal site The proposed planning application boundary covers d II?E'?IJ~I' ! of approximately 2.7 ha within the overall 13 93 ha land ownership boundary

The community council would suggest that the planning officer's assessment 18.21 in his report [23rdAugust 201 11 to the Planning committee is wrong that the Hassockrigg waste development proposals do not require to be assessed against the Glasgow & Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan.

HES Ltd - ES states; 61 Sections 25 and 37 (2) of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate athesw~se.

62 The Development Plan for the site of the proposed development comprises the approved Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Strudure Plan (2006)(hereafter after referred to as the 'Structure Plan') and the adopted North Lanarkshire Council Southern Area Local Plan (LODEi (hereafter referred to as the 'Local Plan')

Gi3 in considering the policy context of the proposed development it should be noted that mu! 4 1 the policy was written in relation to Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Conirnerctal and Inddm3' (C&I)wastes, and are not always directly applicable to Clinical Waste.

The community council accept that policy changes have occurred since adoption of the 2006 Structure Plan relative to waste whether that be commercial, industrial or clinical waste but the fact remains that Scottish Government Policy states categorically in the Zero Waste Plan and Annex, their policy applies to 'all' waste, indeed for the avoidance of doubt their reference to 'all' is written in policy documents in capital letters, bold and underlined.

HES Ltd in their ES repeat on a number of occasions throughout the ES and supporting documentation that they deal with clinical and specialist waste in various quantities, but they also realise and acknowledge that they deal with waste products.

HES Ltd in their Environmental Statement and supporting documentation devote considerable space how, according to their assessments, their development proposals at Hassockrigg comply with the requirements of the Glasgow & Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan and accord to the proposals and requirements in the Structure Plan.

There can be no doubt that HES Ltd and their retained highly qualified consultants compiled their Environmental Statement and supporting documentation with the clear knowledge and understanding that their proposed development was a new development and came under a number of different issues, relative to and contrary to, the Glasgow &

2 10 Salsburgh Community Council - Supplementary Objection

Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan [2006] as well as coming under, and contrary to, a number of other planning policy documents.

For the planning officer to suggest that the proposed development falls out with the scope of the Structure Plan [significant departure] due to its non strategic significance [size & throughput] no doubt surprised HES Ltd considering the amount of response time and effort the developers and their highly qualified consultants applied to suggesting the Hassockrigg development conforms with requirements of the Structure Plan, and should be granted planning permission by North Lanarkshire Planning Committee.

The Glasgow & Clyde Valley Structure Plan states;

In order to accord with the Structure Plan, development proposals will require to satisfy the following criteria. Any proposal which fails to meet these criteria will be regarded as a departure from the development plan and will be required to be justified against the criteria in Strategic Policy 10.

These criteria are complementary, and the fulfilment of one criterion does not over- ride the need to satisfy the others.

The Structure Plan, through Schedule 9, identifies the thresholds for the scale of development that are likely to represent a significant departure. [and continues]. The types of development identified in this Schedule do not cover all potential departures. In particular, there will be situations where smaller scale developments could raise Significant issues in their own right or in terms of the precedent set.

One accepts that various thresholds are given for scale of development and what may be of strategic significance, but the Structure Plan states clearly relative to Structure Plan departures; In particular, there will be situations where smaller scale developments could raise Significant issues in their own right or in terms of the precedent set.

The community council would suggest that there is significant issues and considerable precedent being set if this proposed development is approved by the NLC Planning Committee not only in terms of being contrary to various policies in the Structure Plan but also because it is contrary to North Lanarkshire local plans, North Lanarkshire supplementary guidance and advice, and other Scottish Government planning advice & policy.

The developer in their ES and supplementary productions state on a number of occasions; “North Lanarkshire Council is developing a range of supplementary planning guidance documents which, following public consultation and comment, will be adopted as material consideration for development management purposes...... given that much of the guidance may not survive in its current form when the guidance is adopted, it is considered that no significant weight should currently be given to this draft guidance.”

And, Salsburgh Community Council - Supplementary Objection

“We would suggest.. . .the benefits of the proposed development.... far outweigh the relatively minor deviations from the Councils waste management policies that are

somewhat questionable . . . ,I’

And for the avoidance of doubt;

Supplementary Planning Guidance

7 32 North Lanarkshire Council IS developtng a range of supplementary planning gu1daf1LC documents which following public consuitatton and comment, wrll be adopted as a mated consideration for development management purposes Relevant scrppiementary plarnW guidance available for comment includes ES-SG 10 Waste and ES-SG 08 Devetupmtnl It’ Rural Investment Area Given that much of the gutdance may not survlve *n 11s current fort?‘ when the guidance IS adopted, it is considered that no significant weight should currently !x given tu this draft gutdance One could suggest following the developer‘s line of though that; The North Lanarkshire wide Draft Local Plan may not survive in its current form when adopted and therefore no significant weight should be given to the Draft Local Plan. The developers say as much in their planning [7.17]statement; “The Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan was approved in October 2008 and sets out the policies & proposals for the next five years...... safeguarding and improving environmental asset’s and seeking to minimise environmental impact...... it is considered that limited weight should be given to the policies within the plan.”

By the same token; Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan [proposed Plan] may not survive in its current form when adopted and therefore no significant weight should be given to the Strategic Development Plan. And; Proposed policy or guidance documents from the Scottish Government, or SEPA, or SNH may not survive in their current form when adopted or authorised and therefore no significant weight should be given to them.

Then the developers ES & planning statement [7.1] suggest; “The principle material consideration relevant to the planning authority in determining a planning view of the proposed development...... also include supplementary planning guidance and the policies of emerging development plans.

One is uncertain if this is a subtle form of arm twisting or whether the developers really believe they can refer to draft plans and supplementary guidance throughout their ES in support of their application, but suggest the Planning Committee ignore such draft plans, advice & guidance, at their suggestion, in the determination of the Hassockrigg waste planning proposal.

The wording of Scottish Planning Policy is clear; Planning guides the future development and use of land, planning is about where development should happen, where it should not and how it interacts with its surroundings. The legislative framework for the planning system in Scotland has recently undergone a major change through the Planning etc [Scotland] Act 2008 and the Scottish Government believes, in the first of its core principles to underpin the modernised planning system; The system [planning] should be genuinely plan-led Salsburgh Community Council - Supplementary Objection

Scottish Planning Policy then states; The action programme is a key means of delivering the objectives of a plan, and, A key element of implementation will be the programme of supplementary guidance.

The [Structure plan] Metropolitan Development Strategy requires the continued designation and Safeguarding of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Green Belt within which there is a presumption against the spread of built up areas and the encroachmenf of development into the countryside. The Structure Plan is based on a commitment to the protection and enhancement of the environment, in line with international treaties, environmental legislation and government policy as set out in Scottish Planning Policy and Choosing our Future: Scotland’s Sustainable Development Strategy (2005).

These require that:

Development likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site will be subject to an appropriate assessment. Where an assessment is unable to conclude that a development will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, development will only be permitted where there are no alternative solutions and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

These can be of a social or economic nature except where the site has been designated for a European priority habitat or species,

Consent can only be issued in such cases where the reasons for overriding public interest relate to human health, public safety, beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or other reasons subject to the opinion of the European Commission (via Scottish Ministers).

The Guiding Principles of Sustainable Development recognise that there should be a strong presumption against such developments in the application of Strategic Policy 9B.

The Structure Plan states; Environmental Resources the quality and extent of environmental resources should be safeguarded, especially internationally and nationally designated resources;

The developers ES states on numerous occasions how they consider a requirement for specific locational need for their facility. Clearly they do not require a specific locational need as is noted in various Scottish Government policy documents relative to waste & waste transfer and the company [HES Ltd] have already been happily located for a number of years at two separate recognised industrial sites within North Lanarkshire, however;

The Structure Plan continues relative to justification for the development in terms of: (v) specific locational need. That the proposed development must meet the following criteria; (iii) Environmental Benefit (a) the protection and enhancement of environmental resources identified in Schedule 7 or local plans;

c ‘1 3 Salsburgh Community Council - Supplementary Objection

(b) the significant restoration of vacant or derelict land for environmental purposes; (c) improvement of air and water quality.

HES Ltd Hassockrigg development proposals cannot accommodate planning conditions imposed by the NLC planning committee relative to any of the specific locational need requirements at the proposed location, nor can conditions requested to be applied to the development by Scottish Natural Heritage be applied relative to the development at the proposed Hassockrigg location due to the degree of uncertainty relative to enforcement criteria, a fact currently acknowledged by SEPA.

“We note that North Lanarkshire Council (NLC) is unlikely to be able to impose our requested Condition, “The facility’s process contribution to total acidic deposition over the SSSl should not exceeds 10% of the critical load”, due to the control of emissions being regulated under a separate legislation. Perhaps an alternative would be through an appropriately worded advisory note to any planning permission granted for this proposal. We have taken this into consideration and while we wish to maintain our initial position, we have revised the wording slightly, please see below.

SNH Position Hassockrigg and North Shotts Mosses Site of Special Scientific Interest This proposal raises natural heritage issues of national interest, and we therefore object to this proposal unless it is made clear to the developer through planning condition, or appropriately worded advisory note as NLC sees fit that:

The facility’s process contribution to total acidic deposition over the SSSl should not exceed 10% of the critical load. You are reminded that if the planning authority is minded to grant planning permission against this advice, the case must be notified to Scottish Ministers.”

It seems clear that the planning authority would have difficulty in applying a planning condition [relevant to policy] that neither SEPA nor NHS could oversee with any degree of certainty given that the developers themselves have not yet supplied relevant technical information on specific plant or equipment to SEPA or anyone else, as the developers states in the ES [and other correspondence] “albeit that no final decision on the equipment supplier has yet been made”.

Of course it may well be that the developers assumed North Lanarkshire Planning Committee and SEPA and SNH would follow the developer’s assessments and justifications in the ES, but, to highlight one ES assessmenVjustification; Where it states [6.10] that the proposed development has been assessed in terms of the strategic environmental resource listed in Schedule 7 and in Table 6.1 below. Table 6.1 contains the header; Table 6.1 - Assessment of proposed wind farm on landscape designations ?

One could reasonably assume a wind farm would not deposit a great deal of harmful emissions but it is difficult to see how a wind farm assessment would apply to the waste treatment facility/development actually proposed at Hassockrigg.

The developers themselves in their Environmental Statement and other supporting information realise considerable precedent is being set in a number of areas and fields

14 Salsburgh Community Council - Supplementary Objection by their proposed development and attempt to get around the problem with comments in their Environmental Statement and supporting documentation such as,

[ES 2.121 “ It should be noted in the consideration of this proposal that it relates to the relocation of an existing clinical waste facility which currently operates within North Lanarkshire, and is not for a new facility, per se.” And; [ES 6.1061 “It should be noted in the consideration of this policy that the proposal is for the relocation of an existing facility which currently operates within North Lanarkshire, and is not for a new facility, per se.”

And for the avoidance of doubt;

3 12 For the avaidance of doubt, it is recognised that there have recentty been a number o4plapning applications for large scale waste management faalilies in Noflh Lanarkshire, including the approved Energy from Waste (EM)faciiity at Dt-umshangie and the proposed EfW at Carnbroe which is currently the subject of an appeal However, unlike these other facilities which are intended to handle large amounts of municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste, it IS important to emphasise when determining this planning applicatton that the proposed development is for the relocation of an existing facllity and IS a small scale facility that is intended to serve waste of a specialist nature (clinical waste) that IS generated In relatively small quantities.

The assertions in the developers ES, among many others suchlike statements, are bold following their other references in the ES and planning productions relating to the development as a major development contrary to various policy, only small scale, but allowing for, as the ES makes clear in a number of its statements;

“The proposed relocation to Hassockrigg of Healthcare Environmental Services Ltd head office and existing waste management operations is part of HES Ltd vision and overall strategic plans for the future of their company and to allow for expansion of the business and its future development plans.”

What then, and when, relative to the present application footprint and boundary at Hassockrigg?

The subtle arm twisting again shows its influence in the report to NLC Committee [8.5] as the report complier states; “Furthermore it should also be recognised that the proposals is for the relocation of an existing facility...... albeit the new facility will include the addition process of advanced thermal treatment. Furthermore the relocation is considered the best option for the operator...... ”

The community council is somewhat bemused by the fact the application relates to a major new development contrary to a number of policy documents, NLC policy & Local Plans {CR, 8.13. contrary to the primary policy zoning etc.] but is somehow referred to as a relocation ‘per se’ ? [by itself?] [No strategic significance as regards to waste or general industry footprint ?]

The community council also note that the present planning application to the Planning Committee is not for Advanced Thermal Treatment of 2000tpa but for the full 34000tpa that the company intend to expand towards even though concerns have been voiced by SEPA and others, and the company has not shown it is capable enough to handle and treat such throughput at 2000tpa never mind the planned for 34000tpa.

715 E Salsburgh Community Council - Supplementary Objection

It should be added; “Sites for energy from waste facilities should be sought only on land that is located within permitted or allocated waste management sites or on other suitable previously developed land including degraded, contaminated or derelict land. Subject to the nature of existing uses.

The nature of existing and nearby land use if farming.

Relative to the nature/existing use of the proposed Hassockrigg site it should be added; The proposed new location for HES Ltd is a former opencast mining site that for some reason has not been fully restored following the end of opencast mining operations as North Lanarkshire Council [NLC] has not called in the bond required in its previous planning approval to allow the land [restoration & aftercare bonds] to be returned to agricultural use, although NLC could if it so wished, assuming there is no legal reason pending, choose to call in the bond to achieve full restoration of the Greenfield former opencast site to allow agricultural use of the land in accordance to NLC previously approved planning conditions and determination.

It is also worthwhile noting that HES Ltd state in their ES that they only searched for an alternative development site within a 8km radius of their present site at Shotts, and while they highlight various reasons in attempts to comply with both Structure & North Lanarkshire Local Plans they also suggest [ES]two sites suitable for their proposed waste treatment & incineration development at distances of around 10/12km from their current Shotts location that are suitable for their purpose.

It is accepted that there is a distinction between matters which are the responsibility of the planning authority and that of SEPA as licensing authority, however; A proposed major new development for the treatment of highly contagious, high risk special and contaminated waste by controversial methods where technical information on specific plant to be installed has yet to be made available and on which statutory consultees [SEPA] can offer no opinion [Committee report {CR} dated 23rd Aug 201 1 - item 6.41 relative to technical aspects would suggest a recipe for public concern and disquiet to say the least.

Development management is the term used for the process of deciding whether to grant or refuse planning permission. The law requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise ... There are a range of considerations which might be considered material in planning terms including legitimate public concern In distinguishing between public and private interests, the basic question is whether The wider community’s interest would be unacceptably affected by the proposals, for instance through loss of amenity or loss or damage to land ...... which ought to be protected.

If SEPA would be unable to grant authorisation {CR- demonstrate beyond all reasonable scientific doubt & other correspondence} under a PPC Permit for the proposed facility at Hassockrigg, and SEPA has made this fact known to the developers, what considered opinion can the public have towards the development proposals, especially given the ambiguity in a number of comments in the developers ES and supporting publications.

r ‘16 Salsburgh Community Council - Supplementary Objection

The developers suggest that they complied with minimum community engagement prior to deposit of this application, the Committee report [23rdAug 20011 states 162 letters of representation have been received and two petitions with a total of 1137 signatures objecting to the proposed clinical waste facility have been received following the deposit of the application.

Other than the Wishaw Press no notification was given in other local newspapers and one could suggest that there are a number of persons in the general area of the proposed facility who are still unaware of the scope of the development proposals. The community council believe the minimum publickommunity consultation was inappropriate for a proposed development of this type, [The Committee Report (9.7) states, despite the significant volume of representation received in regards to the application] and one would further suggest the consultation falls far short of open, transparent consultation and public engagement relevant to the development proposals.

Salsburgh Community Council objected previously to the Hassockrigg waste development proposals and offers this supplementary objection also for consideration by the Planning Committee due to the considerable concerns voiced regarding this proposed development.

Salsburgh Community Council would also maintain their original objection to the proposed development on the following grounds previously stated;

The community council objects to the proposed development on grounds of Loss of amenity, Road safety, Noise pollution. Environmental pollution, Air pollution Visual intrusion, Impact on the environment and other issues listed within our objection as contrary to the following policies;

1. Development contrary to Scottish Planning Policy. 2. Development contrary to Scottish Planning Circulars. 3. Development contrary to Scottish Planning Advice Notes. 4. Development contrary to Scotland's Zero Waste Plan. 5. Development contrary the Glasgow & Clyde Valley Structure Plan [2008] 6. Development contrary to NLC - Southern Area Local Plan [2008] 7. Development contrary to NLC - Finalised Draft Local Plan. 8. Development contrary to NLC Supplementary Guidance. 9. Development contrary to EU Directives. 10.Development contrary to the Strategic Development Framework, North Lanarkshire. 11. Development contrary to European Environmental Policy & Habitat Protection. 12. Development contrary to the Nature Conservation [Scotland] Act 2004. 13. Development contrary to the National Planning Framework for Scotland.

...... 0 ......