THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 3 ON THE AGENDA
PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL ECONOMY, PLANNING & REGULATION
28 NOVEMBER 2013 NOT EXEMPT
DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL BED METHANE PRODUCTION, INCLUDING DRILLING, WELL SITE ESTABLISHMENT AT 14 LOCATIONS (ONLY SITES D, E AND G WITHIN STIRLING COUNCIL AREA), INTER-SITE CONNECTION SERVICES, SITE ACCESS TRACKS, A GAS DELIVERY AND WATER TREATMENT FACILITY, ANCILLARY FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED WATER OUTFALL POINT NEAR LETHAM AT LAND 230 METRES SOUTH OF POWDRAKE FARMHOUSE, POWDRAKE ROAD NEAR AIRTH, PLEAN - DART ENERGY - 12/00576/FUL
1 SUMMARY
1.1 In August 2012, Dart Energy submitted a planning application for the above proposal. This application is part of a larger proposal for which the applicants submitted a similar application to Falkirk Council at the same time.
1.2 When neither application had been determined by early summer this year, the applicants elected to appeal to Department of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) against the non-determination of the planning applications by the respective Planning Authorities.
1.3 Once the Appeal had been lodged the Reporter advised that the Councils work with the appellant to produce a joint statement explaining what technical matters could be agreed and which remain unresolved. The objective behind this requirement was to minimise the areas of disagreement between the parties such that the Appeal Inquiry sessions can concentrate on any outstanding areas of dispute.
1.4 The joint statement requires to be lodged by 29 November 2013. This report seeks to resolve:
(a) the Panel’s position on the joint statement which has been produced; and
(b) the Panel’s view on the planning application such that Officers can advise DPEA of Stirling Council’s position in the forthcoming Appeal.
2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)
The Panel agrees:
2.1 to note and adopt the findings of the joint statement (Appendix 1 - to be tabled on the day of the meeting) and to advise the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals accordingly.
2.2 that in light of the content of the joint statement, Officers attend the forthcoming Appeal articulating that Stirling Council opposes the grant of planning permission on the basis that there are outstanding matters in respect of the environmental effects on hydrological and gas emission receptors where there has been insufficient information forthcoming and on that basis, the precautionary principle applies.
2.3 to advise DPEA that there are no objections on planning policy grounds to the matters subject of the Appeal but that it is noted that licences will require to be sought by the appellants from the appropriate regulatory authorities with regards to the matters of drilling and construction of boreholes, abstraction of water and discharge of water.
3 CONSIDERATIONS
The Site
3.1 The site is located at Letham Moss, approximately 450 metres north of Stenhousemuir, in a generally flat agricultural landscape. The wider site straddles the M876 motorway, with the majority of it to the north and within the Falkirk Council Local Authority Area.
3.2 The three well sites within the Stirling Council area (G, D, E) are to the west of the application area, north west of Letham Moss. Well site G and the Gas Delivery and Water Treatment Facility will be accessed from the road passing Powside and Powdrake Farm and the road north of Powbridge will be used to access sites D and E.
The Proposal
3.3 The proposal seeks full planning permission for development for coal bed methane production. The extraction of coal bed methane in this process requires drilling, well site establishment at 3 locations in Stirling (of 14 total) discrete locations and interconnection services, site access tracks and a gas delivery and water treatment facility. The initial drilling stage will require a larger area and will have more equipment present on site. However, the production phase will have a much smaller land take, with a lot of the equipment being removed at this stage. According to the applicants, the production phase is expected to last up to 30 years. The sites will largely be unmanned. Drilling operations are anticipated to typically take approximately 90 days per horizontal borehole and 14 days per vertical production borehole. Prior to connection to the Gas Delivery and Water Treatment Facility, production well sites typically accommodate a water storage tank, a generator, water and gas pipework and valves, a 14 metre high gas vent
stack approximately 10 centimetres in diameter and a car park area. Once connected to the established Gas Delivery and Water Treatment Facility, the generators, water storage tanks and the gas vent would be removed.
3.4 The Gas Delivery and Water Treatment Facility is the largest aspect of the application within the Council area in terms of surface land take and extends to just over 4 acres. Development of the facility will consist of an office building, water treatment plant, compressors, a control room, ancillary buildings, hardstanding, bunding, car parking and various equipment including generators. It is likely that although the site will operate continuously, only a small handful of staff will use the site as a base during office hours.
3.5 The application site includes borehole trajectories under the ground at a depth of around 1kilometre and all access tracks. The boreholes themselves are indicative of the general direction of boring. The bores will compromise 6- inch holes and are shown wider on the plan than they actually will be so they show up on a map of useful scale.
Previous History
3.6 There is no previous history of relevance in the Stirling Council area.
Development Plan Policy
Policy Considerations
3.7 As the technology employed in the extraction of coal bed methane is relatively new and evolving, there is little in the way of direct policy guidance for this extraction technique in the current Development Plan. However, there are a few general principles against which such an application could be considered.
National Planning Framework (NPF)2
3.8 NPF 2 was published in 2009 and seeks to guide spatial development to 2030 promoting the Scottish Government’s central purpose of promoting sustainable economic development. It highlights there is a growing imbalance between energy supply and demand and states that coal bed methane in Central Scotland could, its estimated, account for 10% of Scotland's gas demand for the next 25 years. It is clearly seen as important fuel source and one where it recommends that Authorities should work together on to create a consistent planning policy framework.
Scottish Planning Policy
3.9 Scottish Planning Policy was published in 2010 and states in relation to on shore gas and coal extraction that the aim is to maximise the potential of Scotland's oil and gas reserves in an environmentally acceptable manner as part of a strategy for achieving safe, secure and indigenous energy supply'. In assessing such development, it advises that factors to consider include noise, pollution, natural and historic environment heritage, landscape and visual impacts and traffic impacts. Further, in advising that end products are transported by pipeline and not road, it states that conditions should be attached to the restoration of such sites. Drilling impacts on neighbouring properties are also highlighted as an issue to be considered. Each of the
items referred to in the Scottish Planning Policy are all issues that are covered in the Environmental Statement (ES) considered as part of the application.
Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan, March 2002
3.10 SD1 Key Principles of the Plan relate to the sustainable development criteria which sit above all policies throughout the Plan. It is considered that the application complies with this policy in that full account has been taken of impact on the environment through the undertaking of the Environmental Statement and as such all the criteria in the policy are tested through this robust process. The same can be said of ENV1 Nature Conservation, which seeks to ensure the protection and conservation of wildlife, wildlife habitats and other natural features.
3.11 The main relevant policy in this document is Policy ENV 10 Minerals - which provides general principles applicable to all mineral development. The following provides a narrative on each of these criteria: -
• Economically important mineral resources will be protected from permanent development. Alternatively, working of minerals in advance of development will be encouraged.
• Sites should be close in proximity to the strategic transport network and where possible to rail transport
• Cumulative impacts (including impacts on local communities) of proposals will require to be addressed
• Restoration proposals will require to be agreed in advance of operations and to be progressive. Preferred after uses for all the sites will be those incorporating ecological enhancement. Restoration bonds will require to be lodged.
• Community and/or environmental benefits will be sought if appropriate.
• The recycling of materials will be encouraged to help conserve mineral resources.
3.12 Of these criteria in this policy, several are not relevant for this particular mineral extraction process as they would be for say, coal. Starting with criteria 1, the mineral resource is being utilised and the remaining coal is not being sterilised. The site does not have the same necessity of being near a strategic transport network as there is less movement required for this resource than they would be for solid fuel. Transport connections are still important in terms of the movement of construction traffic and staff, however, this is not as important as it would be for daily movements of substantial volumes of coal.
3.13 Cumulative impacts are relevant as there are already seven well heads operated by the developer in the area in the Falkirk Council area. Each development may only require a small land take and have minimal equipment associated with it, but on a flat carse like landscape, with limited field boundaries and trees, the impacts of clustered wells on a line of vision could be quite substantial in terms of visual impact. It is noted however, that the
wells currently in operation in the Falkirk Council area have been implemented with a condition suggested by Landscape Officers to paint any palisade fencing a colour suitable to the palette of the background landscape so that the development features, blend in with the scenery as much as possible. This issue and the cumulative impacts on other factors such as ecology, hydrology, air quality, cultural heritage, traffic and access are assessed in detail in the Environmental Statement.
3.14 It is noted that cumulative impacts at the Gas delivery and water treatment facility may be fairly significant. This location already has a compound with some piping located in it, to the north. Adding to this the 4 acre site with associated hard standing, buildings and equipment and the well site G, this becomes a substantial area of development in a largely open flat, agricultural landscape.
3.15 Criteria 4 relates to the restoration of all sites on completion of the development. The planning statement suggests that these sites will be subject to a strict well bore abandonment procedure in accordance with Department of Energy and Climate Change, Coal Authority and HSE requirements at the time and the site fully restored and returned to the original use.
3.16 The fifth criteria relates to community and environmental benefits and is considered to more relevant in relation to large scale mining operations where the mineral extraction can have serious adverse environmental or long term effects on a community. It is not considered that something of this scale and type falls within the category and as such no benefits should be requested.
3.17 Recycling of materials to assist in resource management is also not required. Water is the by product of the process and this shall be treated and diverted into the River Forth so there is no material to recycle.
3.18 ENV1 Nature Conservation seeks to sustain and enhance the natural heritage through the protection of natural heritage designations, with the greatest protection afforded to those of international and national importance.
3.19 Additional policies of relevance include ENV 3 Development in the Countryside with further clarification on this policy provided in ENV7 Agricultural Land. Both seek to ensure that only uses which require a countryside location are permitted in the countryside and that no prime agricultural land should be used. They seek to ensure that function, siting and design are taken into account as are traffic generation, access, pollution and conflict with neighbouring uses. This proposed Coal Bed Methane extraction can only be carried out within the licence area granted by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and where there is suitable geology. The application is therefore seeking the most appropriate sites from their perspective within the license area.
3.20 Through ENV6 The Historic and Built Environment, the Council are seeking to ensure that resources under this heading are recognised, recorded, protected, and enhanced. This involves protection of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Gardens and Designed Landscapes etc.
3.21 Water Quality is addressed through ENV9 Water Resources Management, which ensures that development proposals do not happen on, or affect areas at risk of flood and that SUDS are sought with new development. This policy seeks to protect the ecological, landscape and flooding characteristics of the Forth Estuary. The areas of interest are not within flood risk areas. Informally the sites may be subject to the potential flood risk from nearby water courses and surface ponding after rainfall. Proposals are in place for SUDS measure which will control run off and also ensure there is no impact on water quality.
Stirling Local Plan 1999
3.22 Keynote Policy 1 seeks to ensure protection and enhancement of the environmental wealth of the area whilst Key Note Policy 2 seeks to meet social and economic needs in a manner which does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and to enjoy a high quality environment. All development must in so far as practicable, protect environmental assets, conserve resources and keep environmental impacts to a minimum. These are similar aims as those referred to in the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Local Plan and the Proposed Local Development Plan.
3.23 POL.E54 offers protection of the natural environment including landscape features. This is enhanced by POL.E55 which seeks to protect specifically identified Special Protection Area, Special Areas of Conservation, RAMSAR, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves. The nearest of these is the Firth of Forth RAMSAR, Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Area which is located around 2.5 miles away to the north east.
3.24 POL.E7 relates to development in the countryside and states that only development with a proven need for a countryside location will be considered and that these will require further assessment in relation to traffic generation and access, services, pollution and neighbouring amenity. The proposal can only be located within the area of the licence granted and where the geology is appropriate. The need having been established, it is only the impacts that have to be considered through the Environmental Statement.
3.25 POL.E1 Agriculture ensures that there is a presumption against loss of prime agricultural land and development which threatens the viability of existing agricultural concerns. It specifically states that in the case of mineral working, on completion of extraction, the site is restored to agricultural use. The sites are located within an area which is not prime agricultural land and the sites are small enough so as not to affect the viability of the existing farms that the land is taken from.
Proposed Stirling Local Development Plan (October 2012)
3.26 The Proposed Plan has only recently been approved by the Council and although it does not yet constitute the Development Plan, it is a material consideration whose “weight” will increase as time passes in the process.
3.27 Again, this Plan does not have a specific coal bed methane policy but does make reference to this resource within Primary Policy 11: Minerals and Other Extractive Industries. The policy has four parts, one of which specifically states that applications for the extraction of unconventional gas of which coal bed methane is a type, shall be considered using the other three parts of the policy.
3.28 Therefore, it must be considered as to whether the application meets with the criteria in sections a, b and c. In terms of (a) this policy does not sterilise, degrade or otherwise make unavailable important mineral deposits or reserves. (b) relates to coal extraction and is not relevant. (c) relates to any extraction proposals and seeks to ensure that a full assessment of the likely effects of development are made and that full proposals for restoration, appropriate control, mitigation, operation and are in place. This is taken to include traffic management, environmental issues, cultural heritage, ecology etc. This application has been submitted with a full Environmental Statement which deals with the full environmental implications of the application and appropriate mitigation.
3.29 The Overarching Policy which provides the planning context for all the policies, sets out how development should be design led, take cognisance of climate change, safeguard historic and natural environment, safeguard and manage natural resources, adhere to the Green Network principles whilst also considering key sustainable development criteria. It is considered again that all these issues relate to subject areas covered in the Environmental Statement.
Assessment
3.30 Following examination of consultation and Community Council responses, Falkirk Council decided to commission an independent peer review of their application to cover the following issues:-
• The possibility of works causing geological instability • the possibility of the process drawing water from more than the coal seam; • the possibility of the process causing dewatering of local aquifers; • the possibility of the process encouraging methane migration and promoting fugitive emissions through the vertical bores and through potential cracks in the geology following dewatering; • the preclusion of hydraulic fracturing potentially being applied to the proposed operations; and • any other matters arising following assessment of the above investigation.
3.31 It is these matters which have been the subject of substantive discussion both before, and after the appeals against non-determination of the planning applications were lodged. The consultants employed by Falkirk Council, AMEC, initially wrote to the applicants on 20 May 2013 with their initial technical review of the geology and hydrogeology assessments submitted with the planning applications. The Appeals were however lodged on 5 June 2013. These are referred to in greater detail further on in this report. In the interim, Officers had carried out a review of the other elements of the Environmental Statement outwith the terms of reference of Falkirk Council’s independent peer review. These are outlined below.
The Environmental Statement
Landscape and Visual Impacts
3.32 An assessment has been undertaken of both the landscape impact and the visual impact of the proposal, separate entities, which are intrinsically linked. It was noted as the area is sparsely populated and the proposed development features were generally sporadic, when tall are considered to be fairly narrow, and fitted within the natural features of the landscape, there was only moderate impact although the impact was not considered significant.
3.33 The magnitude of the impact is considered to be lower through mitigation of design so that the key elements are situated in areas which are geologically appropriate and where the landscape can accommodate it. Further mitigation measures extend to painting fencing to blend with background colours and at the Gas Distribution and Water Treatment Facility appropriate design and siting of buildings. This is reinforced by the planting of trees around but within the perimeter of the site. This will assist with screening the permanent buildings being constructed there and reduce the impact, which is at its highest on the properties at Powside Cattery. It is considered that no further mitigation is necessary as the impact is low.
3.34 In light of the assessment, it would appear that landscaping and visual impacts have been fully considered and that the policy criteria requiring this can be met in full.
Ecology
3.35 The assessment on the ecology of the area looked at European Protected Species, UK Protected Species, SSSI, SPA, RAMSAR, SINC and Local Wildlife Sites. A full assessment was carried out using baseline environmental data, field and habitat surveys and then considering possible effects. A matrix was produced which suggested that for the all measured species, habitats and sites that the majority of the impacts prior to mitigation were low or neutral. It highlighted that even those that were considered high, as well as all the others, could be reduced to low/neutral magnitude of minor/negligible significance by undertaking certain mitigation measures including following SEPA regulations, working outwith the over wintering period, ensuring a suitable stand off from the river banks, avoiding working in periods of heavy rainfall and allowing formal demarcation of working areas.
3.36 It is therefore considered that the policy criteria in relation to ecology have been fully considered and that the policy criteria requiring this can be met in full.
Noise
3.37 An assessment has been carried out on the potential noise from both the drilling sites and the Gas Distribution and Water Treatment Facility. Environmental Health suggests conditions to deal with the matter of noise including scope for a noise mitigation scheme should one be required. There are however no objections on noise grounds to the proposal.
Air Quality
3.38 An assessment has been carried out to review the potential impact on air quality. Air quality could be affected during the site preparation/construction/restoration phases as well as during operation.
3.39 Planning Advice Note (PAN) 51 and Policy Guidance Paper PG(S) 09, outline the relationship between the Planning system and the Pollution Prevention and Control (POLLUTION PREVENTION CONTROL) regime. Correspondence with SEPA indicates that the gas treatment aspects of the application will be controlled by SEPA under a POLLUTION PREVENTION CONTROL permit and that it will take a minimum of four months to process. The extent of the controls imposed by SEPA under a POLLUTION PREVENTION CONTROL permit is not yet known both in terms of the processes undertaken or their geographical extent within the planning application boundary. Para 10.8 of PG(S) 09 states that Planning authorities should, however, avoid unnecessary conditions or agreements that duplicate the effects of other controls. Also, conditions that conflict with other controls would be ultra vires (beyond the Authority's powers) because they are unreasonable.
3.40 There is a statutory duty on SEPA to have regard to Air Quality objectives in carrying out its pollution control functions, and it is therefore expected that SEPA will consider existing and future drilling operations, if located on the same site, as directly associated activities. This would mean the POLLUTION PREVENTION CONTROL permit will require the operator to monitor emissions to air from both point sources and fugitive emissions within the permit boundary. It is however recognised that controls may require to be exercised through the Planning system, and consequently compliance with the conditions recommended below may become relevant once the outcome of the POLLUTION PREVENTION CONTROL Permit process is complete.
3.41 The applicant should be required to undertake a survey and submit a report which satisfies the Planning Authority that the Local Air Quality Management Objectives for the pollutants specified in the relevant Air Quality Regulations, made under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, shall not be exceeded at any location at or in the vicinity of the development where relevant exposure is liable to occur. The survey and report shall use a method based on the principles set out in the Scottish Government publication Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(09) or a method that has been agreed with the Planning Authority. This condition only applies to any elements of the process which are not regulated by SEPA under a POLLUTION PREVENTION CONTROL Permit.
Cultural heritage
3.42 The Environmental Statement looked at the likely significant effects of proposed development on cultural heritage resources which include, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Gardens and Designed landscapes and also the historic landscape and setting of the resources which inform interpretation and understanding of the resource. Having undertaken a review of all the resources and their importance as well as their proximity to the well sites and the GDWTF, it has been concluded that there will be a neutral effect on all the identified resources and receptors in the vicinity with one exception. Site G within the Stirling Council area is noted
to previously have sited the Powmill Burn although there is no evidence above ground of this feature now. Mitigation for below ground archaeology is suggested as the site will be subject to topsoil stripping and a suitably qualified archaeologist should monitor this progress to record any uncovered remains.
3.43 In light of this, it would appear that the cultural heritage asset impacts have been fully assessed and that the various policy criteria seeking to ensure minimal impact and appropriate mitigation can be met.
Traffic and access
3.44 An assessment has been carried out to review the impact of additional traffic generation on the road network and public outdoor access and core paths.
3.45 Looking at traffic generation the “rules of thumb' are that highway links where traffic generation is increased by 30% or where HGV use is increased by 30% cause negative impacts or where sensitive areas see traffic increase by 20%. The applicant has undertaken a thorough review of vehicular movements through their Traffic Management Plan and can confirm that during peak construction activity the biggest rise in vehicle trips is 20% on one particular route. Therefore, the increase in movement at this peak time does represent a significant environmental effect. Any effect will be substantially reduced once construction phases are complete and only maintenance operations are underway.
3.46 Regarding public access, no site physically encroaches on a core path however a number of access points do utilise them and there will therefore be more sharing of routes during the initial construction phase and beyond. It is considered that the impact will be high to medium in the short term however, with the introduction of the service corridor, the need to have high numbers of vehicles using the route will be reduced and this mitigation measure reduces the possible impact significantly.
3.47 In addition, the Roads Authority do not object to the proposal subject to conditions requiring a Road Traffic Management Plan detailing how traffic associated with the sites will be managed and a road condition survey to be undertaken such that the agreed access routes can be physically measured prior to the commencement of construction of any works.
3.48 In light of this, it would appear that the traffic and access impacts of the application have been fully assessed and that the various policy criteria seeking to ensure minimal impact and appropriate mitigation can be met.
3.49 Effectively, review of the above leads to the conclusion that it is difficult to sustain a case that the proposal as such is contrary to policies contained within the Development Plan. In addition the consultation responses from Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage are such that those agencies only offer objections should their proposed mitigation conditions not be adopted by the Planning Authorities. That therefore leaves the peer review of matters highlighted by AMEC outlined at 3.30 above.
3.50 In light of the direction given by the Reporter appointed to determine the appeal, there has been a significant amount of correspondence between AMEC and the appellants. This has culminated in the consultants issuing a series of technical notes in light of continual evaluation and sharing of information by the appellants. The most recent technical note from AMEC is attached as Appendix 2 to this report. In summary, the position expressed by AMEC in this technical note is as follows.
3.51 Issue 1: The possibility of the works causing geological instability. This issue is considered to have been resolved.
3.52 Issue 2: The possibility of the process drawing water from more than the coal seams. AMEC is currently not in receipt of sufficient information to resolve this issue, but anticipate that some further progress can be made, possibly to resolution.
3.53 Issue 3: The possibility of the process causing dewatering of local aquifers: This issue is considered to have been resolved.
3.54 Issue 4: The possibility of the process encouraging methane migration and promoting fugitive emissions. AMEC is currently not in receipt of sufficient information to resolve this issue, but anticipate that some further progress can be made, possibly to resolution, subject to the response from Dart Energy.
3.55 Issue 5: The preclusion of hydraulic fracturing potentially being applied to the proposed operations: This issue is considered to have been resolved.
3.56 Issue 6: Any other matters arising following assessment of the above investigations: Only one other issue remaining to be resolved, and further progress is anticipated.
3.57 In summary AMEC consider that two key issues still require resolution, those of the possibilities of the proposed development drawing water from more than the coal seams, and also encouraging methane migration and promoting fugitive emissions. AMEC’s advice is that there is still insufficient data with which to make a completely informed assessment of the environmental effects on hydrological and gas emission receptors.
Conclusions and Recommendations
3.58 There is an array of planning policy from the current and emerging Development Plan which has been relevant in assessing this application. The criteria from these policies seeks to ensure that a range of issues are addressed and that appropriate mitigation is in place to ensure that the proposed development will not cause any adverse impacts. There is at face value little in the way of established planning policy which would warrant opposition on appeal from a policy perspective.
3.59 However, the continued absence of a conclusive agreement on the specific effects outlined above by AMEC is a cause for concern, particularly given the extensive work undertaken by AMEC. Members therefore require to appraise the findings of the AMEC report and determine whether they are prepared to adopt its findings in the absence of any additional in house technical expertise in the matter of coal bed methane extraction. To adopt these findings would mean that Stirling Council would take part in the Appeal and oppose the grant
of planning permission as insufficient information has been provided to mitigate the concerns raised.
3.60 It should be borne in mind that notwithstanding planning matters relating to the subject, various consents are required from regulatory authorities in respect of gas treatment, drilling and construction of boreholes, abstraction of water, discharge of water and air quality.
Objections
3.60 A total of 272 objections were lodged to the application when it was being considered by Stirling Council. Given that third parties are afforded their own opportunity to take part in the Appeal, it is not the purpose of this report to assess the merits of the objections. This will be undertaken by the Reporter at the Appeal.
4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS
Policy Implications
Equality Impact Assessment No Strategic Environmental Assessment No Single Outcome Agreement No Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) No Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) No Effect on Council’s green house gas emissions No Effect Strategic/Service Plan No Existing Policy or Strategy No Risk No Resource Implications Financial No People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes
Equality Impact Assessment
4.1 An Equality Impact Assessment seeks to promote equality between different groups of people (people of different races, men and women, people with a disability, etc) and differing issues such as religion/belief, age and sexual orientation. An Equality Impact Assessment demonstrates that equality has been addressed in policy-making and review. Since this proposal does not relate to a new policy or revising an existing policy, it is considered that it will have a neutral impact on equality.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
4.2 When a new plan, policy, or strategy is being submitted or an existing plan, policy or strategy is being reviewed it is a legal requirement that a Strategic Environmental Assessment is considered and undertaken if necessary. Since this proposal does not relate to any of the aforementioned, a Strategic Environmental Assessment is not necessary.
Single Outcome Agreement
4.3 The recommendation does not apply to any of the objectives of the Single Outcome Agreement.
Other Policy Implications
4.4 Not applicable.
Resource Implications
4.5 No resource implications.
Consultations
4.6 Scottish Water:
4.7 Health & Safety Executive: No comments.
4.8 Plean Community Council: No response received to date.
4.9 Polmaise Community Council: No response received to date.
4.10 Roads Development Control: No objection but request conditions requiring a Road Traffic Management Plan detailing how traffic associated with the sites will be managed and a road condition survey to determine the condition of the local access routes prior to their use for traffic associated with the development.
4.11 Service Manager (Environmental Health): SEPA may regulate part of the on-site activities to which this application relates through the POLLUTION PREVENTION CONTROL process. The following comments are provided for the parts of the proposal which would not be covered by the POLLUTION PREVENTION CONTROL permit.
Noise
(a) The proposed development i.e. well sites D, E and G and the GDWTF may result in the introduction of a noise generating development adjacent to the nearest residential properties at Powbridge Farm, Powdrake Farm and Powside which may be adversely affected.
If the following Trigger Criterion is exceeded, a scheme shall be submitted which demonstrates that the Compliance Criterion will be met. It is recommended that if a noise mitigation scheme is required, works which form part of the scheme are completed before any of the permitted development proceeds (unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority).
Maximum Target Noise Levels
Trigger Criterion (Free Field)
Scottish Government's Technical Advice Note: Assessment of Noise, Table 3.5, Significance of Effects greater than Neutral
Compliance Criterion
Scottish Government's Technical Advice Note: Assessment of Noise Table 3.5, Significance of Effects to be not greater than Neutral
(b) A further noise impact assessment should be carried out for the GDWTF once the plant design has been confirmed. The assessment shall be undertaken using appropriate methodology and in accordance with the principles described within the Scottish Government's Technical Advice Note: Assessment of Noise. Maximum Target Noise Levels. The averaging time period, T, should accurately assess the duration and/or intermittency of any new source noise.
If the Trigger Criterion is exceeded, a scheme shall be submitted which demonstrates that the Compliance Criterion will be met. It is recommended that if a noise mitigation scheme is required, works which form part of the scheme are completed before any of the permitted development proceeds (unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority).
(c) Where residential occupiers are likely to be affected by noise, construction works which are audible outwith the site boundary shall be undertaken during normal working hours, viz: - 08.00 to 18.00 hours Monday to Friday, and 09.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays. No noisy works audible outwith the site boundary are permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
(d) A noise management plan should be submitted including the provisions for monitoring, complaints and review.
Light Pollution
Lighting requires to be installed and designed to reduce sky glare and minimise any potential adverse impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.
Contaminated Land
Contaminated land condition 5 is appropriate for this development due to the identification on the post war historic maps of the South Alloa Central Railway running between site G and the Gas Delivery and Water Treatment Facility
4.12 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (East): Request that the planning condition in Section 1 be attached to any approved consent. If this is not applied, please consider this representation as an objection.
Pollution prevention and environmental management - Welcome the commitment outlined in section 7.120 of the Environmental Statement that prior to any works commencing, a Construction Environmental Management Plan will be established and will include pollution prevention measures specifically aimed at protecting the water environment.
Some of the proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Statement relate to works which may not be regulated by SEPA and as such should be covered by a planning condition. We therefore request that a condition is attached to any approval to ensure that a site specific Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is submitted prior to any works commencing. If this is not attached, please consider this representation as an objection. To assist, the following wording is suggested:
Prior to the commencement of any works, a site specific environmental management plan shall be submitted for the written approval of the planning authority in consultation with SEPA and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the said plan.
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
Flood risk
We note the flood risk assessment (FRA) which has been submitted under Appendix 7.2 of the ES. The majority of the proposed works are located outwith the 1:200 year flood outline associated with adjacent watercourses, however there are parts of the application site which do fall within this envelope. In addition, parts of the treatment outfall pipeline lie within the Coastal Flood outline associated with the Forth Estuary. We also understand that some watercourse crossings may need to be upgraded (Section 7.1.33) and that the pipeline corridor will cross several additional watercourses.
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) indicates that in undeveloped or sparsely developed areas some development may be possible where the location is essential for operational reasons such as utilities infrastructure. Paragraph 204 specifically requires that such infrastructure should be designed and constructed to remain operational during floods. It is also recognised within SPP that in such cases, measures to manage flood risk are likely to be required and the loss of flood storage capacity minimised.
While we have no objection to the proposal in terms of flood risk, we would recommend that the Planning Authority seek confirmation that during pipeline or access route construction, there will be full restoration of field drainage. Where appropriate, cut-off header drains should also be installed prior to pipeline construction.
It is recognised in the FRA that there is the potential for machinery, temporary stored materials and persons to be within flood risk areas during the construction phase and possibly during operational phases. The applicant has not undertaken a detailed assessment of the fluvial flood risk for the site but appears to have based their assessment solely on the Indicative River and Coastal Flood Map (Scotland).
The FRA indicates that construction will take place outwith high rainfall or river levels and drilling operations, staff and equipment will be evacuated if required. Section 7.136 of the ES states that the site will be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and river levels and rainfall will be monitored in order to enable an effective response. We also note that all equipment will be demountable within a short period of time. However, given the importance of the proposed works and the requirement not to expose the operations to the risk of flooding during construction or operation, the applicant may wish to consider carrying out a more robust flood risk assessment which includes an estimate of design flood flows, water levels and specific mitigation proposals (including protecting the works areas).
There is no indication that there will be a provision of a Flood Plan which sets out responsibilities for monitoring flood and severe weather warnings whilst works are being undertaken. There are also no indications as to the river level thresholds upon which action should be taken. SEPA would highlight that there are no current flood warning schemes on the Pow Burn and its tributaries or specifically for the River Forth Estuary. However, we would recommend that the applicant establish some form of Flood Response Plan and we would welcome further engagement in this regard.
Disruption to wetlands including peatlands - We welcome the inclusion of Figure 6.1.2 (Rev C) entitled “Areas of Ground Water Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems (Ground Water Dependent Terrestial Ecosystems)'. As detailed in our scoping response, Ground Water Dependent Terrestial Ecosystems, which are types of wetland, are specifically protected under the Water Framework Directive. Surrounding the Moss, there are areas of marshy grassland (SEPA typology 2a) and birch wood on peat (SEPA topology 8a). Section 6.60 of the ES states that peat is currently being extracted at Letham Moss for commercial purposes and to facilitate this extraction, the peat is extensively drained by a network of drainage ditches. It is therefore likely that these areas of wetland are primarily surface water fed. It should be ensured that the proposed service ducting and tracks do not act as conduits for surface water movement across the site. Mitigation measures to prevent this occurring should be addressed in the submitted EMP.
Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR) - The proposed drilling and construction of boreholes, abstraction of water from wells and the proposed watercourse crossings (pipe infrastructure and roads) will require authorisation from SEPA under this legislation.
It is noted that water will be discharged within the part of the application site which falls within Falkirk Council (planning application; P/12/0521/FUL). However, for your information, the discharge of treated water will also require authorisation under CAR. As we understand, during the initial project phases, treated water will be disposed of via Dart's consented discharge point on the Firth of Forth. This point is consented under CAR for up to 300m3 per day. A new CAR licence will be required to reflect the new location of the outfall to allow for continuous discharge at tidal conditions.
We are satisfied that the proposed works are, in principle, capable of consent under CAR and as such, we have no objection to this aspect of the proposal at this stage. We would strongly recommend that the applicant continue discussions with our local Operations team with regard to the proposed consenting process.
Decommissioning - The proposals for well abandonment are welcomed. Upon completion of site activities, boreholes that are no longer required should be correctly decommissioned in accordance with current guidance, good industry practice or conditions set by other organisations.
We understand that there are proposals to develop a monitoring plan in consultation with SEPA and this approach is welcomed.
Gas delivery and water treatment facility - We note the proposals for the Gas Delivery and Water Treatment Facility as detailed in chapter 3 of the ES. We would highlight to the applicant that under the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000, a permit may be required from SEPA prior to gas being treated (e.g. dewatered or odorised).
While we are satisfied that the proposed works are capable of consent in principle, we would recommend that the applicant continue to discuss this aspect of the proposal directly with SEPA.
Waste management - The applicant has stated that drill cuttings will be disposed of to landfill. It should be ensured that the cuttings (and any other waste generated at the site) are characterised and taken to an appropriately licensed or permitted facility.
4.13 The Coal Authority: The planning application site falls within the coalfield area as defined by The Coal Authority; however they do not have any specific comments to make on this proposal.
To undertake the proposed operations the applicant will need to have both of the following consents:
(i) An interest in the associated Petroleum Licence for the area - Dart Energy is the current holder of a Petroleum Licence issued by the Department of Energy and Climate Change; and
(ii) A Coal Bed Methane Access Agreement from The Coal Authority - Dart Energy also holds a blanket Access Agreement from The Coal Authority for the whole PEDL area along with specific Access Agreements for a number of the proposed drilling/production locations. It is expected that Dart Energy will apply in due course for any further specific Access Agreements that are required to undertake the proposed operations.
4.14 Scottish Natural Heritage: The proposal raises natural heritage issues of national interest and consequently Scottish Natural Heritage objects to this proposal in relation to the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SPA). However the proposal could be progressed with the mitigation outlined below.
The Firth of Forth Special Protection Area is classified for its aggregations of non-breeding birds. Pinkfooted geese, and other species of birds that are qualifying species for the Special Protection Area, feed on the agricultural land adjacent to it that will be developed as part of the proposal. These birds are susceptible to disturbance from the noise and human activity associated with the Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), the drilling of the proposed fourteen wells and laying of the interconnecting pipelines, and the construction of the gas delivery and dewatering facility that are part of this proposal.
We consider that the proposed drilling of fourteen wells and laying of the interconnecting pipelines and the Horizontal Directional Drilling of the water outfall pipeline will be short term and will be discrete, small scale activities spread across the site. Following further consideration of the feeding behaviour and known feeding locations of the over-wintering birds, in particular pink-footed geese, we have concluded that there could be some disturbance but this will not be significant and will not adversely affect the integrity of the Special Protection Area.
The construction of the gas delivery and dewatering facility is, however, a larger scale development and is likely to lead to disturbance of the qualifying species, in particular pink-footed geese. An additional appraisal, consisting of a desk study and field work, has provided more detailed information on the location and construction of the gas delivery and dewatering facility and its proximity to fields likely to be used by over-wintering geese. The additional information has shown that the area to the north and east of the gas delivery and dewatering facility is bounded by a minor road network, several farm buildings and a dual electricity pylon line making it unlikely to be used by pink- footed geese. The fields to the south the facility are more suitable for use by over-wintering geese, however they are naturally screened by a minor road and a raised dismantled railway line. The site will be surrounded by temporary screening during construction which will be replaced by permanent screening once the facility is built. This has demonstrated that the construction of the gas delivery and dewatering facility will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area. We are therefore removing our requirement for mitigation on the timing of the construction of the gas extraction and dewatering facility.
Revised mitigation
Following further consideration of the ecology of the qualifying species of the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area if the proposal is undertaken strictly in accordance with the following mitigation, then the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site:
- Water outfall pipeline to be laid by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) under the SPA mudflats and the adjacent onshore saltmarsh.
Summary
The proposal raises natural heritage issues of national interest and consequently SNH objects to this proposal in relation to the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area. However the proposal could be progressed with the mitigation outlined above.
Some foraging habitat will be permanently lost when the development has been constructed. We do not consider this loss of foraging habitat will have a significant effect on the qualifying species of the Special Protection Area.
- The outfall pipeline is to be laid by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) under the mudflats of the Special Protection Area. This is to avoid the impact on coastal processes (sediment erosion and accretion) and consequent disruption to the structure, function and supporting processes of the habitats supporting the qualifying species and the loss of habitat available to qualifying species.
Annex 2. Our appraisal of impacts on other ecological interests, including European Protected Species (EPS)
We agree with the assessment in the Environmental Statement and advise that the proposed mitigation outlined in the Environmental Statement be applied in relation to European Protected Species as detailed below.
Otter
Otter are a European Protected Species (EPS). We note that limited evidence of otter was found. We agree with the conclusion in the Environmental Statement that, subject to the mitigation outlined in the Environmental Statement, there will be no adverse impact on otter.
Bats
All species of bats are European Protected Species. We note that no specific signs of bats were found during the survey. We agree with the conclusion in the Environmental Statement that, subject to the mitigation outlined, there will be no adverse impact on bats. Should it be required, further information on applying for a licence to disturb bats can be found on our website:
Great Crested Newt
Great crested newt are a European Protected Species. We note the assessment of the effects of the proposal on Great crested newt and we agree with the conclusion in the Environmental Statement that, subject to the mitigation outlined, there will be no adverse impact on Great crested newt.
Revised Mitigation
- Water outfall pipeline to be laid by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) under the SPA mudflats and the adjacent onshore saltmarsh. This mitigation replaces that in section
4.15 The Scottish Government: Transport Scotland Response via JMP Consultants Ltd: We note that further drilling operations are also proposed at two existing and established Dart Energy sites (Airth 4&11 and 6&8) which will also be connected to the development. The area under consideration covers land in Falkirk and Stirling Council areas and as such Transport Scotland has been consulted by both Councils as separate planning applications have been lodged. While only Sites D, E G and the Gas Delivery and Water Treatment Facility fall within the Stirling Council area our assessment of trunk road impacts is based on the traffic levels from the overall development which is consistent with the submitted Environmental Statement.
Access Strategy
We note that vehicle access to Sites D and E will be primarily via the B9124. With regards to Site G and the Gas Delivery and Water Treatment Facility, vehicle access to these sites will be via the public road which runs between Moss Road and the B9124. Strategic access to the area would be provided by the Motorway network (M9, M876 and M80).
Construction and Operational Traffic Movements
With regards to traffic impact, it is noted that the most intensive phase for traffic generation will be when preparations are being made for drilling operations, which will last for around two weeks at each drilling site. During the two weeks when the site is being prepared, approximately 12 to 17 Heavy Goods Vehicles will arrive each weekday to deliver materials and equipment to each site.
Hence this will generate around 24 to 34 additional movements on the road network each weekday during this two-week period. During the drilling operations, there will be around 30 movements of vehicles to and from each site each day. This will include Heavy Goods Vehicles delivering equipment and materials whilst staff will travel to and from the site in a minibus at the start and end of their shifts. It is noted that the largest vehicles will be standard-sized articulated vehicles and no abnormal load movements are required to deliver components to the site. It is understood that during the production phase, approximately 6 vehicles per day would be required.
The Gas Delivery and Water Treatment Facility would be constructed over a period of approximately 5 months. It is noted that approximately 10-15 vehicles per day would be required to service the site during its construction, giving rise to a maximum of 30 daily movements. Construction would take plan at the same time as well as site preparation and drilling. During operation of the facility, vehicle movements would reduce, with only occasional maintenance and servicing vehicles, and staff visits. We note that approximately 6 vehicles per day would be required during operation.
We note that precise route for deliveries has not yet been determined therefore it is not known if the route will include the trunk road network. However, given the anticipated trip generation, we accept that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on the trunk road network in terms of capacity.
We also accept that the development will not have a significant environmental impact on the trunk road network and as indicated in our scoping response dated 18 June 2012, we are satisfied that there will be no significant trunk road issues with regard to Noise and Air Quality associated with additional traffic on the trunk road network and can confirm that we do not require any further information in this regard.
5 BACKGROUND PAPERS
5.1 Planning Application file 12/00576/FUL. File can be viewed online at:
http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/Results.asp?AppNumber=12/00576/FUL
6 APPENDICES
6.1 Joint Statement – Appendix 1 (to be tabled)
6.2 Technical Note from AMEC – Appendix 2
Author(s) Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail
Jay Dawson Principal Planning Officer 01786 233683
Approved by Name Designation Signature
Kevin Robertson Head of Economy, Planning and Regulation
Date 22 November, 2013 Service 12/00576/FUL Reference
APPENDIX 1
Joint Statement
To be tabled at the meeting
APPENDIX 2