PLANNING APPLICATIONS BOARD 10 December 2019 COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR 11 December 2019
19/00273/PPPM – DEEP WATER PORT, ARNISH ISLE OF LEWIS. APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE TO ERECT BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT ASSOCIATED WORKS FOR INDUSTRIAL, HEAVY ENGINEERING, FABRICATION AND DECOMMISSIONING (CLASS 5), AND STORAGE/DISTRIBUTION (CLASS 6) AND TO CONSTRUCT A PRIMARY MEANS OF ACCESS, PROVIDE A CULVERT UNDER THE ACCESS ROAD,
REMOVE AN EXISTING CULVERT, AND RE-USE EXCAVATED PEAT; ALL
ASSOCIATED WITH RECLAIMED/LEVELLED AREAS OF LAND FORMING
PART OF THE CREATION OF A DEEP WATER PORT (SUBJECT OF THE
STORNOWAY PORT AUTHORITY HARBOUR ORDER 2019)
Report by Head of Economic Development and Planning
PURPOSE OF REPORT Since this proposal is classed as a ‘Major Development’ in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, this matter cannot be dealt with under delegated powers and is presented to the Comhairle for a decision.
COMPETENCE
1.1 There are no legal, financial, equalities or other constraints to the recommendations being implemented.
SUMMARY
2.1 The Stornoway Harbour - Deep Water Port (DWP), is a key project of the Stornoway Port Masterplan, a 20 year development framework for the Port of Stornoway. The project being within the limits of a statutory harbour and on the coastal zone, is the subject of a multi- faceted consenting regime. This comprises an anticipated grant of a Marine Licence (ML) for the extent of the works sited below Mean High Water Springs, permitted development rights enjoyed by a Harbour Authority (their scope referenced within the Stornoway Port Authority Harbour Order 2019 (HRO)) and, for Phase 1 of the development only, this application for a Planning Permission in Principle (PPP).
2.2 This application for PPP relates to particular elements only; the construction of the primary access road leading from the Arnish Road into the DWP, the development of buildings and associated works for storage/distribution and heavy industrial uses (the engineering works to deliver the platform on which the buildings would be erected would benefit from permitted development rights) and also the reuse/placement of displaced peat.
2.3 The project, being a Major Development, was subject to pre-application consultation with the local community. This resulted in a high level of participation. No third party input was received from the subsequent public consultation on the planning application, indicating that the community does not have concerns about the proposal.
2.4 The development would deliver on a long term ambition of the Stornoway Port Authority to develop a deep water berth at Glumaig Bay. When all planning matters are considered, the main concern that arises from the assessment is that from a visual amenity perspective there will, in the long term operational stage, be a significant adverse visual effect from a number of viewpoints (around the enclosed harbour and within 1.8km of the site) on various receptors including the coastal character area, as a result of the development of the overall DWP. In terms of this planning application that has to be balanced against the fact that the significant engineering and marine works are consented by others, that Stornoway Harbour is identified by the Scottish Government as a key Scottish Port with development potential, and the assessment of options found Glumaig Bay to be the only suitable site on account of water depth.
2.5 The DWP project would help realise the identified potential by creating new opportunities for the berthing of larger shipping including cruise liners as well as potential for warehousing and heavy engineering work all with attendant economic benefits for the Outer Hebrides and more specifically Stornoway.
2.6 The associated creation of development land would provide an opportunity to accommodate uses which are dependent on access to suitable berthing and incompatible with the limited sites available within the traditional industrial areas in and around Stornoway. These developments, if realised, would result in economic, social, community, and environmental benefits.
2.7 The proposal which is the subject to an application for PPP is a relatively small part of the overall DWP development. It has been subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a robust examination of the EIA findings. It has been assessed against the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (OHLDP) and subject to management of a number of issues and impacts by conditions considered to be compliant. Furthermore, the material considerations of NPF3, SPP, N-RIP and Planning Policy and guidance all lend weight to an approval in accordance with the Development Plan.
2.8 In conclusion, the development has been assessed against the OHLDP and considered to comply with its provisions. Material considerations have also been considered. Overall, the assessment concludes that the application be recommended for approval subject to conditions.
2.9 In order to accommodate the uncertainties around timescale for implementation of this major infrastructure development, the developer seeks to extend the time period for making an application for the matters specified by condition on the PPP, from the standard three years provided by Section 59(2) of the Act, to five years.
2.10 It is accepted that there are variables that could lead to a delay are variables that could lead to a delay in the detailed design and resultant information to satisfy conditions on the PPP and it is therefore proposed that a Direction be made.
RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that (a) the application be APPROVED subject to: (i) the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the Report; and (ii) implementation of mitigation set out in Appendix 2 to the Report. (b) a Direction be made under Section 59 (5) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the effect of which would be to direct that the period of 3 years in Subsection 59 (2) (a) (i) of the Act is not to apply in respect of the Permission, and that the Application for the approval mentioned in Section 59(1) (b) must be made before the expiration of 5 years from the date upon which this permission is granted.
Contact Officer: Morag Ferguson [email protected] Tel 01870 604990 Ext 330838 Appendices: 1 Schedule of Proposed Conditions 2 Schedule of Proposed Mitigation 3 Location, Site Plan and Plan of Peat reinstatement areas Background Papers: None BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
4.1 The application relates to specific aspects of the development of a Deep Water Port, an ambitious project, central to the Stornoway Port masterplan (which sets a framework for the development of Stornoway Port for the next 20 years, the masterplan referenced within the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2018 (Policy STY3)). The Deep Water Port would be located within the limits of Stornoway Harbour in and around Glumaig Bay sited across the bay from the current piers, due north/north-west of the former Arnish Fabrication Yard.
4.2 The wider Stornoway Deep Water Port project is the subject of a multi- faceted consenting regime including an anticipated grant of a Marine Licence (ML) for the extent of the works sited below Mean High Water Springs, planning permitted development rights arising from the making, by Scottish Ministers, of the Stornoway Port Authority Harbour Revision Order 2019 (‘HRO’) and this application for a Planning Permission in Principle (PPP).
4.3 The major engineering works to construct the Stornoway Deep Water Port (the blasting/extraction of rock and the levelling of land associated with Phases 1 to 4 of the port development (laydown, storage and heavy lift areas, marshalling areas, HGV/Lorry Parking areas, car parking areas, internal access, vehicle turning areas, services, and related drainage infrastructure) the construction of a secondary link road by the coast, the dredging and reclamation of land, provision of quayage - along the eastern edge of the levelled/reclaimed area, quay walls, linkspan bridge, finger pier, and other marine related works) fall to the two other consenting regimes and the development which is the subject of this application for planning permission in principle comprises 3 elements only:
The erection of buildings and associated works for industrial, heavy engineering, fabrication and decommissioning (Class 5), and storage/distribution (Class 6) (on a level pre-prepared platform (of circa 2.1 hectares in area) being that area identified in yellow on the Plan A attached at Appendix 3.
The construction of a primary means of access to form a new two-way vehicular access for the deep water port development including the forming of a junction with the Arnish Road (on an area extending to circa 0.8 ha) being that area indicated in dark green on the Plan A attached at Appendix 3. Works include a deep cutting, filling and reshaping of land, and include the provision of a culvert under the access road where it crosses the existing Allt Poll a’ Choire watercourse, as well as the removal of an existing culvert.
the reuse/placement of peat (excavated from the construction footprint of the access road but also from other engineering works consented by the HRO) on an area of land identified as having potential for peat reinstatement indicated in light green on the Plan B attached at Appendix 3. The indicative peat reuse strategy contemplates reuse options including reinstatement of degraded areas of peat, reshaping of important land forms using peat; and reinstatement of road verges, bunds and other associated landscape areas.
4.4 The proposal, relating to an area in excess of 2 hectares, falls within the class of ‘Major’ development in terms of the Planning Hierarchy.
4.5 The site comprises the western shores of Glumaig Bay above the existing Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) a rocky moorland populated by dry heath, scrubland, rockface slopes and vegetated slopes. Some saplings cover a small area located within the north-eastern corner of the site. An existing culvert is located below a disused access track within the northern part of the site and it will be removed and replaced as part of the construction of the new access road. 4.6 The wider area to the north and west is characterised by undulating rock outcrops which run towards the southern extent of the Lews Castle Grounds. To the south east of the site lies Arnish Point Industrial Estate containing a number of large industrial buildings, the DF Barnes fabrication yard with associated parking, laydown/loading areas, a seaweed processing plant, a fish landing and harvesting station all with associated parking and lay down areas and the existing Arnish quay.
4.7 The most northerly part of the Industrial Estate incorporates some level platforms of land and a large outcrop of conglomerate rock, this area extending to approximately 8.2 hectares having been granted a Planning Permission in Principle for the construction of a high voltage direct current converter station and ancillary infrastructure (incorporating a 132kv/33kv substation) which would facilitate the export of electrical power generated by renewable technology in the Outer Hebrides via a subsea cable for ultimate connection into the National Grid.
4.8 Lying to the east across Glumaig Bay is the Arnish Point Lighthouse and attendant buildings (Category B listed) and the Arnish Point Gun emplacements - the remains of a wartime emergency coastal battery - overlooking Downie’s Harbour and classified as a Scheduled Monument of national importance.
4.9 There is no active land use associated with the landward slopes which form the western side and the dry heath behind them.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES
5.1 The development proposal is within the class of ‘Major development’ in terms of the Planning Hierarchy. The requirements for statutory Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) with communities for Major developments include the need to carry out public consultation prior to the submission of a planning application and for the planning application to be supported by a Report on that process. The PAC Report was submitted and sets out how the statutory consultation requirements were met and the community involvement in the development process (principally through two public exhibitions which were hosted in Stornoway Town Hall on 24 April 2018 and 4 June 2019). The Report confirms attendance of approximately 285 people across both events and 64 completed responses in relation to the Deep Water Port. The Report provides an analysis of the feedback obtained and the developer’s response to same, including references to where issues raised have been dealt with in the EIA and design process.
5.2 The planning application made by Barton Wilmore on behalf of Stornoway Port Authority was registered on 25 June 2019. It was supported by an EIA Report prepared by EnviroCentre.
5.3 All owners, lessee or occupiers at postal addresses of neighbouring land were sent a neighbour notification notice on 03 July 2019 to meet the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
5.4 The planning application being an EIA application was advertised for public comment in the public notices section of the Stornoway Gazette in the publication dated 04 July 2019 and the Edinburgh Gazette in the publication dated 05 July 2019, as required by regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2017
6.1 The development is part of a larger Port Development proposal, subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (the Regulations).
6.2 The purpose of an EIA is to identify and evaluate the likely significant effects of a proposed development on the environment, and then identify measures to mitigate or manage any significant adverse effects before a planning application is determined. The EIA process provides an opportunity to ‘design out’ adverse effects wherever possible by making alterations to the design of the proposed development before the application is submitted, and based upon feedback from consultees. Where adverse effects cannot be designed out, mitigation measures can be proposed to avoid, compensate, or reduce significant environmental effects to an acceptable level.
6.3 The environmental information gathered during the EIA is derived through a systematic process of identification, prediction and evaluation of the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed development. This process includes identifying the sensitivity of the baseline conditions/receptors; predicting the magnitude of potential impacts; predicting the significant effect of the impacts; detailing mitigation measures; predicting the potential residual effects as well as the potential cumulative impacts. The results and findings are presented in full within the EIA Report.
6.4 When determining an EIA application the planning authority must examine the environmental information; reach a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the proposed development on the environment, integrate that conclusion into the decision as to whether planning permission or subsequent consent is to be granted; and consider whether it is appropriate to impose monitoring measures.
6.5 An EIA Report has been submitted.
PREVIOUS PLANNING DECISIONS RELATING TO THE SITE
7.1 There is no planning history pertaining to the development site other than the EIA Scoping Opinion Ref 17/00453/SCO_L for the Deep Water Port Development.
RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION
8.1 The full terms of the responses to statutory and other consultation by the Planning Authority can be read on file at the Communities Department. The following is a summary of those relevant to the determination of the application.
SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE 8.2 Summary In our view the terrestrial component of proposed development will not have a significant effect on any protected area, habitat or species. We are not able to comment on the landscape and visual impacts of this proposal.
SNH Appraisal Protected Sites, Habitats & Species and Terrestrial Ecology Chapter 5 of the EIAR and technical appendix 5.1 detail the applicant’s approach to assessment of potential ecological impacts.
In our view, it is unlikely the terrestrial component of the proposal will have any significant effect on a protected site, habitat or species.
A Phase 1 Habitat Survey, a bat survey and an otter survey were undertaken to supplement a desk based study which informs their conclusions. We are content that the EIAR and appendices appropriately concludes impacts on terrestrial ecology, protected habitats and species are likely to be insignificant. We recommend you secure the standard mitigation measures detailed in section 5.7.1 (page 124 Volume 1) with regard to otter.
Landscape and Visual Impacts. Chapter 4 of the EIAR details the applicant’s approach to assessment of potential landscape and visual impacts. We are not able to comment on the landscape and visual impacts of this proposal. It does not mean that we have taken a view on the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal.
SEPA – RESPONSE 2 – 26 SEPTEMBER 2019 8.3 Advice for the planning authority As you know SEPA was copied into the email to you from Barton Willmore of 23 September 2019 which outlined the developer’s response to the conditions/matters specified in condition requests in our letter of 6 August 2019 (our reference PCS/166043). Following our very useful discussion this morning, as requested, I provide the following update.
We are pleased to note the developer’s acceptance of a Peat Management Plan and Peat Reuse Strategy condition. We welcome your proposed approach of requesting an update to the Concept Site Plan (Drawing 2001) to make the location of the phases of development and areas of search for beneficial reuse of peat clearer. As discussed Figure 8.5 of the EIA Report (Drawing 911) should not become an approved plan – as we do not at this stage agree that the reuse proposals outlined within it are acceptable – and this should be taken into consideration in the wording of related conditions.
We are also pleased to note the developer’s acceptance of the watercourse crossing requirement.
In relation to surface water drainage then we are very happy for the wording of the condition to make it explicitly clear on what it does and does not cover. As discussed, our understanding is that planning will control the construction of the primary access and any development which is subsequently proposed on the development platform. It is therefore our understanding that any SUDS condition would cover both these aspects.
It was very useful to discuss the platform level and our concerns in relation to flood risk. We are happy with your proposed approach whereby the level of the platform is not controlled via this planning permission but a condition is used to ensure that any subsequent development on the platform needs to be supported by information on platform level and proposed finished floor levels demonstrating how the proposal has been designed to mitigate flood risk.
In relation to the development footprint we are happy for the condition to be worded in such a way as to make it clear it only related to the works (including construction works) which are required for development proposed within this planning permission.
We welcome the submission of a revised EIA mitigation schedule and are content for the condition to be worded in such a way that it only relates to those issue you consider directly relate to this planning permission.
Again, it was useful to discuss the waste dredging material issue. On reflection the original condition we requested should have related to the site, rather than “land” in general. We would wish to avoid a situation whereby the site became a medium or long term storage or disposal site for dredged material that is not fit for use as part of the development. We welcome your agreement to a condition to achieve this.
Thank you for your consultation email which SEPA received on 13 June 2019 and for agreeing to a week’s extension to the consultation period.
SEPA – RESPONSE 1 – 6 AUGUST 2019 8.3 Advice for the planning authority We ask that the planning conditions in Sections 3.3, 4.1, 5.1 (if able), 6.1, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 be attached to the consent. If any of these will not be applied, then please consider this representation as an objection. Please also note the advice provided below.
Development proposal and site boundary We note that the submitted outline planning application is only for phase 1 of the development, as shown in Figure 2.1 of the EIA Report. We also note that the EIA Report focusses on phase 1 of the development but that it also “considers in outline the environmental impacts of Phases 2, 3 and 4” and is supported by a future phasing plan which sets the context in which it should be considered. We also note that the red line boundary for the phase 1 application covers the full development site, an area of greater than 110 hectare. In view of these facts, and to avoid any doubt in the future, we ask that the wording of the consent make it explicitly clear that outline permission is only granted for phase 1 works; later phases are only considered as indicative from SEPA’s perspective.
Equally, we note that the application is for “industrial, heavy engineering, fabrication and decommissioning (Class 5), and storage/distribution (Class 6)” but very limited information is provided to assess the likely effects from development or activity that is likely to be required to facilitate this. There may be a variety of different SEPA regulatory regimes applicable - such as waste management licencing, radioactive substance consent, control of major hazards & consents and pollution prevention & control - therefore similarly we cannot provide any assurances that such proposals are acceptable in this location. That said, the site is large, so hopefully most potential facilities would be able to be accommodated. Any subsequent applications should include detailed information on what activities and developments are actually proposed and the likely environmental effects and mitigation measures.
Terrestrial habitats At scoping we stated that we were satisfied that the information provided at that stage suggested that impacts on groundwater dependant terrestrial ecosystems, wetlands we both have a duty to protect under the Water Framework Directive, were unlikely and therefore no further survey work was required in this regard. This is because the phase 1 habitat survey information provided at the scoping stage indicated that most of the site was dry heath, which is not a groundwater dependant habitat.
The same phase 1 habitat survey map is submitted with the application, however it now shows that most of the site is wet heath, which can be groundwater dependant, rather than dry heath as was outlined in the scoping report. Based on other information provided now it would seem that an error was made in the scoping version of the survey with D6 being incorrectly identified as dry heath.
In this case, we acknowledge that it would not be possible to avoid impacts on wet heath, and taking into consideration the local distribution of this habitat type we do not object to this loss. However proposals for peat reuse on site should also include, where possible, habitat improvement or creation works to help mitigate effects on GWDTE (see section 3 below).
Peat We welcome the inclusion of information on peat depth on site, and note that it is generally shallow, with a small pocket of deep peat which we are satisfied cannot be avoided. Nonetheless it is estimated that 36,000 m3 of peat will be disturbed by the development. We note in section 2.3.3 and 8.7.2.3 and in Figure 8.5 of the EIA Report proposals for peat reuse on site. The information provided at this stage does not suggest that the main reuses proposals mentioned for reinstatement works will be acceptable. It is not clear that there is a need for a 8.2 m wide, 2 m deep ditch at the bottom perimeter of the cut slope when a much smaller drainage feature would have the same hydrological effect; the design seems to be driven by the need to accommodate disturbed peat on site. A perimeter layer of peat around the bottom of the cut slope on the edge of the development platform would not be acceptable. Similarly it’s not clear why a 2 m wide ditch is required along the inside of the access track, and why it should be infilled following construction when there will still be a requirement for suitable drainage. Dressing off cut banks with peat can be acceptable, if it is done in such a way as it can be kept wet, and it is connected to other areas of peat. Peat is not an acceptable material to build bunds out of, although again it can be used for dressing off the bottom of such structures, if kept wet.
However we do consider that peat will be able to be used in site reinstatement and also note that section 8.7.2.3 indicates that there are degraded habitats on site which could also benefit from reuse and overall the site is large. On balance we therefore do not object but seek a Peat Management Plan and Peat Reuse Strategy by condition, to the agreement of the planning authority in consultation with SEPA. The condition should be worded to require discharge of the condition prior to the commencement of construction (including ground preparation), and that all peat reinstatement works all be completed prior to the commencement of operation of the site to ensure there is no long term storage of peat on site. The Peat Management and Peat Reuse Strategy should follow the general principles of Guidance on the Assessment of Peat Volumes, Reuse of Excavated Peat and the Minimisation of Waste and specifically cover the following issues:
Re-quantification of the peat volumes to be disturbed (divided up into acrotelmic and catotelmic layers) following post-consent ground investigation works; Location of temporary storage areas shown on a drawing with information on maximum storage times; Estimate of quantities of disturbed peat that can be reused for each use/purpose, including for reinstatement of the edges of the development and habitat restoration works; Drawings, including cross-sections, showing how and where the peat will be reused. Proposals for beneficial use of disturbed peat in habitat restoration works, including photographs of the area to be improved, objectives and methods of carrying out the work; Monitoring proposals to ensure successful restoration/habitat improvement.
To avoid doubt SEPA does not provide advice on peat landslide assessment but we are interested in the conclusion of such assessment when they show likely impacts on the aspects of the environment in which we have an interest.
Impacts on the fresh water environment. We welcome the amendment to the layout of the phases so that it avoids direct impact on the Allt Poll a’Choire watercourse. The access road will require a single watercourse crossing and in line with what is proposed a condition should be applied requiring the crossing to be a traditional style bridge or bottomless arched culvert designed to accommodate the 1 in 200 year flood event plus an allowance for climate change.
Flood risk We welcome the statement in section 8.5.12 that the development has been designed in line with the 1 in 200 year flood level of 3.4 m AOD plus an additional allowance of 0.6 freeboard. As we could not locate this level on a clear site plan and if it can be controlled in this case by the planning authority, we ask that a condition is applied that the minimum platform height be 4 m AOD.
In relation to climate change then please note that SEPA has recently published updated climate change recommendations. The expected sea level rise for the Western Isles is 0.93m by 2100 based on the latest UK climate change predictions reported in 2018. We recommend that this allowance is taken into consideration when planning the layout and design of infrastructure on the site.
Surface water drainage A condition should be applied requiring full details of the surface water drainage proposals for each element of the development be agreed with the planning authority in consultation with SEPA prior to the commencement of development.
The submission should include a clear plan showing the different development elements and related drainage proposals. Surface water from both access roads should be treated with SUDS and demonstrated to meet the treatment requirements of CIRIA C753. Surface water from the main platform area should be treated by oil interceptors and other means as required to gain authorisation from SEPA under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Regulation (further details in section 8 below). Surface water from roofs should be harvested and used on site.
Pollution prevention and environmental management during construction A condition should also be applied requiring the perimeter of the development footprint to be physically marked on the site prior to the commencement of works. This is to ensure that environmental receptors on other areas of the site are not impacted by the development and the physical footprint is limited to that for which permission has been applied.
We ask that a condition is applied requiring all works to be carried out in line with the submitted Schedule of Mitigation (Table 11.1). As the development site is greater than 4 ha the construction works will now require a CAR construction site licence. This will control surface water management and pollution prevention control during construction (including during blasting and levelling) and as a result we are not requesting that these issues be addressed by planning condition.
We note that the non-technical summary indicates that any dredging material not suitable for use in reclamation works will be deposited at the Marine Scotland approved sea disposal site at the approach to Stornoway Harbour. To avoid doubt we suggest that a condition be applied that permission is not given for the disposal of any waste dredging on land. Any proposals for beneficial reuse on land can be discussed directly with our local regulatory team in Stornoway.
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT SCOTLAND 8.4 Thank you for your consultation which we received on 03 July 2019. We have considered it and its accompanying EIA Report in our role as a consultee under the terms of the above regulations and for our historic environment remit as set out under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
Proposed Development The proposed development comprises the dredging of approximately 400,000 M3 of sea bed and the creation of reclaimed land along the western shore of Glumaig Bay, protected by rock armouring. A 250m long quay wall and 180m long double sided finger pier will also be constructed.
Our Advice We are content that sufficient information has been provided in the EIA Report for us to come to a view on the application and are also content to agree with the conclusions provided. We therefore do not wish to object to the proposals.
MARINE LICENSING 8.5 We are dealing with the marine licensing aspects through the marine licensing process and therefore have no comment to make.
SCOTTISH WATER 8.6 Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced and would advise the following: Water Unfortunately, according to our records there is no public Scottish Water, Water infrastructure within the vicinity of this proposed development therefore we would advise applicant to investigate private options.
Foul Unfortunately, according to our records there is no public Scottish Water, Waste Water infrastructure within the vicinity of this proposed development therefore we would advise applicant to investigate private treatment options.
Drinking Water Protected Areas A review of our records indicates that there are no Scottish Water drinking water catchments or water abstraction sources, which are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas under the Water Framework Directive, in the area that may be affected by the proposed activity.
Surface Water For reasons of sustainability and to protect our customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will not accept any surface water connections into our combined sewer system.
SCOTTISH & SOUTHERN ENERGY 8.7 With reference the above application SSEN would register no objections to the proposal.
The applicant will need to be made aware that there is currently a 33,000V overhead line running parallel to the existing road. The proposed access road and culvert will be crossing under this line, as such they will need to adhere to the HSE guidance note GS6. In addition to this there may be a requirement at the applicant’s costs to underground or raise the height of the line depending on the finished level of the road to ensure that the minimum statutory clearances are maintained. This will possibly be required due to the a road being installed which will result in the current clearances potentially needing to be higher than they are at present due to the increased clearances required over a road.
In addition to this, during the construction phase the line may need to be undergrounded in that section depending on the height of the loads being taken into the site as the maximum height of transported loads will be restricted by the current height of the line.
I would also ask that at some stage prior to works commencing on site that the applicant or their appointed contractor contact our office on 01851 706922 to arrange a site meeting to discuss the implications and required safety requirements under the health and safety guidance note GS6.
COMHAIRLE ARCHAEOLOGIST 8.8 Thank you for consulting the Archaeology Service. The archaeological assessment for this part of the project was dealt with in Chapter 6: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report. The chapter identifies both terrestrial and marine historic environment assets within an inner and outer study area. It considers the potential impact effects on these features by the development, during the construction and post construction phases of the development. The assessment also considered the potential for impact on unknown archaeological remains within the development zone. This response is restricted to commenting on phase 1 of the terrestrial aspects of this project as identified in this application.
The conclusions of the report indicate that there will be no greater impacts beyond negligible significance to any heritage assets and that the Inner Study Area is of negligible archaeological potential. Cultural heritage assets within the Inner and Outer Study Area will not be impacted beyond a negligible magnitude. The Archaeology Service puts forward an alternative view with respect to the statement relating to prehistoric evidence as set out in the Technical Appendix 6.1. Recent research has begun to indicate a Neolithic origin for many crannog sites on the Isle of Lewis and there is compelling evidence for this at Loch Arnish. This indicates a second a potentially significant site from this period close to the inner study area as well as its later Iron Age use; the other site being Cnoc na Croich. These two sites indicate an increased level of activity in this area in that period. This aspect is significant with regard to the chronology of peat formation and expansion, most of which does not occur until the Early Bronze Age. While it is acknowledged that much of the proposed phase 1 area is characterised by steep slopes and rocky outcrops there are two areas of potential where buried archaeological remains may be present. These are the general area around the river crossing associated with the new access spur (NB 419 313) and the flattish area to the rear of the small bay (NB 422 312). Both these areas have potential to have been utilised in earlier prehistory and peat probe data within the EIA indicates peat depths ranging from 0.25m - 1.75. The recommended archaeological mitigation in these areas will further inform any mitigation strategy that may be required in any subsequent phases of the project.
The Archaeology Service recommends that a program of archaeological works is carried out in relation to this application.
Overall the site appears to have a low potential for unknown buried archaeological features and has been assessed as not having any significant impacts on known or unknown assets. However, in order to mitigate the potential impact of the development on the archaeological resource it is recommend that the two areas identified by the Archaeology Service are monitored in terms of an archaeological watching brief and are where necessary preserved by record. Additionally the Comhairle Archaeologist will require access to the site during groundwork's to ascertain the stratigraphy of the site. If unknown archaeological remains are encountered they will be recorded.
To this end please can you attach the following conditions to the application? Condition: (Watching Brief) A method statement for enabling an archaeological watching brief on all ground breaking shall be submitted to and approved by the Comhairle as planning authority. Such method statement shall include: a) identification of the organisation or person(s) that would be employed to undertake the watching brief (including their archaeological qualifications); b) provisions to be made to allow access to the development site and to enable investigation recording and recovery of finds; and c) terms for notification of the commencement of development and access arrangements to the site.
No part of the development to which this planning permission relates shall commence until the method statement has been approved in writing by the Comhairle as planning authority. The approved method statement (or any subsequent variation to it that may be agreed in writing by the Comhairle as planning authority) shall then be implemented to the satisfaction of the Comhairle as planning authority throughout the period of all ground breaking works.
Reason: In order to ensure proper recording and protection of items of archaeological interest.
Condition: During the period of operations to which this planning permission relates, the operator must inform the Comhairle Archaeologist 14 days prior to commencement of works. The operator shall also afford access, at all reasonable times, to any archaeologist nominated by the Comhairle as planning authority and shall allow such archaeologist to observe work in progress and record items of interest and finds. These conditions enable the maintenance of the archaeological record in the Western Isles.
Reason: In order to ensure proper recording and protection of items of archaeological interest.
COMHAIRLE ROADS, BRIDGES AND STREET LIGHTING 8.9 The proposed access should be located to achieve a minimum visibility splay of 5x90m. Parking for the development should be based on the standards set out in the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan.
Both the submitted Transport Assessment & Chapter 9 of the EIA Report Vol 1 (Traffic & Transport) provide detailed information based on recent traffic surveys. Data from the surveys along with the projected transport figures suggest that both the junctions and the routes on the existing network will operate within their capacity. These documents also recognise that certain roads will be affected by a marked increase in the volume and frequency of HGV's on both the construction and operational phase of the development. There is also the possibility of construction traffic for this development and the Newton Marina operating at the same time on the same roads. At present the traffic from the Freight Ferry is contained within a small area in Stornoway while the proposal to move the berth to the Deep Water Port will have an impact on the wider road network around Stornoway.
Measures should be taken to lessen the impact on the existing network by the timing of operations or in some cases re-routing.
There will be restrictions on HGV movements around schools at specific times.
The existing Arnish road is single track, with passing places, and has provided an access to the Fabrication Yard at Arnish Point for many years. The potential of an increase in workforce at the Fabrication Yard and the heavy traffic associated with the Deep Water Port may require this road to be upgraded.
The developer should submit a construction traffic management plan before works commence on the development.
COMHAIRLE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE 8.10 I can confirm that I would recommend the following in terms of controlling any noise and dust issues relating to blasting, or other works associated with the development under this application.
In terms of any blasting that the contractor submit a method statement prior to any blasting, to be agreed, and that the hours would be between Monday 9am to Saturday 7pm (with blasting normally being planned prior to 5pm). a. Vibration not to exceed 9mm/second at the nearest residential properties b. Wallace Stone to check vibration limits for Arnish sub-station and ensure vibrations do not exceed these limits. c. Vibrations caused by any blasting should not be detrimental to any nearby structures or plant. The only concern, as per the impact assessment is noise affecting properties in Stornoway (Although this is primarily related to dredging operations outwith this permission) and given the distance is ~ 1km there is scope for more relaxed operational hours and I would recommend 7am to 9pm for any noisy operations ( 6am to 10pm or for setting up etc.)
Regarding dust I would recommend the contractor submit a method statement, to be agreed, prior to commencement of activities. I would recommend that if any works were required for hours outwith those above, for any reason, then it should be agreed in advance with the Local Authority (other than works of an emergency or urgent nature).
PUBLIC COMMENT AND REPRESENTATIONS
9.1 No public comments or representations were received.
VIEWS OF THE APPLICANT
10.1 The applicant has had the opportunity to comment upon the proposed Schedule of Conditions and the Schedule of Mitigation and their reasonable comments are reflected in the schedules attached to this Report.
EXAMINATION OF THE EIA
11.1 The EIA Report submitted in support of the development considers the Environmental Impacts associated with the Phase 1 development as a whole and responds to all three consenting regimes.
11.2 The EIA sets out the need for the proposed development as being:
‘The proposed development is required to accelerate local growth in the burgeoning cruise business by providing improved facilities for larger ships that cannot currently berth at facilities currently present within the harbour.
11.3 Stornoway welcomed 43 cruise ships in 2017 but attracts few larger vessels, as those over 156m in length are unable to use current facilities and passengers are brought ashore by tender. To maintain and grow the cruise market, the town requires a facility to accommodate berthing vessels of up to 350m long, which is anticipated to attract an additional 35-40 vessels per year and increase passenger numbers to the levels experienced within Orkney and Shetland, creating further business opportunities on the island.
11.4 The proposed development will also provide additional capacity for a freight ferry, adding resilience to the current ferry service and creating berthing space for cargo ships, reducing transport costs and supporting further growth. It would also have the potential to expand facilities to accommodate delivery of turbine components associated with consented and potential future renewable energy development on Lewis.
11.5 The third aim of the proposed development is to support the development of the renewable energy, offshore oil and gas sector in its decommissioning aims, by providing a facility with sufficient scope to enable such activities.’
11.6 The engineering and marine works to reclaim land for port related uses and the construction of the marine facilities fall outwith the scope of this planning application; the associated environmental impacts to be addressed through the Marine Licence and Harbour Order.
11.7 The examination of the EIA Report, and identification of mitigation, and if determined relevant, monitoring requirements are undertaken with a focus on the topics considered relevant to the development for which planning permission in principle is sought i.e. the construction of the primary access road into the Port, to include a culvert over a stream Allt Pol na Coire which has connectivity with Glumaig Bay, the principle of development of industrial and storage buildings on a development platform (the construction of the level platform deemed to be permitted under permitted rights arising from the Stornoway Port Authority Harbour Order 2019) and the reuse/placement of peat (excavated from the construction footprint of the primary access road but also from other engineering works permitted by virtue of the Harbour Order). 11.8 The topics subject to examination are set out below and their examination referenced within the planning policy assessment. • Landscape and Visual • Ecology • Cultural Heritage and Archaeology • Noise • Water Environment • Traffic and Transport • Other Issues including socio-economic impact and population and human health
PLANNING POLICY ASSESSMENT
12.1 Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An assessment against the policies and provisions of the Development Plan is therefore made initially. This is then followed by an assessment of any other material planning considerations, prior to a conclusion and recommendation as to the determination.
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY
12.2 The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (2018) provides the spatial framework that guides land use planning decisions and facilitates sustainable economic growth within the Outer Hebrides. It sets out the vision to encourage and facilitate sustainable economic growth and help build confident and resilient communities by providing planning policy that delivers long term benefits to the communities of the Outer Hebrides by ensuring development contributes to the creation of well-designed and attractive places, and that our natural, marine, and cultural resources are valued and utilised efficiently and sustainably. This vision aims to make our islands: a good place to live in and move to; a successful place for working in; an attractive place enjoyed by residents and visitors.
ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE OUTER HEBRIDES LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AND STORNOWAY
12.3 The Development Strategy sets out the overall spatial strategy to guide development (i.e. where development should and should not be located and the principles behind it) and applies to all development proposals. Seven area types have been identified for planning purposes. These are: Stornoway Core; Main Settlements; Rural Settlements; Outwith Settlements; Remote Areas; Marine and Shore Environment; and Offshore Islands. These areas have different characteristics and capacity for accommodating development and are distinct with the exception of ‘Marine and Shore Environment’, which may overlap with the adjacent terrestrial area type.
12.4 The site of the Deep Water Port lies mainly within an area that is outwith the main and rural settlement area and for planning purposes in the Development Strategy; these areas are defined under ‘Outwith Settlement’ - these areas act as a separation between settlements which helps to retain distinctiveness. The context provided to this type is that ‘Outwith Settlement’ areas have some local and strategic resource functions, supporting a diverse range of development activities and largely non-residential uses, which include agriculture, recreation activities, mineral extraction, energy development and storage/waste depots. Generally, these areas have dispersed development in a more open landscape, encompassing various landscape character types with machair, moorland and some upland. Development proposals are likely to be mainly resource or tourism based. There may be capacity for a limited amount of development where siting and design are critical to mitigate impacts on landscape. 12.5 Policy DS1: Development Strategy - Outwith Settlement
The principal policy objective is to direct appropriate resource based activity and ensure development has a quality of siting and design suitable to a more open and rural setting…. ……All development proposals will be assessed against the capacity of the surrounding landscape to accommodate the development. Development proposals should avoid raised or high level locations to minimise visual impact (supplementary information to support this is likely to be required early in the application process).
12.6 The resource upon which the development of a deep water port depends is access to the area of the harbour with sufficient depth, to accommodate the end use. Glumaig Bay is a sheltered tidal inlet where bathymetric surveys suggest that depth range between 0 and 15m below chart datum. The EIA Report states that the Stornoway Port Master Plan involved a review of options for siting of the Deep Water Port and concluded that Glumaig Bay was the only feasible option.
12.7 The capacity of the surrounding landscape to accommodate the development, is assessed in the EIA Report, and subject to compliance with Policy NBH1: Landscape, discussed below, would be in compliance with this policy.
12.8 The strategic importance of Stornoway Port is confirmed by its identification in the National Planning Framework 3 as one of the six towns which is both coastal and on an island and an important focal point for investment and transport connections. NPF 3 notes ‘Stornoway is an important transport hub for passenger and commercial transport. Stornoway harbour’s strategic location means that it will be well placed as a stopping point for international shipping with the opening of the North East Passage to navigation. It also has significant potential as a destination for cruise ships and leisure craft.’ It is the primary port for the Outer Hebrides, supporting a range of economic sectors and activity.
12.9 Policy STY3: Development of Stornoway Port Area
Developments within the extent of Stornoway Harbour Limits or on the adjacent identified developed coast should take account of: a) the Stornoway Port Authority Masterplan; and b) the need to safeguard key sites as identified in the Stornoway Port Authority Masterplan; and c) the provisions of the Supplementary Guidance Stornoway Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMPs); and d) the implication of or from flooding or coastal erosion, recognising that some developments will require to be located on the coast; and the National Marine Plan and any subsequent Regional Marine Plan.
12.10 The Stornoway Port Authority has adopted a Port Masterplan, developed using Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) methodology. The current proposal arises from and aligns with Stornoway Port Authority Masterplan – (Detailed Masterplan Proposal iv.). The proposal is sited on an area identified as ‘Developed Coast’ within the limits of Stornoway Harbour. It seeks to develop land identified by the Masterplan for uses consistent with and identified by the Detailed Masterplan Proposal iv.). Consideration has been given within the EIA Report to the adoption of sustainable drainage solutions and to the risk of flooding; subject to management of SUDS and finished floor level of buildings by conditions, compliance with this policy would be achieved. The proposal which is the subject of this application is for land above MLWS. The policies of the National Marine Plan would be considered and accommodated principally through the ML and HRO processes. NATURAL AND BUILT HERITAGE 12.11 Policy NBH1: Landscape
a) Development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area, ensuring that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained. b) The Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment (WI‐LCA) will be taken into account in determining applications and developers should refer to Appendix 1 of this Plan for a summary of this guidance. c) Development proposals should not have an unacceptable significant landscape or visual impact. If it is assessed that there will be a significant landscape or visual impact, the applicant will be required to provide mitigation measures demonstrating how a satisfactory landscape and visual fit can be achieved.
12.12 ‘Visual effects’ are primarily concerned with the changes in people’s views through intrusion or obstruction and whether important opportunities to enjoy views may be improved or reduced.
12.13 ‘Landscape effects’ consider the fabric, character and quality of the site and surrounding landscape and are assessed separately to the effects on views and visual amenity. Where development is on the coast and impacts both landscape and seascape, ‘Coastal character’ is considered as part of a landscape assessment.
12.14 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment LVIA forms part of the EIA Report and was undertaken by Douglas Harman Landscape Planning a sole practitioner and Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute.
12.15 The LVIA sets out the impact of the DWP development as a whole and presents the most extreme case in terms of impact of rock cutting and excavation. The visualisations therefore present a more extreme case than the case currently the subject of a PPP application. It is also understood that the coastal road (a work identified by the HRO) is likely to be won by infill rather than by cut and fill, reducing the impact on virgin ground and its coastal character.
12.16 This LVIA was informed by a desk-based analysis of existing data and other information gathered through a comprehensive field survey. Based on a 5km study area, the LVIA assessment identifies the baseline against which the effects of the proposed development are assessed, and concentrated on predicting the likely significant effects.
12.17 The study area benefits from a high landscape and scenic quality. In particular, the wooded grounds of Lews Castle, designated as a nationally important Garden and Designed Landscape, provide a distinctive setting to Stornoway and its harbour. Along the western coastline the containing backdrop to the harbour is dominated by undulating moorland slopes, and with a rocky coastal edge below it exhibits a strong semi-character. The scenic views across the harbour are an integral part of the visual amenity enjoyed by those living in, working in and visiting the town.
12.18 In selecting assessment viewpoints, a map showing the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV), based on computer manipulation of a digital terrain model, was prepared. This indicates areas from which the proposed development may theoretically be seen and enables the assessment to be focused upon those locations that are most likely to be affected.
12.19 The ZTV map assumes ‘bare earth’ i.e. it does not account for any screening effects provided by vegetation, buildings or minor landforms. The ZTV map does not take the orientation of the viewer into account, for example when travelling in a vehicle; and the map does not convey the likely nature or magnitude of visual effects of the proposed development. As a result, the visibility shown on the ZTV map is more extensive than would actually be visible on the ground. It is the case that where the ZTV indicates no visibility the proposed indicative industrial building would not be seen.
12.20 The ZTV map is based on the potential visibility of a proposed indicative industrial building with maximum height of 20.3m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) (15m above ground level), and a length of 80m east-west and 60m north-south. By basing the ZTV on the tallest indicative component, the worst case visibility is incorporated into the model. The ZTV demonstrates that from the large majority of the study area, there would be no views of the industrial building.
12.21 Most notably, due to the screening effect of rising ground that contain the terrestrial parts of the site, all of the largely undeveloped moorland across the south and western parts of the study area are outside of theoretical visibility. The majority of open water to the south and east of the site is also outside of the ZTV, as are the large majority of the crofting landscapes to the north and east of Stornoway.
12.22 Theoretical views of the indicative building are focused on those parts of the landscape and seascape to the north and east of the site. Within 2km, this includes most of the harbour, the town of Stornoway and the crofting landscapes to the east. Most of the grounds of Lews Castle are however outside of the ZTV.
12.23 Landscape resources within the study area that could be affected by the proposed development include: physical resources, such as landform, landcover, tracks, watercourses, etc.; landscape character types; landscape designations i.e. Lews Castle Garden and Designed Landscape (GDL); and other recreational, natural or cultural heritage interests that contribute to landscape character.
12.24 The LVIA also provides an assessment of coastal character, made up of the narrow margin of the coastal edge, its immediate hinterland, and the sea.
12.25 Visual Resources - Visual receptors are defined as those individuals or groups of people within the study area who may have views towards the site and are likely to be affected by the proposed development. The main groups of visual receptors in this case are considered to be: residents in Stornoway and other main settlements in the surrounding landscape; walkers and other recreational users along Core Paths and other footpath routes; tourists and visitors in and around Stornoway; road users; and ferry and boat users.
12.26 The effect of Phase 1 of the proposed development on key sensitive views was assessed partly using a viewpoint analysis. The viewpoints include areas that are accessible by the public and have a high number of visitors.
12.27 The selected viewpoints are identified on a plan and comprise: Viewpoint 1: Cuddy Point; Viewpoint 2: South Beach; Viewpoint 3: Newton Street; Viewpoint 4: Stornoway Harbour; Viewpoint 5: Lower Sandwick; Viewpoint 6: Newmarket ; Viewpoint 7: Lews Castle; Viewpoint 8: the Ferry Terminal; Viewpoint 9: the Lewis War Memorial; Viewpoint 10: the car park at the Iolaire Monument; and Viewpoint 11: Sandwick Bay.
12.28 Potential visual impacts of the construction and operation of the Deep Water Port were modelled for both construction phase and operational phase. This has included future phases. This was done by superimposing a computer model of the development on the existing view from each viewpoint.
12.29 The assessment is for the DWP development as a whole and includes for a cumulative assessment but does not present the impact of the development subject to planning permission in isolation.
12.30 The study is methodical and presents a clear analysis of the effects on visual amenity and landscape including coastal character for Phase 1 and in cumulation with existing and proposed developments during both construction and operational phases.
12.31 The assessment concludes that during the 18 months temporary construction phase, significant visual effects are predicted on the receptors at the following viewpoint locations: Viewpoint 1: Cuddy Point - visitors and recreational users; Viewpoint 2: South Beach - residents and visitors; Viewpoint 3: Newton Street - residents and visitors; Viewpoint 4: Harbour (offshore) - visitors and recreational users; Viewpoint 5: Lower Sandwick - residents and recreational users; Viewpoint 7: Lews Castle - visitors and recreational users; Viewpoint 8: Ferry Terminal – visitors; Viewpoint 10: Iolaire Monument Car Park – visitors; and Viewpoint 11: Sandwick Bay - recreational users
12.32 In relation to the landscape and visual effects during the construction phase, these are judged to be significant on the following receptors: recreational users and some residents around Sandwick Bay; some residents and visitors on parts of Newton Street and South Beach; Stornoway Harbour Coastal character area (CCA); and Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park GDL.
12.33 These significant visual effects during the construction phase arise predominately from: the extensive extraction of rock from the steep slopes across the western parts of the site (the natural landform would be dramatically altered and the landcover of predominantly dry heath and naturally formed rocky outcrops and shingle along the coastal edge would be lost); dredging of the seabed and the reclamation of land. These complex and large scale engineering operations on land and sea would result in very widespread views of construction infrastructure, storage of materials, noise, activity and movement of large vehicles.
12.34 The construction phase of the primary access road (which is largely screened by landform) would not be a main contributory factor to these significant effects and while large buildings are proposed on the development platform in the future, the construction of these would, of necessity, follow on from the construction of the large scale engineering works (permitted by the HRO and ML) and would also be unlikely to contribute highly to the significant visual effects (subject to the design details being managed appropriately).
12.35 During the long term operational phase, significant visual and cumulative effects are predicted on the receptors at the following viewpoint locations: Viewpoint 1:Cuddy Point - visitors and recreational users; Viewpoint 2: South Beach - residents and visitors; Viewpoint 3: Newton Street - residents and visitors; Viewpoint 4: Harbour (offshore) - visitors and recreational users; Viewpoint 5:Lower Sandwick - residents and recreational users; Viewpoint 7:Lews Castle - visitors and recreational users; Viewpoint 8:Ferry Terminal – visitors; Viewpoint 10: Iolaire Monument Car Park – visitors; and Viewpoint 11: Sandwick Bay - recreational users.
12.36 In relation to the landscape and visual effects during the operational phase, these are judged to be significant on the following receptors: Stornoway Harbour CCA recreational users and some residents around Sandwick Bay; and some residents and visitors on parts of Newton Street and South Beach.
12.37 In terms of the operational phase significant visual and cumulative effects would be unlikely to arise from the use of primary access road. Furthermore the industrial warehouse buildings subject to PPP will be largely screened from view by intervening rising ground from a number of these viewpoints. Natural screening would not be afforded to the same degree if at all from the following viewpoints where the presence of buildings would contribute to the longer term operational effects: Viewpoint 3: Newton Street - residents and visitors (albeit viewed cumulatively with the Goat Island causeway, Goat Island recreational and industrial buildings, the proposed convertor station, the Arnish fabrication shed and ships at the deep water berth which are all of large scale); Viewpoint 4: Harbour (offshore) - visitors and recreational users; (the buildings on the platform will appear more remote from the buildings at Arnish and the proposed convertor station (but given the close proximity of this viewpoint the adversity of the visual effect is inevitably amplified); Viewpoint 5: Lower Sandwick - residents and recreational users; from this viewpoint the building on the platform will appear quite clearly isolated from the existing buildings at Arnish and the proposed convertor station. They would be masked from view when a ship would be at the DWP berth); Viewpoint 10: Iolaire Monument Car Park – visitors; (albeit viewed cumulatively with the Arnish fabrication shed and masked when ships would be at the deep water berth); and Viewpoint 11: Sandwick Bay - recreational users; from this viewpoint the building on the platform will appear quite clearly isolated from the existing buildings at Arnish and the proposed convertor station. They would also be within view when a ship would be at the DWP berth).
12.38 The visualisations demonstrate that from Viewpoint 7: Lews Castle, a highly sensitive viewpoint, the building on the development platform would only be marginally visible. However the natural screening of buildings would diminish if buildings were to be sited further eastwards on the development platform. Conditions would seek a masterplan layout and updated photomontages for buildings on the site to manage significant effects on this sensitive receptor.
12.39 The adverse effects on views and landscape can be mitigated to a degree through sensitive design details including, in particular, consideration of the resulting backdrop and the selection of appropriate colours for external materials.
12.40 Significant landscape, visual and cumulative effects are predicted during the construction and operational phases, but these are relatively localised in extent. Where significant effects have been identified as part of the Viewpoint Assessment, these are all within 1.8km from the site and considering the scale of the proposed development, significant effects would generally be expected for a project of this nature and scale.
12.41 Where open views across the harbour are experienced, the proposed development would tend to introduce a prominent visual focus against a largely undeveloped backdrop. In many instances, the various parts of the proposed development would also occupy a large part of the view.
12.42 There would be no long term significant landscape effects on any landscape character types or the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park Garden and Designed Landscape. However, considering the extent and nature of change across parts of the western coastline of the harbour, the proposed development would result in a significant effect on the Stornoway Harbour coastal character area.
12.43 The EIA proposes some suggested additional mitigation measures, which could be adopted in any subsequent project development, to help minimise the adverse effects as predicted in the LVIA. These are: 1. In taking forward any extraction, consider the introduction of ledges, varied slopes and the retention of some natural features. In addition to providing some visual diversity, this could help establish some natural regeneration of vegetation across the rock face. 2. In siting buildings on the development platform, ensure its exact location benefits from the best possible screening provided by surrounding landform (including the managing of building height to avoid breaking the skyline). 3. The buildings should be simple in appearance with façades coloured to reflect the backdrop of rock and moorland. 4. Minimise the need for lighting and other vertical elements, and where logistically feasible, locate any built development, infrastructure and storage away from the water’s edge.
12.44 The first of these would fall to the Port Authority under the Harbour revision order while the other three will be secured by condition on the PPP.
12.45 Policy NBH2: Natural Heritage (part)
…….. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on an EPS unless the Comhairle is satisfied that: f) there is no satisfactory alternative; and g) the development is required for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; and h) the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of an EPS at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland)* unless the development is required for preserving public health or public safety. For development affecting a species of bird protected under the 1981 Act there must also be no other satisfactory solution.………………….. Development proposals should avoid having a significant adverse effect on, and where possible should enhance, biodiversity and ecological interests of the site. Developers are encouraged to assess the impacts of their proposed development on UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and habitats and Local BAP habitats and species. Developers should refer to the Scottish Biodiversity List** for a full list of animals, plants and habitats considered to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland (this list includes all UK priority species)…….. **http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting‐scotlands‐nature/biodiversity‐ scotland/scottishbiodiversity‐list
12.46 While the EIA identifies a number of marine mammals, fish and marine designations within the chapter on Ecology, the development subject to the application for planning permission is judged not to have an impact upon these and therefore in terms of policy compliance consideration is given to the likely impacts on terrestrial habitats and species.
12.47 Otter (lutra lutra) is a European Protected Species (EPS) and is likely to be present in and around the site. The EIA Report incorporates an Otter Survey Report at Technical Appendix 5.5. It confirms that otter surveys were carried out in May 2017 and February 2018 extending within and around the perimeter of the site and from within a boat circumnavigating the coastal site boundary. The surveys found no direct evidence of otter or otter resting sites during the field surveys. However the EIA notes that while there was no evidence of otters being present and EPS licencing is not required for the project to proceed, that based on habitat type and desk studies for the wider area it is likely otter are active within the area using coastal habitats and therefore good practice recommendations regarding working in proximity to otter are included in the EIA Report as follows:
12.48 ‘Despite no signs of otter during field visits and anecdotally in the local area, the possible presence of otter on site and in the wider landscape should be included in tool box talks and site induction for construction staff operating in this area; • Works associated with land above the high water mark should be preceded by a pre- works check for otter resting sites as described in Section 4; • If an otter is observed within the proposed working areas, seek guidance from the MMO and do not commence works until the otter has dispersed; • Should an otter resting site be discovered, prior to or during works, said works should be assessed with regards to the need for additional mitigation species disturbance licensing; • Artificial lighting should be directed towards the working areas only in order to minimise the effects on otter which can be more active between dusk and dawn; • Pollution of the marine environment should be prevented in order to safeguard water quality and marine life which otter rely on within these habitats.’
12.49 Wet Heath is Annex 1 habitat, UK BAP habitat and an SBL habitat and present along the western boundary of the site.
12.50 The EIA notes that the proposed development (as a whole) would result in the loss of 4.3ha of wet heath, due to the construction of an access road and the development platform. The excavation, drainage, storage and reuse of wet heath can lead to drying and oxidation. This can result in irreversible changes in peat structure (e.g. shrinkage and cracking) and increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
12.51 The use of heavy machinery on site to gain access to blasting sites poses a risk of compaction and soil erosion. Changes in natural drainage patterns due to runoff from exposed soil, dewatering and stripping of vegetation may lead to erosion and an overall loss of the soil layer. These effects would be localised and generally limited to areas affected by construction activities. A condition is imposed to physically mark on the site the extent of the working areas in order to limit the risk of plant and machinery tracking over the wider site area and causing compaction damage to the heath and underlying peat. 12.52 The habitat loss as a result of the construction of the approach road and rock excavation would be permanent. Peat and topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled, the subgrade levelled to gradients, and the road base and crushed rock placed and compacted. The EIA notes that 10.25% of this habitat within the site boundary will be lost as part of the development but the long term overall integrity of wet heath in the wider area across the Isle of Lewis would be maintained. Further habitat loss will occur from accessing the blasting sites. It notes that mitigation measures would be in place to protect the remaining wet heath habitats across the site from pollution, damage and from drying out and therefore it concludes that the magnitude of the impact is low and the effect not significant.
12.53 The EIA states that ‘a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) detailing pollution prevention measures will be agreed with the regulatory authority prior to works commencing; …good practice guidelines shall be adhered to and incorporated into the CEMP’. An Environmental Clerk of Works (ECoW) will monitor the construction works to ensure that the CEMP and associated mitigation measures are being implemented effectively. This will be secured by condition.
12.54 SNH was consulted and are content that the EIA Report and appendices appropriately conclude impacts on terrestrial ecology, protected habitats and species are likely to be insignificant. They are also satisfied that the measures proposed will avoid disturbance to otters and request that these be secured by condition. SEPA requested application of a condition to physically mark on site the extent of the working areas in order to limit the risk of plant and machinery tracking over the wider site area and causing compaction damage to the heath and underlying peat.
12.55 There are no specific monitoring measures required under Regulation 30 of the EIA Regulations but it is intended to monitor compliance with the CEMP.
12.56 Given the findings of the assessment and application of mitigation it is concluded that there would be compliance with this policy.
12.57 Policy NBH3: Trees and Woodland
The Comhairle will safeguard individual trees, groups of trees and woodland areas where they are considered important for amenity or their cultural or historic interest by establishing Tree Preservation Orders. There is a strong presumption against the removal of established individual trees and woodland of mixed native species which have a landscape and amenity value and/or contribute to nature conservation, unless removal would achieve significant additional economic, environmental or social benefits. In order to minimise any adverse impacts on amenity, biodiversity or landscape value, developers will be required to incorporate existing trees and woodland into developments through sensitive siting and design. Where loss is unavoidable, appropriate replacement planting should be sought through the use of planning conditions or through a legal agreement if appropriate. The Comhairle will seek opportunities to create new woodland and plant native trees in association with new development. The Comhairle will support proposals associated with the restoration and enhancement of the native woodland resource as identified in the Western Isles Native Woodland Restoration Survey Report.
12.58 The policy seeks to avoid the removal of established trees or any native woodland which has landscape/amenity value or contribute to nature conservation. The issue was not an EIA topic as it is unlikely to result in any significant impact on the wider environment. The northern part of the site has groups of young trees that do not have a significant landscape/amenity value but would as they matured contribute to nature conservation. An appropriate level of replacement planting for those lost due to the construction of the primary access road is sought through planning condition.
12.59 Policy NBH4: Built Heritage
Development which preserves or enhances the architectural, artistic, commemorative or historic significance of built heritage assets will be supported. Where there is clear evidence of historic significance, development which would have a substantial adverse impact on this significance will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that: a) all reasonable measures will be taken to mitigate any loss of this significance; and b) any lost significance which cannot be mitigated is outweighed by the social, economic, environmental or safety benefits of the development. Commemorative Sites The Comhairle will seek to manage the special architectural, historic and cultural interest of war memorials, and commemorative sites of local importance. Any site with features which are known to have been formally dedicated as a memorial to a person or event will be deemed to have commemorative significance. In addition, any site with features which are widely understood to be closely associated with a person or event may be considered to have commemorative significance.
12.60 The EIA assessment has identified three Scheduled Monuments within the Outer Study Area (OSA) (1km from the development site boundary for the wider port project). They comprise the remains of a prehistoric cairn on the summit of Cnoc na Croich (SM6550), a probable early medieval fortified islet in Loch Arnish (SM5397), and the WW2 coastal battery on Arnish Point (SM5347). As Scheduled Monuments, all three are considered to be of high importance.
12.61 The Loch Arnish, dun is 300m south of the Inner Study Area (ISA) and is outside the ZTV of the proposed development, and as there are no key views from or towards it, in which the proposed development will appear, there are no operational impacts.
12.62 Arnish Point, gun emplacements were built in World War Two as a coastal battery to defend Stornoway and the surrounding waters. They consist of the remains of two concrete gun emplacements, a battery observation post, two search-light platforms, an accommodation block and the remains of hut platforms. The gun emplacements are located on the southern cliff tops of Arnish Point with wide views, southwest to northeast, over the Minch and along the coastline and the entrance to Stornoway Harbour. To the west, the view is over rising ground to the large shed of the Arnish fabrication yard. The gun emplacements have clear contextual value in their setting as they were deliberately placed on the cliff tops of Arnish Point, a defensive position from which to protect the island and the Minch. They are also clearly visible in approaches to Stornoway by sea.
12.63 The proposed development will be located to the west and north-west of the gun emplacements. In this location the proposed development, where visible, will be largely screened by rising ground and the large shed of the fabrication yard. This inland view is not a key view from the gun emplacements which were specifically designed to monitor and protect the seaward approaches to the island. At a distance of approximately 300m and screened by topography and existing buildings, the proposed development will not compete for prominence with the Scheduled Monument when observed from the sea. The proposed development will be visible in views west from the emplacement, but it will not constitute an obvious or intrusive presence in these views. Furthermore, these views are not considered key to any understanding or appreciation of the monument’s cultural significance. 12.64 It will remain possible to understand and appreciate the structures’ setting, and the reasons for their location. SM5347 will be subject to an operational effect of negligible magnitude. As it is an asset of high importance, this will result in an impact of negligible significance.
12.65 SM6550 (Cnoc na Croich, chambered cairn) is a prehistoric cairn on the summit of Cnoc na Croich (‘Gallows Hill’). Believed to be the remains of a neolithic chambered cairn, it survives in a partially ruinous state as a low, circular mound of stones, largely overgrown with grass and turf. The prehistoric cairn is not a prominent feature on the hilltop and is not discernible in any but short-range views. The wide, open views from the hilltop certainly contribute to the cairn’s setting, and bestow a sense of place, but the detail and content of those views (across a modern rural, urban and industrial landscape) is of limited relevance to any understanding or appreciation of the prehistoric cairn’s cultural significance. The proposed development will be visible in views east from the cairn, but at a minimum distance of 950m and approximately 60m lower, it will not constitute an obvious or intrusive presence in these views. It will remain possible to understand and appreciate the cairn’s setting. SM6550 will be subject to an operational effect of negligible magnitude. As it is an asset of high importance, this will result in an impact of negligible significance.
12.66 There are 32 Listed Buildings (LBs) within the Outer Study Area (OSA) of which 28 are within the Stornoway Conservation Area or Lady Lever Park. Of the four outwith these designations (referred to further below) only two, both Category B Listed, are considered of medium importance – the Arnish Lighthouse and Attendant Buildings, and 7 James Street.
12.67 Arnish Lighthouse and attendant buildings (LB13328) is a Category B-listed collection of buildings on the tip of Arnish Point. Designed and built in the mid-nineteenth century by the Stevensons, they comprise a cylindrical lighthouse of standard design and a single-storey block of flat-roofed houses fronted by a walled garden.
12.68 As a lighthouse, built to warn approaching ships of the hazards around the entrance to Stornoway harbour, the aspect of LB13328’s setting that is of most relevance to its cultural significance is its visibility from the sea. The relationship between the houses and the tower are also of some relevance, as they would have accommodated the keepers of the, now unmanned, lighthouse.
12.69 The proposed development will be 540m to the west of the buildings, but intervening topography and existing buildings at the fabrication yard will largely screen it in views from the lighthouse. The proposed development will not interrupt or otherwise obscure views towards the lighthouse from the seaward approaches, and it will remain possible to appreciate and understand the relevance of the lighthouse’s clifftop setting to its cultural significance. The relationship between the attendant buildings and the tower will also remain clear. As it is an asset of medium importance, this will result in an impact of negligible significance.
12.70 Although the ZTV indicates that the proposed development will be partially visible from 7 James Street, as a former industrial building it was not built with regard to wider views, deriving its cultural significance almost entirely from historical and associative characteristics relating to the island’s tweed industry. The presence of the proposed development in views to the south will not hinder any attempts to appreciate or understand the building’s cultural significance and there will be no operational impacts upon it.
12.71 Historic Environment Scotland was consulted and agreed with the findings of the assessment. It is therefore concluded that there would be compliance with this policy without the need for condition or mitigation measures. Furthermore no monitoring measures are required under Regulation 30.
12.72 An assessment of the visual impact of views from the Iolaire Monument Car Park finds a significant visual effect during both construction and operation of the port. However the development would be viewed looking back across the Harbour in a NW direction with the Arnish Fabrication Buildings to the west, in the foreground. The development would be unlikely to significantly compromise how the monument is experienced, the principal view from the monument being southward towards the open sea and across the Beasts of Holm.
12.73 Policy NBH5: Archaeology
Development proposals which preserve, protect, or enhance the archaeological significance of heritage assets, including their settings, will be supported. Development Impact on Scheduled Monuments or their Setting Scheduled Monuments (scheduled archaeological remains) are nationally important monuments or archaeological sites. Where there is potential for a proposal to have a direct impact on a scheduled monument, the written consent of Historic Environment Scotland is required in addition to any other consent required. There is a presumption in favour of the in situ preservation of all scheduled archaeological remains and the Comhairle will support proposals that seek to protect, enhance and interpret them. Development proposals that will adversely impact upon scheduled archaeological remains or the integrity of their settings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical alternative site and where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Development proposals that may adversely impact upon the cultural significance of scheduled archaeological remains or the integrity of their settings will require to be supported by: a) an assessment of the significance of any heritage assets which are affected by the development; and b) the measures that will be taken to mitigate any adverse effect on the archaeological significance; and c) the measures that will be taken to preserve and protect the special interest of the heritage asset; and d) a justification that demonstrates the social; economic; environmental, safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest that would outweigh any adverse effect which cannot be mitigated. Development Impact on other Sites of Archaeological Importance Where a development proposal is likely to negatively affect any regionally or locally important archaeological remains, applicants may be required to undertake archaeological assessment. Where, on the advice of the Comhairle Archaeology Service, information or evidence available indicates that significant archaeological remains may exist; a predetermination evaluation may be required in accordance with an approved Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI). The evaluation may include: desk based assessment (DBA); geophysics; field survey; trial trenching; or other methods of gathering information. The findings of such evaluations will help define the character and extent of any remains and their likely significance and inform what further archaeological mitigation may be required. Where further archaeological investigation is required, or in cases where archaeological remains of lesser significance are considered likely to be present, archaeological investigation of the site and/or mitigation may, on the advice of the Comhairle Archaeology Service, be secured by archaeological planning conditions or through use of a planning agreement. On receipt of the findings of an archaeological investigation, further investigation and/or mitigation may be required on the advice of the Comhairle Archaeological Service. Development which would affect unscheduled sites of archaeological interest or potential will be permitted where the significance of the remains does not justify their physical preservation on site. Where archaeological features provide potential for amenity, cultural tourism, place-making, or as an in situ educational or research resource, the Comhairle will support proposals for long term management, access and interpretation of the historic environment assets on the site. Archaeologically Sensitive Areas Within the Stornoway and Howmore Archaeologically Sensitive Areas (as shown in the relevant Conservation Area Management Plans) developers may be required to carry out a predetermination evaluation prior to the determination of the planning application if ground disturbance is part of the development. The results of the evaluation will help determine any mitigation required as part of the consent.
12.74 The EIA assessment has identified 16 known Heritage Assets within the Inner Study Area (being the development site boundary for the wider port project), 14 of which are in the marine environment and not directly or indirectly impacted by the development subject to the application for planning permission. The onshore Heritage Assets comprise an earth and stone field boundary dyke (MWE142507) immediately adjacent to the Arnish Fabrication Yard, and the remains of a post-medieval field system (MWE142511) on a headland on the eastern side of Glumaig Bay. As locally common examples of agricultural features, both are considered to be of low importance and the EIA confirms that there will be no direct construction impacts upon these and no operational impacts as their cultural significance derives largely from their intrinsic characteristics and not their setting which is of little relevance.
12.75 In terms of the potential for undiscovered heritage assets within the Inner Study Area, the western, onshore edge of the of the area is noted to comprise areas of uneven ground, exposed bedrock and waterlogged peat bog and considered unsuitable for anything but rough grazing, and unattractive for settlement.
12.76 Notwithstanding this assessment the Comhairle Archaeology Service puts forward an alternative view with respect to the statement relating to prehistoric evidence. ‘While it is acknowledged that much of the proposed phase 1 area is characterised by steep slopes and rocky outcrops there are two areas of potential where buried archaeological remains may be present. These are the general area around the river crossing associated with the new access spur (NB 419 313) and the flattish area to the rear of the small bay (NB 422 312). Both these areas have potential to have been utilised in earlier prehistory and peat probe data within the EIA indicates peat depths ranging from 0.25m - 1.75. The recommended archaeological mitigation in these areas will further inform any mitigation strategy that may be required in any subsequent phases of the project’.
12.77 The Comhairle Archaeology Service recommends that a program of archaeological works is carried out in relation to this application and to that end a condition for a watching brief is proposed to secure policy compliance.
12.78 Policy NBH6: Historic Areas
All Development should preserve or enhance the settings of Historic Areas. Conservation Areas Any development assessed to have a negative effect on the Conservation Area and its setting will not be permitted. Gardens and Designed Landscapes Any development proposal must preserve and, where appropriate, seek to enhance Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park as described in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes.
12.79 There are seven Listed Buildings within Lady Lever Park, Lews Castle and the Lews Castle lodges, boundary walls and sea walls, both category A and high importance and the Lews Castle Driveway Bridge and the Matheson Memorial, both B Listed and medium importance.
12.80 There are 15 category B Listed Buildings within the Stornoway Conservation Area identified as medium importance. These are addressed below.
12.81 The Stornoway Conservation Area (CA) encompasses the nineteenth-century planned town, the quays and the immediate grounds and gardens around Lews Castle. The CA includes 64 Listed Buildings within its boundaries (Table 6.10). As these buildings contribute to and share the setting characteristics of the CA, operational impacts upon the CA as a whole were assessed.
12.82 The EIA assessment of operational impacts upon the CA concentrates upon Area A – the harbour, town centre, and commercial centre (in the south-western part of the CA); Area B – the residential area and mixed uses (along the eastern half and northern edge of the CA) since the parts within the Castle Grounds have already been considered in terms of the Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape (IGDL).
12.83 The setting of the Conservation Area is defined by the geology that forms the harbour and Stornoway Bay. This topography has governed the historic development of the town as a fishing port and, increasingly and more recently, a recreational harbour. The quaysides strongly define the seaward side of the town, as they extend from Bayhead and the mouth of the River Creed south and south-east along the shoreline to the ferry terminal on Shell Street. On the landward side, the gridded street plan of the nineteenth century planned town is another strong characteristic of the CA.
12.84 The proposed development will only be glimpsed from within the CA. It will not dominate obvious feature in views from within the CA.
12.85 From the southern edge of the CA the intervening buildings consisting of the quaysides, sheds and the ferry terminal will largely screen views towards Arnish. Views towards Arnish, where the fabrication yard sheds are clearly visible, are out across a busy modern harbour. Where buildings do not screen the views, the existing setting of the CA is characterised by marine traffic and activity. As a deep water port, the proposed development (and the shipping that will use it) will reflect and complement this activity.
12.86 The EIA concludes that it will remain possible to appreciate and understand the character and cultural significance of the Stornoway CA as a planned town developed from an earlier fishing port. Stornoway CA (CA317) will be subject to operational effects of negligible magnitude, resulting in impacts of negligible significance.
12.87 The Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park IGDL, (GDL00263) comprises the mid-nineteenth century landscaped grounds of Lews Castle. There are seven Listed Buildings within the IGDL. As their individual settings also relate to, and contribute to, the IGDL’s setting they have been assessed as part of the IGDL. While each is noted to have architectural, historic and associative interest, the buildings derive varying degrees of cultural significance from their setting within the estate. Together, they contribute to the architectural and scenic value of the IGDL.
12.88 Views within the IGDL are often relatively restricted by topography and woodland, giving an enclosed feel to the grounds, and providing a sense of seclusion and privacy. As the footpaths ascend the hills to the south of the IGDL, or descend towards the shoreline, the views open up and wide vistas are available across Stornoway to the east, and the inland landscape of Lewis to the west. This mixture of secluded woodland walks, glimpsed views and sudden wide vistas are noted as typical of a nineteenth century designed landscape.
12.89 While the Arnish fabrication yard and the development site are visible from around Lews Castle and to the south-west, from the summit of Gallows Hill and Buaile na Cuthaig, and in glimpsed views along the shoreline within the IGDL, the EIA assessment notes that these areas are not a key focus of these views, but rather forms one element of the general view across Stornoway Bay and the land- and seascape beyond. Further specific views of and towards Arnish are not considered to be a key characteristic contributing to the cultural significance of the IGDL. It is recognised that while the proposed development will be visible from certain points within the IGDL, it will not obstruct or otherwise obscure the wide views out across Stornoway and the landscape beyond. Views from within the IGDL will be of a functioning harbour and its associated buildings, as they have been since the estate was established in 1844.
12.90 It will therefore remain possible to appreciate and understand the cultural significance of the IGDL and its setting, as well as the significance of the buildings and monuments within it. Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park IGDL (GDL00263) are therefore assessed to be subject to operational effects of negligible magnitude, resulting in impacts of negligible significance.
12.91 The EIA concludes no construction impacts are predicted, and no heritage asset will be subject to operational impacts of greater than negligible significance, therefore effects upon the cultural heritage resource are not significant.
12.92 Historic Environment Scotland was consulted and agreed with the findings of the assessment. It is therefore concluded that there would be compliance with this policy without the need for condition or mitigation measures. Furthermore, no monitoring measures are required under Regulation 30.
PLACEMAKING AND DESIGN 12.93 Policy PD1: Placemaking and Design
Development proposals must demonstrate a satisfactory quality of place-making, siting, scale and design that respect and reflect positive local characteristics and will complement or enhance the surrounding built and natural environment, while taking account of the guidance contained within the Outer Hebrides Design Guide. Development proposals for new buildings will be permitted where they satisfy the following criteria: (a) SITING should relate to the townscape and streetscape or the settlement pattern and landform, and avoid dominating the sky line. The orientation of the development while respecting the foregoing should also relate to the characteristics of the surrounding area. (b) DESIGN - the development should be designed for the site ensuring design, scale, form and mass respects the surrounding built and natural environment. The mass of larger buildings should generally be managed by either breaking up the design elements or by the use of appropriate materials. The proportions, detailing, materials and colours, should be neutral or make a positive contribution to the character of the surrounding area. For infill development, in streetscapes, details of the height of neighbouring buildings will usually be required to be shown on the proposal drawings. (c) AMENITY SPACE and landscaping shall be commensurate with the scale and character of the development. In housing development, consisting of four or more houses, integrated public spaces which prioritise walking and cycling over vehicular movement and encourages active travel may be required. Developers should provide details on the protection and enhancement of existing functional open space and green networks, where applicable, and other requirements which may be detailed in Supplementary Guidance for specific housing sites. (d) TOPOGRAPHY - on sloping ground the design of development, should generally incorporate the slope, and visible under‐build should be minimised. Surplus materials from excavations should be re-graded, landscaped and utilised to backfill against areas of underbuilding and to create landform of natural appearance. The creation of artificial platforms and un-natural gradients should be avoided. (e) NEIGHBOUR AMENITY siting, design, landscaping and boundary treatments should ensure reasonable neighbour amenity is retained. Development will not be supported where it will result in a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. In addition to legislative requirements, all applications within the following Development Strategy Categories should be supported by a design statement: Outwith Settlement; Remote Areas; and Off-shore Islands.
12.94 Placemaking and Design PD1 requires developments to demonstrate a satisfactory quality of siting, scale and design that respects and reflects positive local characteristics and will complement or enhance the surrounding built and natural environment. As this is an application for Planning Permission in Principle these matters are treated as matters specified in condition for future consideration. As the number, siting and ratio of buildings to ancillary space is unknown and the area of the development platform subject to PPP will merge with a platform won from land currently below MLWS, a condition is proposed seeking a masterplan to ensure the use of the land is optimised.
Policy PD2: Car Parking and Roads Layout and Appendix 3: Car Parking and Road Layouts 12.95 As this is an application for Planning permission in principle these matters are treated as matters specified in condition for future consideration in conjunction with the scale, nature and use of individual buildings and uses.
12.96 Policy PD6: Compatibility of Neighbouring Uses
All development proposals shall ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses. Where appropriate, proposals should include mitigation measures to reduce the impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses. Development proposals adjacent to existing or consented: general industrial/storage sites (use classes 5 & 6); mineral extraction or waste management sites; LDP Economic Proposal sites; non-residential caravan sites; or renewable energy development, should not constrain these uses. This may be achieved through creation of a buffer zone between the uses or by the use of other design and landscaping techniques.
12.97 The Phase 1 proposals share a boundary with undeveloped land and therefore are not incompatible with that land use. Further south the wider port development proposal shares a boundary with the Arnish Industrial Estate where compatibility of use would be found.
12.98 Given the risk of disturbance to noise receptors across the harbour a Noise Assessment was undertaken.
12.99 The Noise Assessment involved measurement of existing noise levels and computer modelling of the impact of noise during the construction and operational phases of the project. Phase 1 of the project was assessed in detail whilst further phases would be assessed when they are taken forward. The assessment was carried out by a member of the Institute of Acoustics. 12.100 The methodology used takes account of Scottish Government guidance on noise impact assessment and relevant British Standards.
12.101 Noise measurements were taken at selected locations to establish the existing (baseline) noise level. These locations (called Noise Sensitive Receptors) were selected in consultation with the Comhairle Environmental Health Service.
12.102 Noise sensitive receptors were located at the following representative residential location: South Beach (1 and 2); Newton Street (2 and 3); Seaview Terrace (5);and Builnacraig Street (6).
12.103 In addition, the following locations were selected as being representative of locations exposed to noise from operational traffic associated with the development: Macaulay Farm (approx.2.6km north-west), Marybank west (approx.2.5km north-west along the A859) and Perceval Road South (approx. 2.9 km north) of the proposed development.
12.104 Construction noise modelling took account of noise from the following construction activities: movement of excavated rock and its placement as infill to the reclaimed area, dredging, piling, placement of linkspan support foundations, placement of rock armour and construction vehicle movements.
12.105 Impact assessment was undertaken for both construction and operational noise during daytime, evening and night time. Construction works will generally be carried out during the day or in the early evening. There are some instances where work will require to be carried out 24 hours a day, such as dredging. However, dredging would be limited to three months within an anticipated 18 month construction period.
12.106 Construction noise was calculated by considering all of the activities predicted to take place within each month of the works. Where different plant is used (e.g. piling compared to dredging), a different assessment was carried out. Various scenarios of concurrent construction activity were then modelled. These are reported in full within Chapter 7 of the EIA Report, along with the detailed methodology.
12.107 Three scenarios were considered in relation to operational noise from the port: cargo loading/unloading, decommissioning activities and a combination of both.
12.108 The modelling was carried out to predict noise levels at the selected representative locations.
12.109 The predicted noise levels are at the external face of the building. The modelling also took account of noise generated by construction of the proposed Newton Marina, which is planned to overlap with works at the Deep Water Port.
12.110 A threshold noise level was calculated for each location for daytime, evening and night-time noise, taking account of the baseline noise. This is deemed to be the acceptable noise level. The predicted level was then compared with the threshold level.
12.111 The significance of the effect is determined by the difference between the threshold level and the predicted level. An exceedance of the threshold level of up to 3 decibels is classed as an effect of ‘slight’ significance and is just perceptible, whilst an increase of between 3 and 5 decibels is considered a moderate effect. 12.112 During the construction period, there are no predicted increases in noise at receptors 1 to 5. There are predicted increases in noise at receptor 6 (Builnacraig Street), (situated behind the Power Station at Newton).
12.113 The increase in noise from traffic at the selected traffic locations is predicted to be less than 1 Decibel at the locations selected to represent potential increase in noise from operational traffic. This is the case for both day and night-time noise levels.
12.114 The predicted increases from traffic noise at the selected locations were all less than 1 Decibel for both day and night-time traffic. This level of increase is not perceptible by humans.
12.115 The predicted increase in noise from the operation of the Deep Water Port is predicted to be less than 1 Decibel at receptor locations 1 to 5.
12.116 There would be a predicted increase in noise at receptor 6 (Builnacraig Street). But it is noted that decommissioning activities would not be carried out at night, so this would have no impact on night-time noise levels.
12.117 During construction, the only predicted noise effects are at Builnacraig Street. The effects are of Neutral, Moderate or Slight significance, except for night-time backhoe dredging, which is predicted to have a major effect. The anticipated duration of the dredging operation is three months. The level of effect will depend upon the dredging method employed by the appointed contractor. Due to the nature and location of the dredging operation, there are no feasible measures to reduce the noise from this activity. It should be noted that this impact does not relate to works that are the subject of this application for planning permission.
12.118 However, it should be noted that the predicted noise levels are a worst case scenario. Internal noise levels will be lower. The contractor will be required to consider ways to reduce noise as far as possible as part of the development of their Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
12.119 The predicted increase in noise from port operations is of neutral or slight significance at all selected residential locations.
12.120 The predicted increase in noise from operational traffic is of slight significance at the selected receptors for traffic noise.
12.121 In terms of the EIA regulations, this equates to no significant adverse effects.
12.122 Consideration was also given to the dust from construction operations.
12.123 The Comhairle Environmental Health Service was consulted and recommend conditions on blasting and working hours and noise and dust management relating to blasting, or other works associated with the development under this application. These requirements will be secured by condition.
12.124 The access road to the Arnish Industrial Estate requires to be maintained operational during the construction phase and to achieve this a condition is proposed requiring the developer to submit a protocol as to how it will communicate with neighbours over blasting and temporary closure of the road.
12.125 Compatibility of neighbouring uses per this policy can therefore be secured through the CEMP and by the application of appropriate conditions.
12.126 No further mitigation measures are required beyond those controlled by condition. Furthermore no monitoring measures are required under Regulation 30. ENVIRONMENT 12.127 Policy EI 1: Flooding
General Development proposals should avoid areas susceptible to flooding and promote sustainable flood management. Where sustainable flood management measures are proposed they should incorporate environmental improvements, for example natural methods such as restoration of floodplains, wetlands and water bodies, which can also contribute to reducing flood risk and help implement the proposals within the Outer Hebrides Local Flood Risk Management Plan. Development proposals should have regard to the probability of flooding from all sources. Where a proposal could lead to an increase in the number of persons affected or buildings at risk of being damaged by flooding then the submission of suitable information, which may include a Flood Risk Assessment, will be required to demonstrate compliance with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). Flood Risk Assessments Information which demonstrates compliance with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) will be required for development proposals within or closely bordering a medium to high risk flood area (1:200 year extents (0.5% Annual Probability), or greater), as identified by the flood risk management dataset issued by SEPA. It is not possible to plan for development solely according to the calculated probability of flooding and therefore a Flood Risk Assessment or other suitable information which demonstrates compliance with SPP may be required where: a) a ‘Most Vulnerable’ land use or ‘essential infrastructure’ (as specified in the SPP flood risk framework and in the SEPA Land Use Vulnerability Classification Guidance) is proposed in a low to medium risk flood area (1:1,000 to 1:200 year extents (0.1% to 0.5% Annual Probability); b) a development proposal is within an area where local flood risk information (known to the Comhairle, in terms of its flood prevention remit) suggests a risk of flooding; or c) a development borders the coastal edge and its elevation relative to sea level suggests it may be at increased risk of flood due to extreme weather events; or d) the site contains or is adjacent to a watercourse that suggests it may be at increased risk of flood. Development permitted in medium to high risk flood areas (that accord with SPP) or civil and essential infrastructure and the most vulnerable uses located in low to medium risk areas (1000 year – 200 year (0.1% – 0.5% annual probability) should be built to a water resilient design to enable them to remain operational during flood events. Where it can be demonstrated that the location is essential for operational reasons e.g., harbours, piers, offshore energy and fisheries related activities, development proposals will be allowed in flood risk areas subject to sustainable flood management measures being incorporated at design stage that mitigate against flood risk. Allowances for Climate Change The following allowances, or subsequent revised allowances, for climate change should be used when calculating estimated design flood levels: Fluvial: at least 20% should be added to the estimated design flood peak; Coastal: The following UK Climate Change Projections (UKCP09) sea level rise projections should be used to derive an allowance above the extreme still water design flood level: Lewis and Harris - 0.55m North Uist and Berneray - 0.53m Benbecula, South Uist and Barra - 0.52m
12.128 The flood risk is assessed through Chapter 8 of the EIA Report. Given the proximity to the coast, the risk of flooding from surface water run-off is not a significant risk.
12.129 The key consideration for the planning permission is to ensure that the proposed culvert over Allt Pol na Choire does not impede water flow such that the stream would result in flooding of neighbouring land in a flood event and secondly that the industrial and warehouse buildings would be of a finished floor level (FFL) that would avoid the risk of them being inundated by coastal flood. Both these matters are explored in detail through the EIA. A condition to manage the design of the culvert and to manage the FFL of buildings would ensure policy compliance.
12.130 No further mitigation measures are required beyond those controlled by condition. Furthermore no monitoring measures are required under Regulation 30.
12.131 Policy EI 2 Water and Waste Water
New developments will be required to adopt the principles of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). The Comhairle will support retrofitting of SuDS and the controlling of surface water through the use of permeable surfaces and green roofs. Sewerage: New buildings in settlements with public sewerage systems, and developments* of 25 houses or more in unsewered settlements, will be required to connect to the public sewer unless the developer can demonstrate that there are specific technical reasons as to why the development cannot reasonably be connected to a public sewer. In such cases, the development will only be permitted if the developer can demonstrate a sustainable alternative method that will not significantly adversely impact on the environment or neighbour amenity. Private waste water systems should discharge to land. Where this is not possible, the developer must submit evidence that discharge to the water environment is acceptable to SEPA. Discharge from waste water systems direct to waters designated under EC Shellfish Directives will not be permitted. Water: New developments in areas with public water supplies will be required to connect to the public water supply. In situations where there is no, or an inadequate, public water supply the details including the sufficiency and wholesomeness of the private water supply will require to be demonstrated. *For developments of 25 houses or more in unsewered settlements, the developer will be required to develop a new sewage system for adoption as a public sewer.
12.132 As this is an application for Planning Permission in Principle the matter of sewerage is a matter to be specified in condition for future design and consideration of detail. There is no existing public sewer in the area and therefore a bespoke design would be necessary.
12.133 While the Scottish Water consultation advice is that there is no public water infrastructure within the vicinity of this proposed development and they advise the applicant to investigate private options, it is known that a public water main runs the length of the Arnish Road and it is possible that a branch could be taken to service this proposed development.
12.134 Scottish Water has confirmed that there are no ‘Scottish Water drinking water catchments’ or ‘water abstraction sources’, which are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas under the Water Framework Directive, in the area that may be affected by the proposed development.
12.135 LDP2 Policy EI 3: Water Environment
Development proposals should avoid adverse impact on the water environment. All proposals involving activities in or adjacent to any water body must be accompanied by sufficient information to enable a full assessment to be made of the likely effects, including environmental effects, of the development. Where a site contains or is adjacent to a watercourse or the sea then all the following must be demonstrated: a) the site layout avoids development within the water environment unless the location is essential for operational reasons, e.g. for navigation and water-based uses. A minimum buffer strip of 6m should be incorporated between the water body* and the proposed development, to enable access and maintenance all year round. Engineering activities such as culverts, bridges, watercourse diversions, bank modifications or dams should be avoided unless there is no practicable alternative; b) the management or enhancement of existing and new habitats such as the provision of riparian/green corridors, natural flood management within flood plains, control of invasive non-native species, removal of redundant structures such as weirs or culverts; c) no significant effect both during construction and after completion on: Water quality in groundwater, adjacent watercourses or areas downstream; Existing groundwater abstractions within 250m; Water quantity and natural flow patterns and sediment transport processes in all water bodies. For Major developments, where a site contains or is adjacent to a wetland or boggy area then a Phase 1 habitat survey should be carried out for the whole site and a 250m buffer around it. Where a Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystem is identified then the site layout should avoid it and drainage designed to ensure groundwater flows to the habitat are maintained. *May be subject to technical assessment and possible consultation with statutory consultees.
12.136 A stream Allt Poll a Choire drains from a small catchment basin west of the Arnish Road, through the application site and discharges in Glumaig Bay. The primary access road into the site will traverse the Allt and in line with best practice and advice from SEPA, the culvert has been adequately sized and is of bottomless design in order to maintain the natural substrate of the stream.
12.137 The construction of the watercourse crossing will be carried out in accordance to SNH and SEPA guidance, and final construction details will be approved by SEPA in accordance with the CAR regulations post planning consent. The installation works will minimise disturbance of the channel bed, and the installed crossing will be of sufficient size so as not to restrict or concentrate flows downstream and to convey flows during periods of heavy rainfall (e.g. 1 in 200 year event plus climate change allowance). This flood design and type of culvert will be secured by condition.
12.138 Surface water run-off is to be treated by construction stage sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and will be incorporated into the design of the road and future design of buildings. The detail of this is to be secured by condition.
12.139 There are no planned abstractions within the site and the nearest known point of abstraction is from Loch Mor A' Chroitaich some 800m west of the western site boundary.
12.140 A CEMP will be developed to ensure that the mitigation measures outlined in the EIA are followed during the proposed construction works. The CEMP will include surface water management and pollution prevention measures.
12.141 An Environmental Clerk of Works (ECoW) will monitor the construction works to ensure that the CEMP and associated mitigation measures are being implemented effectively.
12.142 Policy EI 5: Soils
Development should be designed to minimise adverse impacts on soils caused by ground disturbance, compaction or excavation. Developers should assess the likely effects associated with any development work on soils, particularly machair soil, peat, or other carbon-rich soils and associated vegetation, and aim to mitigate any adverse impacts arising. Where disturbance of peat or other carbon-rich soil is likely to give rise to significant emissions of carbon dioxide, developers may be required to justify the location of the proposed development and to show how emissions will be minimised. For Major developments, minerals and some large scale renewable energy proposals (see Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy Development), development will only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that unnecessary disturbance of carbon rich soils such as peat and any associated vegetation is avoided. A peat survey must be submitted which demonstrates that areas of deepest peat have been avoided and the impacts on carbon-rich soils and associated habitats minimised. Where required, a peat management plan must also be submitted along with any planning application which demonstrates best practice in the movement, storage, management and reinstatement of soils. Large scale commercial peat extraction will not be permitted. Other commercial peat extraction will only be permitted in areas suffering historic, significant damage through human activity and where the conservation value is low and restoration is impossible.
12.143 The bedrock geology of the application site is Gneiss (Lewisian) present immediately to the west with coastal seams of Protocataclasite (Outer Hebrides Thrust Complex) overlain primarily with peaty gley. The EIA Report incorporates the findings of a peat probe survey undertaken by Breedon dated 15 March 2019. The varying thickness of peat layers was determined by subsequent isopachyte mapping of the peatlands.
12.144 Within the Phase 1 survey area peat depth was mainly between 0.5 m and 1m with the three small pockets of slightly deeper peat,; two being directly south of Allt Poll A’ Choire (where there are two deep pockets of peat (1.5-2m). Based on this survey the volume of peat has been calculated at 10,500 metres cubed.
12.145 The acrotelmic upper layer of the excavated peat will be suited to construction re-use for landscaping. Reduced water content and increased tensile strength provided by fibrous composition and plant roots means it can be handled and still maintain its structure for use.
12.146 At 90% water content, the catotelmic lower layers are less suited to re-use due to poor structure and low tensile strength.
12.147 Figure 8.5 of the EIA illustrates a potential proposal for the reuse of peat, principally the landscaping of the 1:2 slope which arises from the cutting required to accommodate the road and secondly in lining wide ditches. Since the submission of the EIA the developer has engaged with SEPA and a revised strategy for the reuse of peat to reinstate damaged areas of peatland has been proposed. This will be managed by condition requiring the submission of a Peat Management Plan, produced in consultation with SEPA, for review and approval in advance of construction. The PMP will present details of peat depth and character, including the results of further survey work, calculations of anticipated excavation volumes, and proposals for the reuse, reinstatement or removal of excavated material. Plan C in Appendix 3 details the area where pear may be reinstated subject to the detail in the Peat Management Plan.
12.148 A Peat Landslide Risk Assessment (PLRA) will be produced for review and approval by SEPA in advance of construction. In addition to assessing risk, the PLRA will outline good practice and mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of a peat landslide occurring, or to reduce the potential effects associated with a peat landslide. 12.149 The vegetation and surface layer of soil or peat will be stripped and stored separately from the lower layers of soil/peat. Excavated vegetated turves will be kept as intact as possible, by separating from the underlying soil/peat and being rolled/folded back in a carpet. These turves will be watered and maintained during the construction phase and will be rolled back so that they are ‘turf side up’ once construction is complete.
12.150 Stockpiles will be placed in areas of lower ecological value, minimal risk of peat instability and at least 20m from permanent watercourses. Areas of undisturbed peat will be avoided for placing stockpiles. All peat will be stored separately from other soil, drift deposit or rock material. Where peat is stockpiled in large amounts, piles will be bladed off at the side to minimise the available drying surface area. The stockpiles will be sprayed to prevent desiccation, if necessary. The stockpiles will be checked and assessed for watering and the findings recorded by ECoW.
12.151 Policy EI 6: Coastal Erosion
Development proposals on areas liable to coastal erosion will only be permitted when the applicant can demonstrate that the development will not exacerbate coastal erosion at the development site or elsewhere along the coast and when the applicant can demonstrate that the development meets one or more of the following: a) it will have exceeded its useful life expectancy before natural erosion is likely to occur; b) it is of a temporary nature; c) it will not give rise to, or require, defence measures; d) it is associated with the defence of the coastal area where one or more of the following is threatened: I. occupied buildings; II. important habitats such as the machair; III. scheduled monuments or listed buildings; and IV. major infrastructure and utilities. Any coastal protection method(s) to be employed should be justified and detailed as part of a planning application.
12.152 The geology of the site is such that coastal erosion is unlikely to be an issue. No conditions and no mitigation is proposed or required.
12.153 Policy EI 7: Countryside and coastal access Development proposals must be located to ensure the Hebridean Way, the Core Path network and established and functional access points to water are kept free of obstruction unless it can be demonstrated that it can either: (a) retain the existing path or water access point while maintaining or enhancing its amenity value; or (b) ensure alternative access provision that is no less attractive and is safe and convenient for public use. Where practical, development proposals should avoid ‘other routes’ as identified in the Core Paths Plan. Proposals for improvements to, and expansion of, the existing path network (including the improvement of access to the Core Path network) that facilitates greater access and enjoyment of key natural and built heritage resources (e.g. beaches and coastline, mountains, moorland and lochs, archaeological and historic sites) are encouraged and will be required to: (c) accord with the Outer Hebrides Outdoor Access Strategy and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code; and (d) demonstrate appropriate consideration has been given to the need for associated way marking, information boards, car parking and other facilities.
12.154 The development does not impact upon any Core Path or Wider Path Network as illustrated by Figure 4.5 Recreational Routes in Volume 2 - Figures of the EIA Report. Nor would it extend these paths as the access would be to serve an operational harbour with warehousing and heavy industrial uses.
12.155 Policy EI 9: Transport Infrastructure
The priority areas for the upgrading and development of the transport infrastructure within, and serving the Outer Hebrides, are: a) the spinal and inter island routes; b) the airports at Barra, Balivanich and Stornoway; c) ports and harbours, including ferry facilities for mainland and inter island connections. Development proposals associated with new or improved transport infrastructure and traffic management measures will be required to meet all the following: 1. fit with the character of the area in relation to the Development Strategy and the immediate surrounding area and include a landscaping plan; 2. utilise a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) to deal with surface water; 3. accommodate pedestrians (within settlements) and cyclists, and secure improved road safety related to the proposal, in particular around schools, community or leisure facilities. The Comhairle will support the provision of electric car charging points in new development (subject to appropriate design and layout).
12.156 The proposal is related to the development of port and harbour infrastructure. The Development Strategy tests and impact upon Landscape are discussed under relevant policy headings above. SUDS will be required by condition. The Port is not within a Settlement but would be accessible to cyclists and longer distance walkers using the paths through the Castle Grounds and the Arnish Road. The provision of electric car charging points would be secured by condition.
12.157 The traffic and transport assessment within the EIA Report considered the impact of the proposed development upon the local road network and its users. The assessment included both construction and operational stages of the development.
12.158 The study area was based on the location of the site access point and took account of the following roads: the Arnish Road, the A859 from the Arnish Road along Willowglen Road up to Manor Roundabout, the A857 between the roundabout with Matheson Road and the junction with the B985, and Matheson Road.
12.159 The EIA noted that The A859 is a good standard single carriageway road, generally subject to the National Speed Limit (60mph). In the vicinity of Stornoway town, there is street lighting and footways along the northern side of the A859 where the road is referred to as Willowglen Road and the speed limit reduces to 40mph. However, generally the A859 does not experience pedestrian activity. Furthermore, the A859 is understood to be well-used by HGVs given that Marybank Quarry is situated approximately 1km north of the junction with Arnish Point Road. During the construction phase of the proposed development the stone and concrete requirement will be sourced from Marybank Quarry.
12.160 In the context of the proposed development, construction and operational traffic and staff will travel along the A859 and Willowglen Road to reach Manor roundabout if routeing onto the A857 travelling northwards, or if travelling into Stornoway town centre. Traffic travelling to the west of Lewis or to Harris will travel south along the A859.
12.161 The EIA considers additional journeys by staff, coaches and HGV during both construction and operational Phase 1.
12.162 The routes to be assessed were agreed with Comhairle Roads, Bridges and Streetlighting section, and traffic counts were taken using automatic counters at the agreed locations. An estimate was made of the number of vehicle trips generated during the construction stage of the project. A computer model of traffic flows was developed using specialist software. This predicted numbers of vehicles along each of the routes. The assessment took account of additional traffic associated with other anticipated concurrent developments in the vicinity.
12.163 Estimates of peak construction traffic were calculated based on estimates of material quantities supplied by the marine engineers. The peak months for construction traffic are anticipated to be month 11 to month 14, when rock for protecting the sides of the reclaimed area will be transported to site.
12.164 The overall traffic generation is expected to be as follows: • 1,800 deliveries over an 18-month period • 5 deliveries per day on average over the 18-month period • 15 deliveries per day on average during the busiest months • 50 deliveries per day as a maximum on the worst-case day during the peak months.
12.165 In addition to HGV movements, there will be vehicle trips associated with the construction phase for staff movement. It was assumed that there will be a maximum of 40 staff vehicles travelling to the site at any one time.
12.166 Materials for construction will as far as possible be sourced via dredge material and by blasting of the rock face locally. Some components of construction could arrive by sea, for example piles. However, as a conservative estimate, the traffic model assumes that 50% of material may be sourced from Marybank Quarry, so these trips have therefore been factored into traffic calculations
12.167 The guidance for the traffic assessment states that the criteria for a potentially significant effect are: a predicted increase of over 30% in HGVs/coaches, estimated increase in overall traffic of over 30%, or a predicted increase in traffic of over 10% in sensitive area (the town centre and Matheson Road).
12.168 When added to data from the traffic counts, the predicted greatest construction impacts are on Matheson Road. However, impacts were assessed as ‘slight’ and that the overall effect upon severance, driver delay, pedestrian delay, accidents and safety would be minor, which is not significant in terms of EIA guidance.
12.169 In terms of operational effects, a forecast was made of 2021 baseline traffic levels to represent the year of opening. Assessment of operational effects on the road network were carried out, including HGV movements and coach trips associated with cruise passengers. To ensure a robust assessment, the forecast included HGV’s associated with the freight ferry terminal at the Deep Water Port. However, in practice there would be a corresponding reduction in the baseline traffic flows, which include HGVs using the existing freight ferry. 12.170 Before mitigation is applied, the A859 Willowglen Road, and Matheson Road were predicted to have increases in HGVs/coaches that exceeded the 30% threshold and therefore there is potential for significant effects. It should be noted that coaches transporting cruise ship passengers would only operate on the days when a cruise ship is in port (estimated to be 50 days per year).
12.171 Willowglen Road is assessed as experiencing only minor effects. This is due to the predicted increase in traffic being able to be accommodated within low existing traffic flows.
12.172 It is recognised that the site has limited potential for accessibility by sustainable modes, therefore, measures are proposed aimed at managing the level of vehicle trips generation associated with the proposed development.
12.173 Sustainable travel - it is recognised that the existing level of pedestrian and cyclist accessibility is limited considering the remote nature of the development site. Furthermore, it is noted that public bus services are not within reasonable walking distance of the proposed development.
12.174 In order to mitigate this, it is expected that the proposed operator will operate coach services to transport cruise liner passengers between the development site and tourist destinations around the island. In addition, coaches will be provided to shuttle cruise liner passengers between the development and Stornoway town centre.
12.175 With regards to staff, the proposed development could encourage car-sharing amongst staff where appropriate to manage single-occupancy car travel and the development’s overall traffic impact on the local road network. To reduce the impact of additional traffic on Matheson Road, it is proposed that HGV and coach movements would be minimised during school peak periods (i.e. before school, during lunch and after school). These vehicles may be re-routed during this time via Cromwell Street to reach the passenger drop off point at the bus station. This will reduce the impact on Matheson Road.
12.176 A Traffic Management Plan detailing the mitigation measures to be taken will be agreed with the Comhairle.
12.177 With this mitigation, the assessment predicts no significant effects upon the road network because of the proposed development.
MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
13.1 Whilst decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan, due weight should be afforded to relevant material considerations. Many of these issues have already been addressed as part of the Development Plan assessment but the following merit specific comment.
National Planning Framework 13.2 The provision of a DWP complies with national aspirations within NPF3 promoting sustainable economic growth and reversing potential disadvantages related to remoteness. It notes Stornoway’s strategic location, economic potential and role as a service centre underlining its importance to the Western Isles. It also notes Stornoway is an important transport hub for passenger and commercial transport. It also notes Stornoway as having significant potential as a destination for cruise ships and leisure craft and addresses priorities to create new harbour facilities that will take advantage of wider economic development opportunities including improved berthing facility for large ships.
Scottish Planning Policy 13.3 The wider DWP project will create a sustainable economic development opportunity that will enhance marine, industrial and leisure sectors in line with SPP’s presumption in favour of sustainable development, and therefore lends support to an approval of the application. N-RIP 2 13.4 Arnish Industrial Estate, which is within the wider red line boundary but not subject to any development works under this PPP has Enterprise Area status under the Low Carbon/Renewables North Enterprise Area. Enterprise Areas are identified locations set up by the Scottish Government in order to stimulate manufacturing opportunities as well as investment and job creation. While the DWP is distinct from Arnish, the land zoned at Arnish is now largely committed to particular projects and the provision of a coastal link road would provide synergy of opportunity for the proposed site. The Enterprise status of Arnish lends support to the current proposal.
National Marine Plan 13.5 There is currently no Regional Marine Plan in place in the Outer Hebrides ‘Scottish Marine Region’. Where there is no Regional Marine Plan the National Marine Plan applies. The National Marine Plan (2015) has a presumption in favour of sustainable development and use of the marine environment when it is consistent with its policies and objectives. This principle is relevant to all marine activities, but is especially relevant for the key growth sectors which Scotland specialises in, which includes renewable energy activities. The NMP recognises that development of growth sectors is particularly important in more remote areas of Scotland and that sustainable development and use of the marine environment can provide multiple economic benefits at both a community and national level, including economic growth, skills development, employment, maintaining or increasing population levels and opportunities for investment and trade.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
13.6 National Planning Policy and Guidance are material planning considerations in the determination of a planning application. The following are relevant and discussed through response to local planning policy above. The EIA Report and the assessment above takes cognisance of the undernoted policy advice and guidance. Online Planning Advice on Flood Risk PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation (Revised 2006); PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage; PAN 65 Planning and Open S pace; PAN 75 Planning for Transport; PAN 79 Water and Drainage; PAN 3/2010 Community Engagement; PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise; PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology; PAN 1/2013 Environmental Impact Assessment SEPA Guidance - April 2019 – Climate Change Allowance for Flood Risk Assessment in land use planning.
Socio economic benefits 13.7 The DWP has the potential to attract business in a range of growing sectors in the Outer Hebrides including cruise ships, commercial freight (bulk handling), renewables, and oil and gas decommissioning. Increased activity in these areas will have positive, indirect effects on businesses throughout the island.
13.8 In terms of employment, Phase 1 of the proposed development is expected to offer approximately 52 full time equivalent (FTE) construction jobs at the outset of the initial construction phase in 2019.
13.9 Construction jobs are expected to peak in 2020 when it is anticipated that up to 126 FTE jobs will be available. In total, 240 FTE jobs will be required between 2017 and 2021.
13.10 By the time it becomes operational, Phase 1 of the DWP is expected to support approximately 48 FTE operational jobs by 2021, which may rise to 224 FTE jobs when all phases are constructed by approximately 2036.
13.11 The EIA Report notes other anticipated impacts of the proposed development to include: Increase in cruise ship visits – estimated to double from 43 to 86 per year and an anticipated increase in total gross tonnage of ships from 360,000 gt to 3,500,000 gt; Cruise ship passenger numbers will increase, leading to spend of approximately £3 million per annum in the local economy; Improvements in bulk cargo handling, making the Port more resilient by providing additional facilities and improving business efficiency; Provision of facilities to facilitate renewable energy growth and delivery of components, bringing jobs to the area; Ability to attract oil and gas decommissioning operations, bringing jobs to the area; Infrastructure for fuel unloading and storage.
13.12 These benefits are considerable and add weight to the positive determination of the application.
Population and Human Health 13.13 The predicted impacts of the DWP development on population and human health are identified by the EIA as positive for Stornoway and the Outer Hebrides.
13.14 The pre-application consultation indicated that the local population is aware of the socio- economic benefits associated with the employment impacts of the proposed development.
13.15 These will contribute to better living standards, health and well-being opportunities (as a result of investment in local services and infrastructure). The proposed development will make a contribution towards addressing the forecast decline of people of working age living on the island.
13.16 The assessment considered the impact of the development on air quality and concluded that there will be no significant effects.
13.17 These benefits are positive and add weight to the positive determination of this application.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
14.1 The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2018 (OHLDP) includes a new policy ‘STY3 Development of Stornoway’ to ensure development within the extent of the Stornoway Harbour Limits takes account of the Stornoway Port Masterplan, a 20 year development framework for the Port of Stornoway, and safeguards sites identified within it.
14.2 The OHLDP recognises that the developments identified within the Masterplan represent an important opportunity to increase economic activity in the islands and, in the case of Arnish, the multiplier effects offer opportunities to support key major ambitions for the islands to become a global player in renewable energy generation and manufacturing.
14.3 The Stornoway Harbour - Deep Water Port (DWP), is a key project of the Stornoway Port Masterplan.
14.4 The wider development of the DWP is of significant scale, classed both EIA and Major Development with an estimated area of 400,000m3 of seabed to be dredged, to a depth of 10.5m below Chart Datum, re-use of dredged material to reclaim land with the shortfall in material made up by blasting of up to 600,000m3 of rock and a resulting reclaimed and levelled area of 10 hectares for port activity and industrial and storage use, a 250m quay wall providing a deep water berth together with a 180m double sided finger pier with a link-span. 14.5 The project is within the limits of Stornoway harbour, and on the immediate coastal zone and largely regulated by statutory instrument (The Stornoway Port Authority Harbour Revision Order 2019) which grants ‘Power to construct works’. The project is the subject of a multi- faceted consenting regime with the significant elements of the project regulated by Marine Licence and Permitted Development Rights which follow the above Order.
14.6 This application for PPP relates to particular elements of the development only, but the construction of the primary access road leading from the Arnish Road into the site is key to realising the development of the DWP and associated port facilities and will in due course allow for the development of buildings and the associated works for storage/distribution and heavy industrial uses and the substantial economic benefits that would follow from investment in these facilities.
14.7 The development has been subject to EIA and an iterative design process.
14.8 The development proposals are required to demonstrate a satisfactory quality of place- making, siting, scale and design that respect and reflect positive local characteristics and will complement or enhance the surrounding built and natural environment. As this is a planning application for Planning Permission in Principle much of that detail requires to be secured by condition to be addressed in a further stage of the consenting process.
14.9 Notwithstanding this the EIA has incorporated a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and a Cultural Heritage Assessment based on the Port and a typical scale of Port building. These have allowed consideration of the likely effects.
14.10 The assessment for impacts on built heritage resources considered those within the site, within an inner study area of 1km and outer study area of 5km. It has been concluded that were would be no significant adverse impact during construction or operation on the Lews Castle (Garden and Designed Landscape), or on the Stornoway Conservation Area or on the Listed Buildings within them. It has also been concluded that there would be no significant adverse impact during construction or operation on Scheduled Monuments included the Arnish Gun Emplacements which are the closest to the site. Consideration has also been given to impact upon and ability to appreciate the Iolaire Monument and it has been concluded that there would be no significant adverse impacts during either construction or operation.
14.11 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment including an assessment on the Stornoway Coastal character forms a substantial portion of the EIA Report.
14.12 The scale of the project, the enclosed nature of the harbour, viewpoints being within 1.8km distance and the nature of activity, (dredging, land reclamation and the extensive extraction of rock from the steep slopes across the western parts of the site) is such that during the construction phase (expected to last 18 months) there will inevitably be a significant adverse visual effects. These will be upon recreational users and some residents around Sandwick Bay; some residents and visitors on parts of Newton Street and South Beach; the Stornoway Harbour Coastal Character Area (CCA); and Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park Garden and Designed Landscape as viewed from 11 selected viewpoints.
14.13 Furthermore during the long term operational phase as a Port with large ships and maritime activity, significant visual and cumulative effects are predicted on Stornoway Harbour CCA, recreational users and some residents around Sandwick Bay; and some residents and visitors on parts of Newton Street and South Beach.
14.14 These would not arise from the construction or use of the primary access road, nor from the buildings on the level platform if appropriately scaled, designed and sited.
14.15 There would be no long term significant landscape effects on any landscape character types or the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park Garden and Designed Landscape. However, considering the extent and nature of change across parts of the western coastline of the harbour, the proposed development would result in a significant effect on the Stornoway Harbour Coastal Character Area.
14.16 Consideration has been given to the impact of the development on the water environment and peat soils and mitigation identified to ensure negative impacts are appropriately managed. Flood risk has been considered and measures which would mitigate against the risk will be managed by condition.
14.17 There will be loss of some areas of relatively young trees and a condition is proposed seeking that they be replaced.
14.18 The project, being a major development, was subject to pre-application consultation with the local community. This resulted in a high level of participation. No third party input was received from the subsequent public consultation on the planning application, indicating that the community does not have concerns about the proposal.
14.19 The development would deliver on a long term ambition of the Stornoway Port Authority to develop a deep water berth at Glumaig Bay. When all matters are considered the main concern is that from a visual amenity perspective there will, in the long term operational stage, be an significant adverse visual effect from a number of viewpoints (around the enclosed harbour and within 1.8km of the site) on various receptors including the coastal character area, as a result of the development of the overall DWP. That has to be balanced against the fact that the significant Engineering and Marine Works are consented by others and that Stornoway Harbour is identified by the Government as a key Scottish Port with development potential. The DWP would help realise that potential by creating new opportunities for the berthing of larger shipping including cruise liners as well as potential for warehousing and heavy engineering work all with attendant economic benefits for the Outer Hebrides and more specifically Stornoway.
14.20 The associated creation of development land would provide an opportunity to accommodate uses which are dependent on access to suitable berthing and incompatible or unable to be accommodated with the limited sites available within the traditional industrial areas in and around Stornoway. These developments, if realised, would result in economic, social, community, and environmental benefits.
14.21 The proposal which is the subject of an application for Planning Permission in Principle is a relatively small part of the overall DWP development. It has been subject to EIA and a robust examination of the EIA findings. It has been assessed against the OHLDP subject to management of a number of issues and impacts by a condition found to be compliant. Furthermore, the material considerations of NPF3, SPP, N-RIP and Planning Policy and guidance all lend weight to an approval in accordance with the Development Plan.
14.22 The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions attached at Appendix 1 and implementation of the Mitigation Measures attached at Appendix 2.
14.23 In order to accommodate the uncertainties around timescale for implementation of this major infrastructure development, the developer seeks to extend the time period for making an application for the matters specified by condition on the PPP, from the standard three years provided by Section 59(2) of the Act, to five years.
14.24 It is accepted that there are variables that could lead to a delay in the detailed design and resultant information to satisfy conditions on the PPP and it is therefore proposed that a Direction be made, in terms of Section 59(5) that the 3 year period in subsection 59(2)(a) (i) is not to apply and that the Application for the approval mentioned in Section 59(1) (b) must be made before the expiration of 5 years from the date upon which this permission is granted. APPENDIX 1
SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS
CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM
Condition 1 Prior to the commencement of the development of any building or associated works on the levelled platform (labelled as ‘levelled area’ and shaded yellow on Approved Plan No 02A), the following shall be submitted for the approval of the Comhairle as planning authority: A site layout masterplan detailing the preliminary layout for development plots, including any internal service roads (all road junctions internal to the development platform to have a minimum visibility splay to meet the Comhairle’s requirements) and; A series of cross sections through the site detailing site levels of the development platform in relation to the primary access road and Arnish Industrial Estate Link Road and; the indicative position of street lighting columns and preliminary specification of lights; the position of electric vehicle charging points; an annotated plan detailing the finish to ground surfaces across the site (to include an element of both hard and soft landscaping); the specification for all hard landscaping materials and planted species; the position and detail of any entrance feature. The details shall then be implemented, only as approved, and shall be maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason In order to optimise the use of the levelled platform, ensure the main access routes are designed to radii, cross-fall and gradients consistent with the servicing of the proposed heavy industrial and storage uses, to optimise the siting of street lighting to minimise light pollution on the coastal environment and to ensure an appropriate quality of development.
Condition 2 Prior to the commencement of the development of any building or associated works on the levelled platform approved by this planning permission, the following shall be submitted for the approval of the Comhairle as planning authority in consultation with SEPA: the layout and means of treatment of surface water to include for the installation of oil interceptors and additional stages of water treatment prior to discharge to the water environment; the siting and specification of the wastewater drainage system including the proposed outfall; The details shall be implemented, only as approved, and shall be maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason In order to protect the water environment.
Condition 3 Prior to the commencement of the development of any building or associated works on the levelled platform the following shall be submitted for the approval of the Comhairle as planning authority: Photo-montage visualisations of the building(s) to be sited on the levelled platform (the modelling updated to reflect the site layout masterplan required by Condition 1 and the reduced extent of excavations for the Phase 1 development platform and the Arnish Industrial Estate Link Road only), from the following viewpoints: South Beach Street, Newton Street, Lews Castle, Cuddy Point and the Iolaire Monument Car-park. Reason In order to assess the visual impact of the height, scale and colour of industrial and storage buildings against the context of Phase 1 site excavations and port development only.
Condition 4 Prior to the commencement of the development on each development plot on the levelled platform (as identified by the site masterplan referenced in Condition 1), the following details in relation to all buildings, external plant, tanks, or ancillary infrastructure shall be submitted for the written approval of the Comhairle as Planning Authority: detailed site and block plans, elevations and cross sections for the buildings and associated details to confirm that no building shall have a finished floor level (FFL) of less than 4.93m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD); a schedule specifying the materials, colour and finishes for external surfaces (material to be of a matt finish); plans and specification of the perimeter security fencing, including the design, height and position of fencing; specifications for any other boundary treatments; parking layout to accord with the standards set out in Appendix 3 of the Outer Hebrides Development Plan. The details shall be implemented, only as approved, and shall be maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason In order to enable the Planning Authority to consider these matters in detail and more specifically to ensure mitigation against flood risk and to ensure that the visual impact of the development is managed through use of appropriate design, materials, colours and finishes.
CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE DEVEOPMENT OF THE PRIMARY ACCESS ROAD AND PEAT PLACEMENT AREAS
Condition 5 Prior to commencement of the development of the primary access road (labelled as ‘proposed access road’ and shaded green on Approved Plan No 02A) forming part of the development to which this planning permission in principle relates, the following shall be submitted for the written approval of the Comhairle as Panning Authority (in consultation with SEPA): detailed site plans of the primary access road; cross sections (referenced to chainage points); layout and design of the means of treatment of surface water (to include for SUDS and demonstrated to meet the treatment requirements of CIRIA C753). Reason In order to protect the water environment.
Condition 6 The culvert crossing of Allt Poll na Coire shall be of bottomless arched culvert design and shall be sized to accommodate a 1 in 200 year flood event plus an allowance for climate change. Reason In order to protect the water environment and to avoid the risk of flooding on adjoining land.
Condition 7 Prior to commencement of the development of the primary access road or placement or reuse of peat to which this planning permission relates, a site specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which incorporates the measures for delivering the mitigations identified in the Schedule of Mitigation at Appendix 2, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Comhairle as Planning Authority, (in consultation with SEPA). For the avoidance of doubt the CEMP shall incorporate: 1. a draft programme of works; 2. a pollution prevention plan; 3. a site waste management plan (SWMP) to include confirmation that no dredged material will be deposited within the site to which this planning permission relates; 4. a peat management plan and Peat Reuse Strategy; 5. a peat landslide risk assessment. For the avoidance of doubt, peat placement and reuse shall only take place on the areas identified in green on approved drawing no 04 (or such other plan submitted for the written approval of the Comhairle as Planning Authority, (in consultation with SEPA)) and the peat management and peat reuse strategy shall follow the general principles of guidance on the assessment of peat volumes, reuse of excavated peat and the minimisation of waste and specifically cover the following issues: Re-quantification of the peat volumes to be disturbed (divided up into acrotelmic and catotelmic layers) following post-consent ground investigation works; Location of temporary storage areas shown on a drawing with information on maximum storage times; Estimate of quantities of disturbed peat that can be reused for each use/purpose, including for reinstatement of the edges of the development and habitat restoration works; Drawings, including cross-sections, showing how and where the peat will be reused; Proposals for beneficial use of disturbed peat in habitat restoration works, including photographs of the area to be improved, objectives and methods of carrying out the work; Monitoring proposals to ensure successful restoration/habitat improvement. All peat reinstatement works shall be completed prior to first use of any building on the site. Reason To minimise environmental impacts during the construction phase, ensure the management and handing of displaced peat is in accordance with best practice.
Condition 8 Prior to the commencement of construction works, a consultation protocol detailing the communication arrangements with landowners, tenants, operators and residents likely to be impacted by any road access control measures arising from the development works shall be submitted to the Comhairle as Planning Authority for written approval. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details of the Scheme. The Scheme will stand as approved or with such subsequent amendments as may receive the written approval of the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Reason In order to establish protocols for notifying times of road controls or blasting to protect the sole means of access to a strategic development site and the Arnish Point Industrial Estate during construction works.
Condition 9 No later than two weeks prior to the commencement of any construction works, a Road Condition Survey, to include record photographs shall be carried out along the access road taken from the junction of the A859 through to the Arnish Industrial Estate covering all of the road down to the access point located on the lower platform level to the west of the application site. A copy of the Road Condition Survey shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Comhairle as Planning Authority prior to any construction works commencing. Reason In order to record the pre-commencement standard and condition of the sole means of access to a strategic development site and the Arnish Point Industrial Estate. Condition 10 Prior to commencement of the development of the primary access road or the placement or reuse of peat, forming part of the development to which this planning permission relates, a construction traffic management plan shall be submitted for the written approval of the Comhairle as Planning Authority. The traffic management plan shall include: a. The routing on the road network of Stornoway of all construction traffic associated with the construction of the development; b. Provisions for maintenance of access for emergency vehicles and to the Arnish Point Industrial Estate; c. measures to minimise impact on the road network of Stornoway at peak hours; d. identification of a nominated person to whom any road safety issues can be referred; and e. Measures to reduce mud and spoil on the highway with wheel wash facilities, or provision of road sweeper and road cleaning schedule to ensure that the roads around the construction site are kept clear of mud and debris. The approved traffic management plan shall thereafter be implemented in full, unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing with the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Reason In the interests of road safety and to ensure reasonable vehicular and public access is maintained to a strategic development site and the Arnish Point Industrial Estate during construction works. Condition 11 At least two weeks prior to the commencement of development, of the primary access road or the placement or reuse of peat forming part of the development to which this planning permission relates a pre-construction Otter (Lutra lutra) survey shall be carried out. The pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the Comhairle as Planning Authority for review in conjunction with SNH. No construction works shall proceed until any mitigation measures required as a consequence of the survey have been agreed in writing with the Comhairle as Planning Authority (in consultation with SNH). The approved mitigation shall then be implemented to the satisfaction of the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Reason In order to update previous survey information to ensure adequate protection of Otter, a European Protected Species within the terms of Regulation 39 and 43 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994.
Condition 12 Prior to commencement of the development to which this planning permission relates, a method statement for rock blasting operations on the site to which this planning permission relates, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Comhairle as Planning Authority. The method statement shall provide that: all blasting operations shall take place between Monday 9am to Saturday 7pm (with blasting normally being planned prior to 5pm). There shall be no blasting or drilling operations on Sundays; vibration not to exceed a peak particle velocity of 9mm/second at the nearest residential properties; vibration check for Arnish sub-station not to exceed 9mm/second. Ground vibrations as a result of blasting operations shall to be controlled so as to not be detrimental to any nearby structures or plant. The operator shall employ best blasting design and practice at all times so as to minimise so far as reasonably practicable the effects of ground vibration and air blast overpressure. All blasting operations (other than works necessary in an emergency or of an urgent nature) shall then take place only in accordance with the method statement as approved, or with such subsequent amendments as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason In order to safeguard the safety and amenities of people and structures in the area.
Condition 13 Prior to commencement of the development to which this planning permission relates, a method statement for the control of dust from construction operations shall be submitted for the written approval of the Comhairle as Planning Authority. The construction operations shall then be carried out in accordance with the method statement as approved, or with such subsequent amendments as may be agreed in writing with the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Reason To protect the amenity at dust sensitive premises.
Condition 14 A method statement for enabling an archaeological watching brief on all ground breaking shall be submitted to and approved by the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Such method statement shall include: a) identification of the organisation or person(s) that would be employed to undertake the watching brief (including their archaeological qualifications); b) provisions to be made to allow access to the development site and to enable investigation recording and recovery of finds; and c) terms for notification of the commencement of development and access arrangements to the site. No development shall commence within areas identified by the method statement as having potential archaeological interest until the method statement has been approved in writing by the Comhairle as Planning Authority. The approved method statement (or any subsequent variation to it that may be agreed in writing by the Comhairle as Planning Authority) shall then be implemented to the satisfaction of the Comhairle as Planning Authority throughout the period of all groundbreaking works. Reason In order to ensure proper recording and protection of items of archaeological interest.
Condition 15 During the period of operations to which this planning permission relates, the operator must inform the Comhairle Archaeologist 14 days prior to commencement of works. The operator shall also afford access, at all reasonable times, to any archaeologist nominated by the Comhairle as Planning Authority and shall allow such archaeologist to observe work in progress and record items of interest and finds, the nominated archaeologist to comply with all construction site rules set out by the Principal Contractor. Reason In order to ensure proper recording and protection of items of archaeological interest.
Condition 16 Within six months of commencement of the development of the primary access road, details of compensatory tree planting (specifying broadly the numbers, types, sizes and location of trees) to compensate for the loss of trees on the application site shall be submitted to the Comhairle as Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented during the first available planting season following approval and retained to the satisfaction of the Comhairle as Planning Authority unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Reason In order to secure the visual and landscape amenity of the area and contribute to nature conservation in accordance with the requirements of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan and Scottish Planning Policy. Condition 17 Prior to the commencement of the development works to which this planning permission relates the perimeter of the ‘development footprint’ (to incorporate the area labelled as ‘levelled area’ and shaded yellow and the area labelled as ‘proposed access road’ and shaded green on Approved Plan No 02A) and any associated working and access areas shall be physically marked out on the site. Reason In order to ensure that environmental receptors on the wider site are not adversely impacted by plant and machinery and that the development footprint is limited to that for which permission has been granted.
Condition 18 Prior to the commencement of the development to which this planning permission relates, details of the terms of appointment by the developer of an independent Ecological Clerk of Works shall be submitted to the Comhairle as Planning Authority. The terms of appointment shall impose a duty to monitor compliance with the ecological and hydrological commitments provided in the Schedule of Mitigation appended at Appendix 2 to this planning permission. Reason To secure effective monitoring of and compliance with the environmental mitigation and management measures associated with the Development.
APPENDIX 2 Environmental Impact Assessment Schedule of Mitigations
APPENDIX 3
Plan A – Location Plan
APPENDIX 3
Plan B – Concept Site Plan
APPENDIX 3
Plan C – Peat Reinstatement Area