Report to North Ayrshire Council FLOOD RISK

NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL

2 October 2018

Cabinet

Title: Upper Garnock Valley Flood Protection Scheme

Purpose: To update Cabinet on progress with the proposed Upper Garnock Valley Flood Protection Scheme and to seek confirmation of the Scheme.

Recommendation: That Cabinet: (1) considers the outstanding objections as detailed within Appendix 1; (2) agrees that officers should negotiate and finalise the Minutes of Agreement; (3) confirms the Scheme without modification as recommended by the reporter to the Public Hearing; and (4) notes the indicative timescale for subsequent Detailed Design and Construction stages and anticipated Scheme completion date.

1. Executive Summary

1.1 The proposed Scheme comprises the construction of a dam to form a flood water storage reservoir just north of Kilbirnie together with other local measures in Kilbirnie, Glengarnock and Dalry. These mostly comprise of flood protection walls with a focus on protecting property at risk in central Kilbirnie, adjacent to the Powgree Burn in Glengarnock and in Mill Park, Dalry.

1.2 Cabinet previously received a progress update on the development of the Upper Garnock Flood Protection Scheme on 12 December 2017 advising that Scottish Government had confirmed the Scheme on a preliminary basis and that the Council was required to hold a Public Hearing to consider the Scheme and outstanding objections and should appoint an independent Reporter.

1.3 The Public Hearing date was set for 18th April 2018 and a Reporter was appointed. All parties including this Council submitted formal Statements of Case and in some cases further responses to statements were submitted. The Public Hearing notification was published in the local press and online. All relevant documentation was published for public viewing locally and online in accordance with the guidelines.

1.4 As a result of ongoing work to remove objections the objectors confirmed on 17 April 2018 that their formal objections would be dropped in principle, subject to the subsequent conclusion of legal agreements by all parties. The Public Hearing however convened on 18 April 2018 as scheduled and the Reporter was informed of the situation. The Public Hearing was then adjourned whilst further progress was made on the legal agreements.

1.5 The Public Hearing reconvened again on 20th July 2018. However, immediately prior to the Hearing, the Dalry landowner formally withdrew his objection without conditions. Brief representations were made by those attending and the Reporter formally concluded matters and drew the Hearing to a close.

1.6 Following the Public Hearing the Reporter issued his report which recommends the Scheme as proposed with no modifications.

2. Background

2.1 At its meeting of 18 August 2015, Cabinet agreed the preferred Flood Protection Scheme for the Upper Garnock Valley and the commencement of the formal notification process.

2.2 The full flood protection scheme involves:-

• the construction of an earth embankment dam, flow control structure and culvert to form a flood storage area on the River Garnock north of Kilbirnie; • lowering of Holmhead Weir near Paddockholm Industrial Estate; • repair/strengthening/raising of existing walls and embankments on the left (eastern) bank of the River Garnock between approximately 30 metres downstream of Mill Court footbridge and approximately 100 metres upstream of Holmhead Bridge; • reconstruction of existing walls on the right (north-western) bank of the Powgree Burn extending from immediately downstream of the railway to a point to a point approximately 100 metres downstream; • construction of a flood wall along the southern edge of Beith Road between the railway underpass and entrance to Mill Park; • seepage protection along the railway embankment east of Mill Park; • the construction of a non-return device on the drainage ditch between Mill Park and the railway embankment; • construction of a flood embankment along the southern boundary of Mill Park between Tofts and the railway embankment; • works to Scottish Water manholes in the flood plains surrounding Mill Park to prevent the ingress of excessive water from the River Garnock; and • mitigation works at Dalry, including slope drainage on railway embankments in the vicinity of Mill Park and flood protection works at the DSM factory.

2.3 In accordance with the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act, 2009, notification of the preferred scheme was published with a 28 day notification period, from 28 September until 26 October 2015.

2.4 Five objections were received: 3 from local landowners, 1 from the National Farmers Union (NFU) on behalf of one landowner; and 1 from SEPA.

2.5 There is a requirement to try to resolve objections where possible before the Local Authority, or Scottish Minsters, as appropriate, confirm the final Scheme and publish a notice of the final decision.

2.6 Despite significant efforts in attempting to address and resolve all objections, it had been possible to remove only one objection. This related to an objection on a technical matter from SEPA. On being content that their concerns could be addressed in the final design process SEPA agreed to withdraw their objection.

2.7 Negotiations continued with regards to achieving a satisfactory resolution to the remaining four objections. Given the time taken to progress resolution of the objections the preferred Scheme with unresolved objections was preliminary confirmed to the Scottish Government in June 2017. Scottish Government subsequently advised of their decision not to call in the Scheme and referred the matter back to the Council to hold a Public Hearing to consider the objections to the scheme.

2.8 The Council subsequently appointed a Reporter to hold the Hearing which opened on 18th April 2018. Prior to the Hearing, objectors advised that negotiations were in progress and close to final agreement which would enable their removal. The meeting was adjourned to allow time for these legal agreements to be drawn up.

2.9 The Hearing was reconvened on 20th July 2018. At that time one landowner withdrew his objection however legal agreements had not been concluded with the two remaining landowners and therefore their objections and that of the NFU on behalf of one of them remain in place until agreements have been put in place.

2.11 As the legal agreements with the objectors have not yet been concluded Cabinet are required to consider the outstanding objections in deciding whether to confirm the Scheme.

2.12 Details of the three formal outstanding objections are provided within Appendix 1. These are: -

• Mr Duncan Campbell, Greenridge Farm, Kilbirnie. • Alexander Campbell and Partners, Langlands Farm, Kilbirnie. • The National Farmers Union acting on behalf of Mr Duncan Campbell. 2.13 Initial letters of objection were received in October 2015, objecting to the Scheme on several grounds including loss of earnings, detriment to farming operations and concerns over construction access. The three outstanding objections are related to the construction of the dam as it will be constructed on their land. Negotiations have been ongoing to agree compensation and an agricultural consultant was engaged to assess the impact of the flood protection scheme on the landowners' farms. Agreement in principle was reached but this included the possibility that some locally sourced materials may be used to construct the dam. However, it has since been determined that local sourcing would not provide sufficient quantities without major reinstatements being required, and at significant additional costs. The dam construction materials will therefore be imported to site from existing quarries.

2.14 In negotiating and considering the concerns of the three objectors, a number of measures have been taken. These are detailed below:

Measures to address objector Statement on behalf of Duncan Campbell The following measures have been taken to address the concerns outlined in the statement: • A revised access route has been agreed subject to suitable gradient. • A specialist report has been provided outlining the proposal for bringing material to site and related quantities. • An outline Traffic Management Plan has been prepared and provided to the landowner which outlines proposed traffic routes, volumes and mitigation measures. • A draft heads of terms agreement was drawn up and agreed between land agents which addresses the requirement for a full drainage plan and land reinstatement on the completion of works. Measures to address objector Statement on behalf of Alexander Campbell and Partners The following measures have been taken to address the concerns outlined in the statement: • A specialist report has been provided outlining the proposal for bringing material to site and related quantities. • An outline Traffic Management Plan has been prepared and provided to the landowner which outlines proposed traffic routes, volumes and mitigation measures. • A draft heads of terms agreement was drawn up and agreed between land agents which addresses the requirement for a full drainage plan and land reinstatement on the completion of works. Measures to address objector Statement on behalf of National farmers Union • The NFU have stated that they will remove their objection subject to legal agreement being reached with Mr Duncan Campbell. 2.15 The objectors have confirmed that whilst their objections currently remain they will be withdrawn in principle subject to the conclusion of a formal Minute of Agreement. Officers continue to negotiate and finalise the Minutes of Agreement.

2.16 After holding the required Public Hearing and considering the representations made, the Reporter has confirmed the view that the Council has commissioned appropriate studies in relation to the issues raised in the objections to clarify the appropriate course of action and inform the proposed legal agreements. The Reporter subsequently issued his report on 26th July 2018, recommending that the Scheme be confirmed without modification (copy attached at appendix 2).

2.17 Should Cabinet agree to confirm the Scheme, the local authority shall give notice of the decision to all relevant persons, including any relevant objectors. Notice must be given in local newspapers in the relevant local authority areas, and in the Edinburgh Gazette. There is a right of appeal against the Local Authority’s decision. The notice must include a statement that any person affected by the confirmed scheme may appeal the decision to the sheriff court before the expiry of the period of 6 weeks.

2.18 The Scheme becomes operative 6 weeks after the notice of formal confirmation unless an appeal is made. In the event of an appeal the sheriff may suspend the operation of the scheme or of any part of it either generally or insofar as it affects the interest of the appellant, pending determination of the appeal.

2.19 On the assumption that Cabinet will grant final confirmation of the scheme the indicative timescale for progressing the scheme is as follows: -

• October 2018 – Cabinet confirms the scheme. • November 2018 – The scheme becomes operative and Deemed Planning Permission is granted. • November 2018 – The detailed Design Stage commences. • August 2019 to November 2019 – Contractor procurement • March 2020 – Construction commences • March 2022 – Scheme completion.

3. Proposals

3.1 That Cabinet considers the outstanding objections as detailed within Appendix 1;

3.2 That Cabinet agrees officers will continue to negotiate and finalise the Minutes of Agreement.

3.3 That Cabinet confirms the Scheme without modification as recommended by the reporter to the Public Hearing.

3.4 That Cabinet notes the indicative timescale for subsequent Detailed Design and Construction stages and the anticipated scheme completion date as detailed in paragraph 2.19.

4. Implications

Financial: The Scheme was originally estimated at £15.5m. However, the scheme development has now been ongoing for some years and the estimated cost of developing the scheme to tender stage has increased as a result. It is still too early to be precise about the construction costs given that the scheme is in the preliminary design. However the current estimate for the scheme is £17.4m.

Schemes confirmed by Scottish Government are eligible for grant funding of up to 80% of eligible costs. The Council has provided its capital contribution towards the confirmed scheme.

Upon completion of the Scheme the dam will be a raised reservoir under the Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011. This will incur (yet to be determined) revenue costs for the Council going forward on an annual basis for the inspection, maintenance and licensing of the reservoir. Human Resources: A project leader has been appointed to assist in driving the project towards conclusion. Legal: The Scheme must be developed in accordance with the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. The proposed flood storage option would result in the construction of a large raised reservoir under the Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011. The reservoir is an impounding structure and therefore will require a Complex Impoundment Licence under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. In addition, Engineering Licences will be required for the construction of the storage structure and any flood walls. Any drainage works will be subject to the General Binding Rules set out in the Regulations. Equality: None

Children and Young None People:

Environmental & On the basis of the collated Environmental Impact Assessment Sustainability: (EIA) screening data, and supporting discussions, an EIA is considered unnecessary to support the proposed on-line flood dam structure, centred on the River Garnock. However, further surveys and a construction environmental management plan would be required as recommended in the EIA screening report. Key Priorities: The project aligns with the Councils corporate objectives of protecting and enhancing the environment for future generations and supporting all of our people to stay safe, healthy and active. Community Benefits: The project will provide economic and physical benefits to the community.

5. Consultation

5.1 Consultations have already taken place with the community, landowners and other statutory bodies in relation to this Scheme.

5.2 The Scheme is included within the national Flood Risk Management Plan and is part of the Local Flood Risk Management Plan, which was itself subject to public consultation.

5.3 A Public Hearing into the Scheme has been held.

CRAIG HATTON Executive Director (Place)

For further information please contact Russell McCutcheon, Head of Commercial Services on 01294 324570.

Background Papers Objections – Appendix 1 Public Hearing Report – Appendix 2 Appendix 1

Summary of formal objections to Upper Garnock Valley Flood Protection Scheme

The following extracts are from the statements of case submitted to the Reporter for his consideration in relation to the public hearing.

Extract 1. Duncan C Campbell, Greenridge Farm, Kilbirnie

We are writing to provide our clients statement of case ahead of the hearing in relation to the Upper Garnock Valley Flood Prevention Scheme and state the reasons for our client's objection. Our client is keen to support the scheme and there have been lengthy ongoing negotiations, while an agreement has been reached in principle, no formal legal agreements are yet in place.

Agreement has been reached in principle on the main items within the compensation package to include accommodation works to mitigate our client's losses, with the outstanding matters relating to access to the site, mineral rights/mineral haulage and drainage as listed below. These are required if our client is to feel comfortable that he will be fully compensated for any losses and that accommodations are in place to cause the least disruption possible to his agricultural operations.

Our client must be assured within a legal agreement that:

• Access routes at Greenridge Farm are agreed as final confirmation is still outstanding. Our client has proposed a revised solution that would see a shorter stretch of new road being created and reduce the potential liability of North Ayrshire Council in terms of damage to existing buildings. We feel this proposal would cost less to install than the current proposal.

• We were previously advised that North Ayrshire Council consultants had estimated that 90,000 - 110,000 cubic meters of mineral rights would be required for the project. Confirmation is required if this is to be taken from our clients site.

Should mineral rights not be required and materials are to be brought to site our client would need to be provided with details of amounts of materials required for the scheme, how these are to be brought to site and transported on site and plans for storage. The transporting of the suggested quantity of materials on site could have major implications for the infrastructure of the farm and for agricultural operations.

• Depending on whether materials are taken from site, a full drainage plan will be agreed and implemented to ensure the land is reinstated to agricultural condition.

I reiterate that our client is keen to support the scheme and be accommodating. Providing these points are agreed and confirmed within the legal agreements, it would be our client's intention to lift their objection to the scheme.

Extract 2. Alexander Campbell and Partners, Langlands Farm, Kilbirnie

We are writing to provide our clients statement of case ahead of the hearing in relation to the Upper Garnock Valley Flood Prevention Scheme and state the reasons for our clients objection. Our client is keen to support the scheme and there have been lengthy ongoing negotiations, while an agreement has been reached in principle, no formal legal agreements are yet in place.

Agreement has been reached in principle on the main items within the compensation package to include accommodation works to mitigate our clients losses, with the outstanding matters relating to mineral rights/mineral haulage and drainage as listed below. These are required if our client is to feel comfortable that he will be fully compensated for any losses and that accommodations are in place to cause the least disruption possible to his agricultural operations.

Our client must be assured within a legal agreement that:

• We were previously advised that North Ayrshire Council consultants had estimated that 90,000 – 110,000 cubic meters of mineral rights would be required for the project. Confirmation is required if this is to be taken from our clients site.

• Depending on whether materials are taken from site, a full drainage plan will be agreed and he land is reinstated to agricultural condition.

I reiterate that our client is keen to support the scheme and be accommodating. Providing these points are agreed and confirmed within the legal agreements, it would be our client’s intention to lift their objection to the scheme.

Extract 3. National Farmers Union on behalf of Duncan Campbell, Greenridge Farm, Kilbirnie

NFU Scotland has supported Mr Campbell since the outset and we are aware that he has been accommodating throughout the process, however some serious issues remain outstanding and must be resolved before our objection can be withdrawn.

• Access route: The proposed access route by North Ayrshire Council is not acceptable to our member. It would cause significant damage and disruption to his main silage fields which as a main drain and arterial drains across the field. The proposed route would most definitely cause damage to the drainage system, and this is often impossible to reinstate. Mr Campbell has suggested and alternative route which is preferable to him and would be a more cost- effective solution.

• We cannot accept that disruption payments will only be ongoing for a period of 20 years. Given that the flood prevention works are designed to have and extensive life span, and the increased risk of flooding events as time goes on (hence the purpose of this project), disruption payments should be ongoing and on an incremental basis for as long as the lifetime of the flood prevention structure or an appropriate one-off compensation payment offered to Mr Campbell.

• The service that Mr Campbell’s farm and his land is critical to the scheme by providing a service to the local population and their property in terms of flood storage and the value of this cannot be underestimated. Therefore, the value of this service and devaluation of the farm and associate lands must be compensated at an appropriate value and we do not believe that the values offered so far, are adequate.

We are aware of continuing negotiations, and until the issues are resolved to Mr Campbell's satisfaction, NFU Scotland are unable to lift our objections to the proposed flood prevention scheme.

Appendix 2

Planning and Environmental Appeals Division

Report to North Ayrshire Council

FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2009 UPPER GARNOCK FLOOD PROTECTION SCHEME

Report by Martin H Seddon

• Case reference: FPS-310-1 • Site Address: Land at Kilbirnie, Glengarnock and Dairy • Promoting Authority: North Ayrshire Council • Flood Protection Scheme under section 60 of the Act • Objectors: Mr Duncan Campbell, Greenridge Farm, Kilbirnie; Mr and Mrs Campbell (Alexander Campbell and Partners), Langlands Farm, Kilbirnie; Mr Hugh Gilbert, Coalheuglen Farm, Dairy and National Farmers Union, Scotland • Dates of Hearing 18 April 2018 and 20 July 2018

Date of this report and recommendation: 26 July 2018 Scottish Government Planning and Environmental Appeals Division 4 The Courtyard Callendar Business Park Callendar Road Falkirk FK1 1XR

DPEA case reference: FPS-310-1 North Ayrshire Council 26 July 2018 Councillors

Upper Garnock Flood Protection Scheme

In accordance with my letter of appointment dated 12 April 2018, I conducted a public Hearing in connection with objections to the Upper Garnock Flood Protection Scheme on 18 April 2018 and 20 July 2018 at the Garnock Community Campus, Beith Road, Glengarnock, KA14 3BF.

Those taking part in the Hearing on 18 April 2018 were as follows: Representing the Council: Melanie Barbour, Solicitor, Legal Services Jean Law, Solicitor, Legal Services

Arthur Cowley, Team Manager, Structures, Flooding &Design, Commercial Services (Roads &Transportation) Colin Bradford, Project Manager,

Patricia Rowley, Team Leader, Flooding &Structural Design, Commercial Services (Roads &Transportation)

The Hearing was adjourned and reconvened on 20 July 2018. In addition to the above officers of the Council (with the exception of Arthur Cowley who did not attend) the following persons attended: Cllr Donald L Reid, North Ayrshire Council, Ward 7; Kilbirnie and Beith Dylan Hughes, AECOM Geoff Brown, Bell Ingram LLP Caroline Campbell, Greenridge Farm, Kilbirnie Duncan Campbell, Greenridge Farm, Kilbirnie Christine Cuthbertson, NFU Scotland Ian Austin, Davidson &Robertson Hugh Gilbert, Coalheughglen, Dalry

2 Mary McConnell Gordon Keith, Kilbirnie and Glengarnock Community Council Robert Hobbs, ATTTXCIC Radio City This report sets out a summary of evidence, taking account of the written submissions by the objectors and the Council, and the discussions at the Hearing. The report then ends with my conclusions and recommendation. recommend that the Upper Garnock Flood Protection Scheme, including details set out in the supporting technical notes, be confirmed without modification.

Yours faithfully ~Vlactin .~CSedcCon

Martin H Seddon BSc DipTP MPhil MRTPI :7~'1 ~ ~~1:7

3 n

CONTENTS Page Chapters

Background 5 Flood risk and modelling 5 Progress on the scheme 6 Details of the flood protection scheme 6 Objections to the scheme 7 Progress prior to the Hearing 8 Hearing 1: 18 April 2018 8 Hearing 2: 20 July 2018 8 Assessment 9 Conclusions and Recommendation 12 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Background

1.1 The River Garnock has its source in the Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park. It flows through the towns of Kilbirnie, Glengarnock, Dalry and Kilwinning to its confluence with the River Irvine discharging into the Firth of Clyde. The main tributaries are the Rye Water and Caaf Water, which join north and south of Dalry, and the Lugton Water which joins just south of Kilwinning.

Flood risk and modelling

1.2 The catchment area is defined as a potentially vulnerable area within the Ayrshire Local Flood Risk Management Plan -Upper Garnock Catchment (Potentially Vulnerable Area 12/04). The plan outlines the threat to local infrastructure including residential property, non-residential property, community facilities, utilities and transport routes. The plan objectives set by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), and agreed with the Council, include flood protection scheme/work as a means of reducing the overall flood risk.

1.3 Flooding has been recorded in the Upper Garnock Valley since the 1890s. There have been six significant flood events since the 1990s, the most extreme being in 2008. Past flood events have caused considerable damage to property and community infrastructure within the area. Hydraulic modelling by Halcrow in 2012 indicates that there are 211 residential and 36 non-residential properties at risk of flooding during a 1 in 200-year flood event and allowing for the effects of climate change. A 1 in 200-year event may also be expressed as a 0.5% annual exceedance probability.

1.4 The modelling revealed that, based on flood levels exceeding floor levels, a total of 119 residential and 28 non-residential properties in the flood cells in Kilbirnie are at risk of flooding during a 1 in 200-year event, including climate change allowance. There are areas of significant hazard even for relatively frequent events of the order of a 25 to 50-year return period, indicating there may be a risk to life in these events.

1.5 Based on flood levels exceeding floor levels, a total of 42 residential and 4 non-residential properties in the flood cells in Glengarnock are at risk of flooding during a 1 in 200-year event including climate change allowance. There are extensive areas along the Powgree Burn where the flood hazard is significant or even extreme.

1.6 A total of 50 residential and 4non-residential properties in the flood cells in Dairy are at risk of flooding during a 200-year event, including climate change allowance. The flood depths and velocities at Mill Park would be a significant or extreme hazard even during relatively frequent events. This would pose a risk to life and potentially put the structural integrity of some of the properties at risk. Furthermore, there is a risk to the DSM plant, this being a major local employer. Progress on the scheme

1.7 In 2012 the Council appointed AECOM to develop a flood protection scheme for the Upper Garnock, based on work previously carried out by other consultants. The scheme was screened for environmental impact and the Council determined that the anticipated effects of the proposal on the environment would not be significant enough for a full Environmental Impact Assessment to be required. Notwithstanding this, ecological and environmental studies were carried out.

1.8 A range of scheme options were considered. Public exhibitions on the preferred scheme were held on 21 - 22 January 2015 in Kilbirnie and 26 — 27 January 2015 in Dalry, with presentations on the evenings of the 21 and 26 January 2015 in Kilbirnie and Dalry respectively.

1.9 On 18 August 2015, North Ayrshire Council approved the promotion of the Upper Garnock Flood Protection Scheme under the terms of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. On 23 September 2015, the scheme was formally advertised in accordance with section 60(1) and Schedule 2 of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. The application attracted five letters of representation/objection.

1.10 Objections to the scheme were presented to the Council's Committee on 27 September 2016. The committee made a preliminary decision to confirm the scheme with no modifications. This decision was then referred to Scottish Ministers to consider. On 25 September 2017, Scottish Ministers confirmed that they did not wish to "call in" the scheme and referred the matter back to North Ayrshire Council to hold a Hearing to consider the proposed scheme, as detailed in Schedule 2 of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009.

Details of the flood protection scheme

1.11 The benefits of the Flood Protection Scheme will be to reduce the risk of flooding from the River Garnock in Kilbirnie and Glengarnock, to offer more robust protection from flooding from the Powgree Burn in Burnside Street, Glengarnock and to reduce the risk of flooding from the River Garnock and Rye Water in Mill Park, Dalry. In 2015 the cost of the scheme was estimated to be in excess of £14 m. It is important to note that the scheme will not prevent flooding altogether but will lower the risk at different standards throughout the area.

1.12 An on-line storage reservoir is proposed immediately upstream of Kilbirnie on the River Garnock in a location chosen to maximise the available water storage volume at times of flood. The proposed scheme will protect the residents of Ki~birnie and Glengarnock to a minimum 1 in 100-year standard of protection from flood risk from the River Garnock. This removes 76 residential properties and 23 non- residential properties from the flood risk area up to this magnitude of event. The upstream storage proposal will also attenuate flows in excess of the 1 in 100-year design standard and a further 58 Kilbirnie properties will benefit from an enhanced standard of protection beyond this level. 1.13 Flood walling will be provided to protect properties in Burnside Street, Glengarnock, at risk of flooding from the Powgree Burn. As a result, 8 residential and 5non-residential properties will benefit from the Powgree Burn measures. the River 1.14 The works at Dalry will increase the standard of protection from at Mill Park Garnock and Rye Water for residents and the 49 residential properties from a 1 in 5-year standard up to a 1 in 50-year standard.

1.15 The full flood protection scheme involves: - and • the construction of an earth embankment dam, flow control structure culvert to form a flood storage area on the River Garnock north of Kilbirnie; • lowering of Holmhead Weir near Paddockholm Industrial Estate; the left • repair /strengthening /raising of existing walls and embankments on (eastern) bank of the River Garnock between approximately 30 metres downstream of Mill Court footbridge and approximately 100 metres upstream of Holmhead Bridge; of the • reconstruction of existing walls on the right (north-western) bank to a Powgree Burn extending from immediately downstream of the railway point approximately 100 metres downstream; between • construction of a flood wall along the southern edge of Beith Road the railway underpass and the entrance to Mill Park; • seepage protection along the railway embankment east of Mill Park; Mill • the construction of anon-return device on the drainage ditch between Park and the railway embankment; Mill Park • construction of a flood embankment along the southern boundary of between Tofts and the railway embankment; Park to • works to Scottish Water manholes in the flood plains surrounding Mill prevent the ingress of excessive water from the River Garnock, and • mitigation works at Dalry, including slope drainage on railway embankments in the vicinity of Mill Park and flood protection works at the DSM factory.

Objections to the scheme

1.16 Initially five formal objections were received, however, SEPA subsequently withdrew their objection leaving the following four outstanding: -

• Mr Duncan Campbell, Greenridge Farm, Kilbirnie. Mr Campbell's farm occupies approximately half of the storage reservoir site. farm • Mr and Mrs Campbell, Langlands Farm, Kilbirnie. Mr and Mrs Campbell's also occupies approximately half of the reservoir storage site. on • The National Farmers Union (NFU). The NFU lodged a formal objection behalf of Mr Duncan Campbell. the flood • Mr Hugh Gilbert, Coalheughglen Farm, Dalry. Mr Gilbert's land forms plain adjacent to the proposed Mill Park works. Progress prior to the Hearing

1.17 Prior to the Hearing in April 2018 the Council's representatives carried out extensive negotiations with the above parties and their agents. Compensation greements a were nearing completion with all three landowners in accordance with S ection 82(2) of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. The owners of Langlands Farm and Greenridge Farm indicated in their Hearing statements that they were keen to support the flood protection scheme, providing that the detailed points they had raised would be agreed and confirmed within legal agreements. Substantive points regarding the scheme were raised by Mr Gilbert. Hearing 1: 18 April 2018

1.18 Late documentation including a Traffic Management Plan for Kilbirnie and a technical note on the Re-use of Site-Won Material had been circulated to the parties and myself on 13 April 2018. All third parties had confirmed just prior to the Hearing that they would not be attending because negotiations were in progress. None of the objectors, their agents or members of the public attended the Hearing.

1.19 The Council advised at the Hearing that all parties were close to final agreement on compensation levels and had indicated that the parties would withdraw their objections subject to the completion of legal agreements. On that basis, the Council requested that the Hearing be adjourned, and a date set for re- opening the Hearing should matters not be resolved and thereby allowing the parties to be heard if necessary.

1.20 At the Hearing I confirmed that I had carried out unaccompanied site visits on 17 April 2018 from public land, including the proposed site of the storage reservoir north of Kilbirnie and the area around Mill Park, Dalry. Mr Bradford answered my questions regarding the Traffic Management Plan and proposed source and transportation of materials for reservoir construction. Mr Bradford, Mr Cowley and Mrs Rowley provided clarification for the proposals at Dalry in the vicinity of Mill Park and in response to matters raised by Mr Gilbert in his representations. Following clarification of these matters I adjourned the Hearing until 25 May 2018 and subsequently to 20 July 2018.

Hearing 2: 20 July 2018

1.21 At the start of the Hearing the Council passed a letter to me from Mr James Russell of James Patrick &Muir, dated 20 July 2018. This confirmed that he had been instructed to withdraw the objection to the scheme lodged on behalf of Mr Hugh Gilbert by email dated 23 October 2018 and set out in the Hearing Statement dated 21 February 2018. No further matters were raised on Mr Gilbert's behalf.

1.22 Mr Ian Austin of Davidson &Robertson explained that he was acting on behalf of Mr Duncan Campbell and Mr and Mrs Campbell. Sadly, he advised that Mr Alastair Campbell had passed away. Correspondence was now with Mrs Margaret Campbell. He said that legal agreements were nearing completion and that he saw no need to go into matters raised on behalf of his clients in previous correspondence

0 with the Council. He described the situation as `chicken and egg'. Although all final details of the scheme were not available factors had been built into the draft minute of agreement to provide appropriate mitigation for certain elements if necessary. No additional submission was made by NFU Scotland at the Hearing.

1.23 The agreement would be based upon the AECOM scheme, although Mr Austin considered that any change would probably need a new scheme anyway. The Council advised that more information, in the form of technical documents, such as the Traffic Management Plan and Re-use of Site-Won Material had been issued since his clients had made their representations. Mr Austin confirmed that his clients' objections to the scheme still stood until the legal agreements with the Council had been signed.

1.24 No other matters were raised. I advised that a report would be prepared for the Council and the Hearing was closed.

Assessment

1.25 In his written submissions Mr Gilbert raised technical points concerning the scheme and its effects on land and property in the vicinity of Coalheughglen Farm in Dalry. A meeting had been held by the Council's consultants AECOM, with the land owners at Coalheughglen Farm on the 11th of February 2015. The following concerns were raised regarding the proposals:

1. Is dredging and / or increasing conveyance at the bridges a possible solution to the flooding problems? 2. Can existing features (walls and embankments) be used as part of a flood scheme? 3. Can the footprint of the railway mitigation works be kept within the boundary of Network Rail land? 4. Why is protection to the railway provided to such a high level when the field has never flooded up to that height? 5. How will the culvert and existing drainage be accommodated by the scheme? 6. How will construction impacts be dealt with? 7. Has the cumulative impact of the proposals and the Dalry bypass been considered? The Dalry bypass will affect 7 fields, and the proposed flood works will affect a further 4 (in addition to the land rented from DSM).

1.26 Following the meeting AECOM worked to refine the scheme in consultation with Network Rail, Scottish Power, Scottish Water and DSM. A Technical Note (E) was published on 13 August 2015 in response to the issues raised by Mr Gilbert. The questions raised were responded to as follows:

1. Dredging/increasing conveyance at the rail bridge

AECOM assessed two scenarios using a hydraulic model • widening the river channel by 3 m on the northern bank of the Rye Water north of Mill Park, and • removing raised ground in the southern rail bridge arch and just upstream and downstream of the bridge. It was concluded that there would be some benefit to smaller events, but the flood level would still be above river bank level. The larger flood events would not be significantly affected.

2. Use of existing walls/embankments

The existing walls and embankments are not flood defence structures and would need modification or re-construction. Additional walls would be needed along the river east of Mill Park. Removing the area of floodplain would mean a greater flow in the river channel and, according to the technical note, greater impacts of flood risk for DSM, Riverside Cottage and Network Rail assets.

3. Railway mitigation works

Further site investigation was required at the time of the technical note, but some modifications to the proposals were made.

4. Need to protect the railway

The note explains that the mitigation works are needed to ensure the stability of the embankments.

5. Culvert and existing drainage

The technical note confirms that the culvert below the railway will be retained and existing drainage on Coalheughglen Farm will not require to be altered. Any drains affected by works would be reinstated by an agricultural drainage contractor. 6. Construction impacts

Coalheughglen Farm land would be required for access during construction. The technical note confirms that the area of land set aside for construction has been minimised.

7. Cumulative impacts with Dalry bypass construction

The technical note advises that the bypass scheme will not impact on the frequency of flooding of the land and there are no permanent works to be located on Coalheughglen Farm land. The technical note concluded that the flood protection scheme would have little impact on Coalheughglen land and the majority of disruption would occur during construction.

1.27 A further note was published by AECOM on 9 February 2018 in response to concerns raised by Mr Gilbert regarding the relative heights of Tofts Holm and Mill Park and questioning the need for a seepage barrier. Other issues included the depth and duration of flooding and effect on Riverside cottage. Further hydraulic modelling was undertaken.

Zo 1.28 Ground levels using Light detecting and ranging (LIDAR) data indicated that there is a difference of level of around 1 m at 3 locations along the railway embankment between Tofts Holm and Mill Park. The design flood water level with the protection scheme in place would be higher than the Mill Park ground levels, which means that there would be a potential risk of seepage through the embankment. Whether a barrier would be needed would be ascertained through site investigation.

1.29 Investigation of potential flood depth revealed that there would be an increase in depth of flood water in the `electric' field north of Mill Park from 0.47 m to 0.65 m during a 1 in 10-year event. The assessment concluded that such an additional depth of water would not materially affect the impact on the field.

1.30 Hydraulic modelling was carried out for the project using the critical storm duration. Very little change was predicted for the fields concerned. The assessment concluded on that basis that changes in flood duration would not have a material impact on the productivity of the land.

1.31 On 22 June 2018 AECOM produced a further technical note entitled: Stability/Seepage Assessment of Railway Embankment at Dalry (Document No. 60304944/GEO/TN/02). This followed site investigation works. It concluded that the site is underlain by a thick band of permeable granular material (sands and gravels) which in turn overlie a lower clay which extends to depth. The railway embankment is predominantly formed by a soft to firm sandy gravely clay which is likely to be re- workedglacial till.

1.32 At Section A of the railway embankment there is a large hydraulic gradient under the embankment indicating that seepage flow is able to occur during a flood event which could result in internal erosion of the embankment foundation and inundation of the Mill Park area. This under seepage does not affect the other sections of the embankment as flooding will occur on either side of the embankment. The existing slopes of the railway embankment are over steep and only marginally stable. The note adds that flood events and subsequent rapid drawdown are likely to result in instabilities occurring within the embankment slopes.

1.33 The following recommendations were made:

• a sheet piled cut off wall is required along the toe of the embankment in Section A; • a drainage blanket or granular berm is required to protect the lower section of the railway embankment that will be subject to the flood event, and • a full topographic survey is required prior to commencement of detailed design to confirm the extent of remediation measures that are to be implemented.

1.34 Having read through the technical note with its site investigation results I am satisfied that the Council has assessed the situation and included seepage mitigation measures which it considers will protect the railway embankment.

1.35 Davidson &Robertson, on behalf of Alexander Campbell and Partners of Langlands Farm (Mrs Margaret Campbell), advised in their Hearing statement that they must be assured within a legal agreement if any materials were to be taken

11 from their site. If any materials were to be brought to the site, details of amounts, how they would be brought on site, transported and stored on site would be required. Depending on whether materials were to be taken from the site, a full drainage plan would be needed so that the land could be re-instated to agricultural condition.

1.36 Holmes Mackillop, on behalf of Mr Duncan Campbell of Greenridge Farm advised in their Hearing statement that they must be assured in a legal agreement of confirmation of access routes. Confirmation was also required if any materials were o t be taken from their site. If any materials were to be brought to the site, details of amounts, how they would be brought on site, transported and stored on site would be required. Depending on whether materials were to be taken from the site, a full drainage plan would be needed so that the land could be re-instated to agricultural condition.

1.37 Mr Duncan Campbell's objection was supported by the NFU Scotland, who referred to problems of damage to the field drainage system, the length of time that disruption payments would cover and need for appropriate compensation. In response to the Hearing statements the Council confirmed that Mr Duncan Campbell's suggestion of a revised access route at Greenridge Farm was accepted subject to a suitable gradient being achievable.

1.38 The Council also indicated that detailed ground investigation had been carried out to determine the suitability of material from Langlands and Greenridge Farms for the purpose of constructing the reservoir embankment. It was concluded that more material would be needed from the quarry at Greenridge or imported. Importation would require implementation of a Traffic Management Plan. Access roads within the farms would need to be designed to meet the volume of material to be imported. Whether storage was needed would depend upon the intensity of delivery. A detailed review of the cost and other impacts of winning materials from the site with appropriate reinstatement compared to importing material with an appropriate Traffic Management Plan in place was being undertaken.

1.39 The Council confirmed that a full drainage plan of affected areas for both farms would be undertaken and agreed with the owners. Land that was not to be purchased as part of the scheme would be restored for agricultural use. In response to the issues raised by the two landowners AECOM prepared a Technical Note on the Re-use of Site Won Material and a Ki/birnie Traffic Management P/an in April 2018 in order to provide further detail of the implications of the proposed scheme and to inform the proposed legal agreements.

Conclusions and Recommendation

1.40 Mr Gilbert removed his objections to the scheme on the final day of the Hearing on 20 July 2018. The matters that he had raised were based upon local knowledge of previous flooding and effect on his land in Dalry and the Mill Park housing development. However, no technical hydrological evidence was submitted to challenge the modelling and assessment carried out by the Council and its consultants. Notwithstanding Mr Gilbert's withdrawal of his objections I am satisfied that the matters raised by Mr Gilbert were fully investigated and responded to by the Council and AECOM.

12 1.41 The objections by the owners of Greenridge Farm and Langlands Farm still remain, until legal agreements have been signed. Both landowners had advised that they were supportive of the scheme in principle. I consider that the Council has commissioned the necessary further studies in relation to the issues raised including access, material importation/use on site and drainage to clarify the appropriate course of action and inform the proposed legal agreements, which are very close to completion.

1.42 I find that the Flood Protection Scheme is necessary to reduce the level of risk to property in the area. It will provide significant benefits in terms of the health and well-being of local residents, benefits for the local economy, environment and key local infrastructure.

1.43 I recommend that the Upper Garnock Flood Protection Scheme, including details set out in the supporting technical notes, be confirmed without modification.