Loudoun Castle Estate, Galston..”

EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL

SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE: 29 APRIL 2016

15/0676/PPP: LEISURE AND TOURISM DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING: 450 HOLIDAY LODGES; 12 GLAMPING PITCHES; RESTORATION OF CASTLE TO SHELL CONVERSION TO HOTEL; NEW LEISURE FACILITIES INCLUDING LAKE; INDOOR WATER PARK WITH RETAIL PIZZA AND RESTAURANTS (6,500SQM), WATER SPORTS BUILDING (600 SQM), INDOOR SPORTS (5,000SQM). SPA (2,000SQM) AND CYCLE STORE. ERECTION OF DISTILLERY (1,552SQM) AND COMMUNITY HEAT PLANT (476SQM). ERECTION OF PHASED ENABLING DEVELOPMENT, WITH A FIRST PHASE OF 300 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS AND ADDITIONAL PHASES OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS THAT WILL ENABLE THE COMPLETE RESTORATION OF THE CASTLE TO A HOTEL: COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

AT: LOUDOUN CASTLE, LOUDOUN CASTLE ESTATE A71 GALSTON ROUNDABOUT, GALSTON, EAST AYRSHIRE KA4 8PD

BY LOUDOUN WOODS HOMES LTD

Report by Head of Planning and Economic Development, Economy and Skills

Click for Application Details: http://eplanning.east- ayrshire.gov.uk/online/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NUCXL7 GF03N00

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to present an application for planning permission in principle that is considered to be significantly contrary to the Development Plan, to the Planning Committee, for a view, as the application has been called-in by the Scottish Ministers in terms of Section 46 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Thereafter, the view of the Committee shall be conveyed to the Reporters appointed by the Scottish Ministers as representing the position of the Council in the current call-in.

2. The proposal represents a Major Development in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

RECOMMENDATION

3. That the Planning Committee agree the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development that the application should be referred to Scottish Ministers on the following basis:-

1) The Planning Authority cannot at this point in time support the application given the lack of relevant information.

2) The Planning Authority therefore recommend that application be refused planning permission in principle.

3) Should the applicants’ provide further relevant information as highlighted within this report, the Planning Authority would wish the opportunity to reconsider its position.

4) Should the Scottish Ministers determine that the application be supported, the Planning Service seek delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Economic Development in consultation with the Chief Governance Officer to provide Scottish Government with proposed conditions and Head of Terms for a Legal Agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) act 1997 (as amended).

CONTRARY DECISION NOTE

4. Should the Committee adopt the view that the application should be supported, contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development, the application would have represented a significant departure from Council policy. If the application was not the subject of an call-in, it would have thereafter been referred to Council for a decision. However as the application has been called-in, it therefore does not require to be considered by Council.

Michael Keane Head of Planning and Economic Development

Note: This document combines key sections of the associated report for quick reference and should not in itself be considered as having been the basis for recommendation preparation or decision making by the Planning Authority.

EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL

SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE: 29 APRIL 2016

AT: LOUDOUN CASTLE, LOUDOUN CASTLE ESTATE A71 GALSTON ROUNDABOUT, GALSTON, EAST AYRSHIRE KA4 8PD

BY LOUDOUN WOODS HOMES LTD

REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMY AND SKILLS

PURPOSE OF REPORT

2. The proposal represents a Major Development in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

BACKGROUND

Resubmitted Application

3. This planning application before Members was lodged with the Planning Service on 8 September 2015. It replaced an earlier planning application which was withdrawn by the applicant’s agent ref. 14/0852/PPP and incorporated an updated Environmental Impact Assessment and further clarification on matters as provided by the applicant’s team. This revised application was then subject to a draft Processing Agreement, and then statutory advertisement, neighbour notification and consultation with further discussions taking place with the applicant's agents and the Planning Service as the revised application progressed.

Discussions

4. Discussions took place following the registration of the planning application as they continued from those that had taken place prior to the withdrawal of the previous application.

5. The Planning Service in order to set out its clear position to the applicants in seeking to provide and obtain agreement to move the application forward and present the application to a Planning Committee meeting, issued a Position statement on 3 December 2015, with further clarification being provided on 15 December 2015. The detail of these discussions is highlighted in the conclusions of this report below.

Call-In by Scottish Government

6. Following registration of the application, the Scottish Government's Chief Planner had been party to telephone conference calls and meetings as he sought, without commenting on the merits of the application, to facilitate, as far as possible, the progressing of this application.

7. However, following a request by the applicant to the Scottish Government to call-in the application for determination, the Planning Service received a letter dated 17 December 2015 advising that the Scottish Government had decided that the application should be referred to them for a determination. The Notice issued by Scottish Government confirmed that the reason for the application being called-in was:-

“……. in view of the potential economic benefit of the proposal and the heritage issues related to the A listed Loudoun Castle and its designed landscape.”

8. The application is now subject to a formal assessment process which will be administered by the Department of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) and will be the subject of a report by appointed Reporters to Scottish Ministers for their determination.

APPLICATION DETAILS

9. Site Description: The application site is located approximately 6.5 kilometres to the east of Kilmarnock within the Irvine Valley. The A71 and A719 run along the southern and western boundaries of the site. The town of Galston is located beyond the A71 to the south. The site comprises an area of approximately 176 hectares and forms part of the wider 246 hectare Loudoun Castle Estate. Land to the south of the castle is occupied by the Loudoun Gowf Club, which has been a ‘gowf’ or golf field since the early 16th century. Loudoun Academy which is the local secondary school is located to the west of the estate.

10. The site is currently occupied by the ruins of Loudoun Castle and the surrounding estate, which includes designed parkland. The Loudoun Castle Estate is a confirmed Garden and Designed Landscape, a Provisional Wildlife Site and includes the A listed Loudoun Castle. The Cottage at Loudoun Castle within the site is also Category B listed and the site is further covered by Tree Preservation Orders for group and individual trees throughout the site. A tree lined avenue forms the approach to the Castle from the A719, with areas of woodland surrounding the castle. To the east of the Castle is an area known as ‘Big Wood’ characterised by a steep sided densely wooded valley. There is a Right of Way through the site leading from the A71 northwards towards the Castle and the main avenue. There is also a Core Path (a route which facilitates access to the outdoors under the Outdoor Access Strategy and Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003) though the Big Wood known as IV6.

11. A number of buildings are located across the estate, ranging from derelict buildings to those in a good state of repair and occupied as residential properties. A number of buildings are present that were used in connection with a former theme park at the site and the walled garden accommodated a green/glass-house and various timber structures associated with the former theme park. The coach house has been previously renovated and has been used to accommodate a cafe and function room.

12. The Estate has been subject to a number of different developments and proposals. The Castle ruins are the remnants of a grand house design in 1804 which incorporated elements of two older castles and the designed parkland was laid out from 1714 prior to modification. The more recent Loudoun Castle was largely destroyed by fire in 1941 but significant sections remain of the external walls. The estate was last formally used as a theme park and opened for this use in 1995. The mechanical rides associated with this theme park are located to the east of the Castle and the theme park included the walled garden and the eastern end of the avenue approach to the castle. The theme park is now closed with some of the rides removed from the site and other rides having been decommissioned or dismantled and lying within the site.

13. The application site and wider Estate is located within the rural area and is largely bounded by rolling agricultural land on most boundaries with the southern boundary facing towards the A71 beyond which is the town of Galston. The Estate is however located within proximity to a number of settlements with Kilmarnock approximately 6.5 kilometres to the west (9.7 kilometres to the centre of the town), Newmilns 3.2 kilometres to the east, Darvel 6.6 kilometres to the east past Newmilns, and Moscow 3.7 kilometres in a northerly direction. Whitelee Wind Farm boundary comprising 215 wind turbines lies directly to the north of the development site.

14. The Loudoun Castle Estate is served by a central spine avenue running from the A719 in an approximately eastwards direction towards the Castle. The Estate accommodates other residential properties which are not connected with this application and are therefore outwith the application site. These are located centrally within the estate and are known collectively as Howletburn and also Loudoun Cottage as already highlighted. Howletburn comprises Cloag Cottage, Cottages No.1 and 2. Howletburn is accessed from the access road further north of the main access which lies within the application site. Loudoun Cottage is accessed from the main access and central avenue.

15. Proposed Development: Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) is sought for the proposed development which comprises a tourism led development, together with stabilisation and subsequent restoration of the castle remains. Residential development is also proposed in order to enable the castle restoration. The purpose of the project is to provide a viable programme of development to secure the future of the Loudoun Castle estate. The project includes the following key components:

Leisure and tourism development, including a lake and associated indoor and outdoor sports and leisure areas; Holiday accommodation, comprising holiday lodges, fractional ownership properties and glamping pitches; Castle restoration, including potential conversion to a hotel; Whisky distillery; Community heat plant; Up to 1,025 new dwellings (with a first phased of 300 dwellings); Public open space and landscape planting incorporating formal and informal areas of open space, retention of existing landscape features, reinstatement of former elements of the historic parkland and new planting areas; and New access for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

16. Illustrative layout plans are provided although the applicant’s agent indicates that as this is an application for planning permission in principle, no detailed layout or building design details are submitted.

17. The above components can be broken down in more detail to comprise as follows:-

Leisure and tourism development

18. The project would be a tourism led development, taking the form of a holiday village. This would include serviced holiday accommodation, recreation and sports facilities. A lake would be created as a new feature within the parkland and would form a focal point for the proposed leisure and recreational activities. The holiday village would also incorporate the existing walled garden to the east of the castle. Key components would include:

A new lake in the centre of the site, including water sports area, lakeside ‘water building’ and spa occupying an area of 10.53 hectares – located on an area of open land in the centre of the project site to the north west of the castle. The site is surrounded by woodland areas to the north, south and east and this element of the proposal would include approximately 18 lakeside lodges. A “beach” and “cliff face” would be created with a water building (approximately 6,500 m2) proposed to the east of the lake and is likely to accommodate a main leisure pool/water park, restaurants/retail plaza and associated leisure uses. A spa building is proposed (approximately 2,000 m2) over two floors including a spa pool, plunge pools and treatment rooms. Both the water building and the spa building are proposed to be built into the hillside created by the earthworks around the lake resulting in the creation of a green roof to the buildings.

19. A water sports building (approximately 600 m2) is proposed adjacent to the lake. This would include facilities such as boat hire and a restaurant. The building is also likely to service any climbing facilities on the new cliff face.

20. Health and sports club and outdoor activity areas – the applicant’s agent indicates that this building would occupy approximately 3.92 hectares and include a gym, sports courts and restaurants. It is proposed that the building (approximately 5,000 m2) would incorporate a green (Sedum or grass) roof. An area of land adjacent to the health and sports club would be used for sports and recreational activities and would include a cycle storage/collection building.

21. Lighting would be provided in key areas of the tourism development, in order to ensure safety of users in accessing key parts of the site. Lighting would be suitable for the level of use of each part of the site and would incorporate low level pathway lighting where possible and lighting near woodland areas within the site would be directed in order to avoid light spillage. Fittings would be selected to reflect light to focus on the areas where light is required and to avoid light straying. All external lighting and lighting to common areas in residential and holiday accommodation areas would be fitted with low energy lamps with movement or daylight sensors to prevent lights being left on unnecessarily.

Holiday Accommodation

22. Holiday accommodation in the form of lakeside and woodland lodges and a glamping area - In addition to the lakeside lodges, holiday lodges would be located within areas of existing and proposed woodland throughout the central and southern parts of the site. In total, approximately 398 holiday lodges are proposed (including the lakeside lodges). The holiday lodge and wooded areas would occupy approximately 46 hectares.

23. Approximately 52 fractional ownership holiday villa properties (for Members information fractional ownership is essentially partial ownership of a property and with this type of ownership, a property is owned and shared by at least two, and often several, individuals) are proposed within the existing walled garden to the east of the castle. This area of approximately 2 hectares was part of the site of the former theme park. To the south east of the walled garden, a glamping area with twelve pitches (approximately 2.2 hectares) is proposed.

24. All external lighting and lighting to common areas in residential and holiday accommodation areas would be fitted with low energy lamps with movement or daylight sensors to prevent lights being left on unnecessarily.

Castle Restoration

25. The castle was fire damaged In 1941 and left as a ruin with resultant water damage and vegetation growth which deteriorated the remaining structure. The approach to restoration of the castle would be phased, based on viability and this is advised by the applicant’s agent as follows:

Stabilisation of the castle ruins: This would be the minimum level of castle restoration proposed as part of the project. The building would be conserved and stabilised. The works would comprise internal clearance and sorting of fallen masonry, removal of vegetation growing through the castle walls, consolidation of the structure as found and stabilisation as required; Rebuilding of the castle as a ‘shell’: Subject to viability, the castle would be restored as a ‘shell’. Following stabilisation, this would comprise strengthening the structure, rebuilding the missing external elements and providing a roof and windows; Redevelopment of the castle as a hotel: Subject to viability and market interest, the castle shell may be developed for use as a hotel. Following creation of the castle shell, this would comprise the provision of floors, partition walls and stairs and hotel fit out.

26. The supporting information provided by the applicants’ agent states that all three options would result in the castle remains being protected from further damage by vegetation. In the event that the proposed hotel use is taken forward, the hotel (up to approximately 85 bedrooms) is proposed to form part of and contribute to the overall tourism development at the site. The overall height of the restored castle once converted to a hotel would not exceed the height of the existing keep.

27. The applicant’s agent advises that the castle restoration scheme would be undertaken in accordance with a strategy agreed with the now Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and subject to listed building consents.

Distillery

28. A whisky distillery/blending facility is proposed in the north eastern part of the site. A building of approximately 1,552 m2 is proposed, within a site of approximately 3.76 hectares. The distillery is proposed to be a showcase for Scottish produce.

Residential Development

29. Over an area of approximately 45.32 hectares a total of up to 1,025 dwelling units are proposed as enabling development to fund the castle works (restoration and use as a hotel, including hotel fit out).

30. This would comprise approximately 990 new dwellings in the northern part of the project site to be spread across three townships of 290 to 350 dwellings per township. Sheltered housing would be included in groups within the townships and community facilities would be provided within each township such as a small shop, community hall and public house.

31. The applicant’s information states that “Bespoke Housing” (approximately 2.75 hectares) would be built at the rear of the site known as West Fields which is an area to the south of the new townships on the western boundary of the site which would support 35 bespoke houses. These would be individually designed and may include carbon neutral homes and country houses.

32. The supporting documentation states that the proposed township housing would be designed as a series of communities, with each township having its own identity and the applicants agent envisages that accommodation to be provided would comprise a mix of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 bed properties and a mix of flats, terraced, semi-detached, and detached properties with extra care units and 35 bespoke dwellings with building heights generally of 1-2 storeys although larger 5 and 6 bed houses may be proposed as 2.1/2-3 storeys.

33. The submission states that the proposed residential development would be enabling development. Therefore, the total figure presented of 1,025 dwelling units represents a maximum quantity for assessment. The exact number of dwellings constructed would be the minimum necessary to secure the restoration of the castle and its conversion to a hotel, and would be subject to ongoing viability appraisals brought forward via a Section 75 Planning Obligation. The erection of enabling development would be phased; and each phase of enabling development would include the minimum number of residential dwellings required to enable the staged work to the castle, from stabilisation through to conversion to a hotel. The applicants’ proposed that the initial viability assessments submitted with the application for planning permission in principle would be reviewed after the grant of such permission, following more detailed building surveys and marketing of the castle hotel to developers and operators.

34. The supporting documentation states that the residential element of the project would require street lighting and that a full lighting strategy will be submitted to the local planning authority for agreement prior to the site becoming operational. The lighting strategy would aim to ensure adequate safety and security for residents while minimising energy use and light pollution and creating an attractive environment. All external lighting and lighting to common areas in residential and holiday accommodation areas would be fitted with low energy lamps with movement or daylight sensors to prevent lights being left on unnecessarily.

Public Open Space.

35. Public open space and landscape planting incorporating formal and informal areas of open space, retention of existing landscape features, reinstatement of former elements of the historic parkland and new planting areas.

Access

36. The site is located close to the junction of the A71 and A719 north of Galston. The existing main junction to the castle and former theme park is located off the A719 to the north of its junction with the A71.

37. The project would be accessed from the following junctions:

i. Tourism access: The existing junction with the A719. There are existing ghost island right-turn lanes at this junction, with stacking space for cars turning right into the project site from the A719; ii. North western residential access: An existing private access road that connects with the A719 in the form of a priority crossroad; and iii. Emergency access: An existing private access road that connects with an unnamed road to the east of the site in the form of a simple priority T junction.

38. The applicant’s agent advises it is likely that there may be a requirement to provide a second access route from the A719 to serve the residential component of the project. The requirement and location of the second access route would be determined at the detailed planning stage in consultation with Transport Scotland and Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA).

39. An entrance lodge will be provided within the site boundary on the entrance road from the tourism access.

New woodland car park

40. The applicant’s agent advises that it is anticipated that a woodland car park of approximately 854 spaces will be provided at the site in the location of the car park that previously served the theme park. This existing car park area will also incorporate planting to reinstate the historic shape of the former woodland blocks around the castle. The design of the tourism element of the project would encourage visitors to park on arrival and to travel within the site on foot and by cycle. Staff parking would be provided, taking into account the measures developed as part of the Travel Plan.

41. Separate parking would be provided for residential dwellings. Parking would be arranged on the site to suit the housing type and taking into consideration East Ayrshire Council parking standards. Visitor and cycle parking would also be provided. Secure cycle storage for residents would be available in dedicated stores, garages and/or within sheds in rear gardens.

Community heat plant/energy centre

42. An energy centre is proposed to be located to the south of the sports building of approximately 476 square metres in area.

Lighting

43. The residential element of the project would require street lighting. A full lighting strategy is proposed to be submitted to the local planning authority for agreement prior to the site becoming operational should consent be granted.

44. The lighting strategy would aim to ensure adequate safety and security for residents while minimising energy use and light pollution and creating an attractive environment.

45. Lighting would be provided in key areas of the tourism development, in order to ensure safety of users in accessing key parts of the site. Lighting would be suitable for the level of use of each part of the site and would incorporate low level pathway lighting where possible and lighting near woodland areas within the site would be directed in order to avoid light spillage. Fittings would be selected to reflect light to focus on the areas where light is required and to avoid light straying. All external lighting and lighting to common areas in residential and holiday accommodation areas would be fitted with low energy lamps with movement or daylight sensors to prevent lights being left on unnecessarily.

46. The application is accompanied by the following documents:-

Environmental Statement including Non-Technical Summary

47. The Environmental Statement (ES) reports the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process following a Screening Opinion issued by the Planning Authority in 2013 that the EIA process had to be undertaken under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. The ES considers matters such as need and alternatives, ecology and nature conservation, landscape and visual impact, cultural heritage, listed buildings, setting and archaeology, hydrology and flood risk, traffic, ground conditions, land use and recreation, socio economics, air quality and noise and vibration.

Pre Application Consultation (PAC) Report

48. The PAC process is required for this application as the proposed development comprises a Major Development in terms of The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

49. The applicants are required to undertake a 12 week consultation period with the local community and other stakeholders prior to lodging their planning application. The PAC Report is required to be submitted with the planning application in order to outline what consultation was undertaken, the results of this and whether the proposed scheme has been amended as a result of the consultation exercise.

50. The report highlights that the public event was advertised in the Kilmarnock Standard/Ayrshire Post and Cumnock Chronicle on 5 June 2015 and subsequently held on 12 June at the Coach House within the estate led by 3 members of the design team. 11 display boards were available and 55 attendees from the community were present. 13 people completed the response form.

51. The report notes that the community was of split opinion as to the merits of the scheme with support for the tourism and leisure development in the creation of jobs. Concerns were expressed regarding the amount of housing, the need for the distillery, impact on the road network, use of back roads for access, impact on local wildlife and trees, coal mine impacts, impact on health and support services, impact on water supplies and guarantees about local jobs for local people.

Design Statement

52. This statement notes that the key aim of this proposal is to restore the castle to a shell and seek conversion to a hotel, ensuring a sustainable future for the building; to repair and reinstate the historic listed parkland; to create tourism destination of national significance; and to bring economic investment and vitality into the area. The report also states that the Castle and parkland cannot be repaired without the value created by the housing development and maintained by the leisure and tourism development.

53. To enable the works to achieve the restoration of Loudoun Castle and its phased conversion to a hotel, the proposal seeks the residential development of the land to the north of the Castle and woodland. It would be developed in three small townships, including sheltered housing as well as supporting facilities and infrastructure such as shops, public houses and community centres. Initially, 300 units are proposed at the western part of the proposed residential area, providing sufficient finance to meet the initial £3 million investment made in the Castle’s restoration.

54. The supporting information notes that this proposal will bring large economic benefits to the region. The investment of over £450M will bring much needed jobs to the area and will enhance significantly the existing tourism and leisure offers. The scheme will provide a significant number of new employment opportunities, one thousand of which will be during the construction phase. The remainder will be full or part time jobs within the leisure and tourism element of the development, and the new distillery planned for the north eastern corner.

55. The report looks at the history of the castle estate and possible restoration and repairs scheme considering the proposed leisure masterplan and how the proposed design has been formed with the various elements of the leisure park and how their design when further developed might appear using designs and layouts which would blend into the exiting site using site levels to screen structures.

56. The report refers to the proposed fractional houses to be located within the walled garden and advises it is planned to develop approximately 52 two, three and four bedroomed properties that will be available for purchase on a fractional basis. These will be of extremely high quality and design and may benefit from the inclusion of an owner’s only facility featuring a spa, restaurant and retail outlet. Fractional owners will also have the benefit of access to the adjoining holiday resort and its full range of activities, restaurants and retail facilities. The buildings would be modelled upon a traditional local vernacular but using holiday resorts as a model.

57. In terms of the proposed housing, the Design Statement again refers to the intention to create a series of Communities with groupings of sheltered housing. Each community or township is designed to have its own identity with facilities such as a small shop and community hall. Indicative designs of the properties, being a mix of traditional Ayrshire housing types and contemporary Scottish vernacular housing, are shown. The layouts would be based upon the Scottish Governments “Designing Streets” publication and utilising the Ayrshire vernacular.

Access Statement

58. This statement considers walking, cycling and vehicle access to the site in addition to accessible access. The statement advises that these matters will be brought forward in detailed designs but that accessible access standards will be provided with a high quality and accessible landscaped to be provided with the intention to keep the use of the car within the tourism development to a minimum through a layout which encourages leaving the car at the woodland car park. Within the residential estate the intention would be to ensure access standards are maintained and not allow the car to dominate the townships streetscape with safe wayfinding throughout the site.

Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA)

59. The DIA supports the following Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and sets out the strategy for the sustainable management of surface water within the site. In summary, surface water will be collected and discharged via Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDs) which will be put up for adoption by Scottish Water where possible, or managed locally within the site. A range of SUDs will be used to collect, convey, treat, attenuate and manage rainfall runoff to mimic the existing runoff regime where possible. Development of the detailed planning application and detailed design will be done with agreement from Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the statutory authorities and take into account the regulations and flood risk requirements and drainage mitigation, especially in relation to The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 and The Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011. The strategy for the sustainable management of foul water within the site has been set out in the report and appendices. In summary, foul water will be collected and discharged via a separate sewer system and discharged to the local Scottish Water sewers under a formal agreement. Scottish Water will adopt the sewers where possible, and these will be designed to meet the requirements of Scottish Water.

Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)

60. The FRA looks at potential sources of flooding such as fluvial, surface water and from other sources such as springs in the north of the site.

61. The FRA notes the Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) site levels and the location of the River Irvine and other watercourses through the site and considers the creation of the tourism lake at the heart of the development. The FRA notes the controls to be in place from government bodies such as SEPA, and the mitigation required to ensure that the site is not at risk from flooding. The FRA concludes by recommending that lakeside lodges are set at a specific 600mm above the banktop of the lake to take account of unprecedented rainfall and good practice suggestions that finished floor levels generally be 150mm above surrounding ground.

Energy Report

62. The Energy Report considers the energy demand and low and zero carbon technical options to provide an energy strategy for the site. The report advises that a hierarchical approach has been taken to ensure that energy efficiency is maximised. The report outlines national and local policy on energy, renewable features and sustainability and notes that the resultant strategy is not definitive at this stage until the detailed design is available. It does note that the design team are committed to delivering a design that will target a 15% reduction in carbon emissions through energy efficiency, and use renewable and low carbon technologies, where viable.

Engineer’s Report

63. This report identifies areas of the castle which are imminently at risk of partial collapse and makes recommendations for safe access for enabling works to gain safe access and provide temporary stability and thereafter, enable detailed surveys highlighting a phased approach to conservation and subsequent re-development work. Reference is made within the report to making the structure safe, then the completion of survey work which will mean the provision of suitable temporary access scaffolding to enable close inspection of all parts of the building. Thereafter detailed elevations will illustrate proposals for consolidation and repair and once this has been achieved on site, the report states that it sees the subsequent restoration and development work as being a separate exercise.

Transport Assessment (TA)

64. The TA was agreed with Ayrshire Roads Alliance and Transport Scotland in terms of its scope and produces the following Framework Travel Plan should be taken in conjunction with the TA, even though it is a separate document. The TA states that the assessments within the TA considers that the proposed development should not have a significant impact on the operation of the local and strategic highway networks, subject to the implementation of proposed mitigation works.

65. The conclusions within the TA state that:- There is an existing footway on the eastern side of the A719 linking the site to the existing pedestrian network, with all areas of Galston within a reasonable walking distance of the site. It is envisaged that a number of pedestrian routes will be provided within the site in order to enhance pedestrian connectivity, particularly between the different elements of the site. The site is located within a reasonable cycle ride of several nearby settlements, with Galston, Newmilns and Hurlford accessible within 5km of the site. A number of the roads within the vicinity of the site are rural and relatively lightly-trafficked, and as such they could provide a pedestrian and cycle friendly environment.

66. Measures to promote and encourage users of the proposed development to walk, cycle and travel by public transport are detailed in the Framework Travel Plan.

67. Analysis of the study collisions has not revealed any identifiable existing collision issues associated with the expected movements generated by the proposed development, therefore it is considered that there are no existing road safety issues pertinent to the development of the site. If the proposed access junctions and internal roads of the proposed development are designed with due consideration to road safety, then the proposals should not have a detrimental road safety impact on the local transport network and should not adversely affect the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

68. Part of the proposed development site accommodated Loudoun Castle Theme Park up until its closure in 2010. It is therefore recognised that the site could reopen without further planning consent as a theme park, with a significant associated level of traffic generation. The traffic generation that could be associated with this consented use has been estimated based on traffic count data from the site, obtained when the theme park was still operational in May 2005. Based on comparison against the projected traffic generation for the proposed development, it is clear that the traffic impact of the proposals can only be partially offset against that associated with the consented theme park use of the site.

69. With respect of the residential elements of the proposed scheme, the majority of the key study junctions would be expected to operate within capacity at 2024 during the worst-case peak hours, with the proposed development fully occupied. In order to ensure that the proposed development provides a nil detriment scenario at Bellfield Interchange, a capacity improvement scheme is proposed at the intersection, which incorporates amendments to the majority of the roundabout approach arms.

70. The proposed development should not have a significant detrimental impact on the operation of the local and strategic highway networks, subject to the implementation of the proposed mitigation works at Bellfield Interchange.

71. Overall the TA concludes that from the assessments of this TA that the proposed development would not be expected to have a significant detrimental impact in road safety, traffic and highway terms.

Framework Travel Plan (FTP)

72. The FTP follows on from the Travel Assessment and looks at ensuring a long term management strategy giving sustainable objectives for positive action with the strategy subject to regular review. It would agree explicit outcomes linked to encouraging sustainable travel with the emphasis upon reducing single occupancy car use.

Repairs Schedule External Fabric and Repair Schedule Internal Fabric reports

73. These reports provide an initial appraisal of individual work items likely to be required to consolidate external stone masonry but do not extend as far as a full outline repairs scheme. Repair costings for the castle consolidation are not included.

CONSULTATIONS AND ISSUES RAISED

74. East Ayrshire Council Education & Social Services has no objections to the application.

Further information was requested following this consultation response relative to school capacities etc. in the local catchment area. No response was received to this updated request.

75. The Woodland Trust (WT) objects to planning permission being granted for this application as it results in loss and damage to ancient woodland. The response notes that a significant area of the development site at Loudoun Castle, Galston is listed in Scottish Natural Heritage's Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) and advises that removal of woodland is also contrary to two important pieces of Scottish Government policy; the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and the Control of Woodland Removal Policy. The application is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and Control of Woodland Removal Policy noting that ancient woodland is one of the country’s richest terrestrial wildlife habitats, which has evolved over hundreds if not thousands, of years, cannot be recreated or its loss compensated for and it is home to 256 species of conservation concern as listed on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

76. East Ayrshire’s Local Plan Policy RES20 is contravened by the proposal which states that there will be a presumption against residential development in the countryside where the development would result in the loss of land planted for forestry, areas of ancient or semi-natural woodland, mature shelter belts or in the loss of mature trees. The proposal is also contrary to Policy ENV18 which seeks to protect and preserve areas of ancient and semi natural woodland.

77. The WT states its concern at the content of the Non-Technical Summary of the ES particularly where it states that the loss of woodland habitats would be compensated by new tree planting across several areas of the site. This shows the developer’s lack of consideration for ancient woodland and its huge ecological and cultural value. While planting new trees is a positive action (as long as they are native and suitable for the site's climatatic and soil conditions), it does no(t) dispel the fact that ancient woodland is irreplaceable. Compensation should be an absolute last measure and in no(w) way is able to replicate the important and diverse woodland habitat of ancient woodland.

78. The WT advise they are pleased to note that the current plans have been amended since the previous planning application and now show that no “niche housing” is proposed for the central area of North Belvedere wood which is classed as 1b Long Established of Plantation Origin. However, housing is proposed for most of the length of the northern edge of the site, which is class 1b LEPO Ancient Woodland. The plans indicate that a distillery will be built in the far north eastern corner and will also be adjacent to the Willowland Strip. There are also several smaller areas of ancient woodland throughout the site which are likely to be negatively affected by disturbance from building work and increased access.

79. Housing development may increase the fragmentation of this ancient semi- natural woodland by creating or increasing barriers to movement, or impacting on existing movement corridors between ancient woodland fragments, and ancient woods and nearby semi-natural habitats. Species which make use of gardens are primarily generalists or edge species. Most gardens are unlikely to sustain less-mobile and sensitive ancient woodland species. Development may also provide a source of non-native plants and aid their colonisation, with disturbance caused by light, noise, trampling and other human activity with the cumulative effect being more damaging to ancient woodland than individual effects which should not be considered in isolation.

80. The need for the proposed development has not been demonstrated and nor has the benefits of this development of housing been shown to outweigh the loss of ancient woodland. Although the implementation of buffer zones around the areas of ancient woodland in close proximity to development would generally be satisfactory protection, the loss of ancient woodland in other areas of the development site is totally unacceptable. The loss of ancient woodland cannot be mitigated, it can only be compensated for; it is important to stress that once the ancient woodland has been lost it cannot be replaced.

Noted.

81. Scotland’s Garden and Landscape Heritage (formerly The Garden History Society in Scotland which has now merged with the Garden History Society in Scotland Conservation Trust)(SGLH) advise that they appreciate that amendments have been made to the current application, but whilst the consultee supports the principle of restoration of Loudoun Castle and the conservation and enhancement of the designed landscape they wish their earlier comments to be taken into account. To that end they welcome some of the amendments to the current application, particularly the removal of housing from, and restoration of the northern belvedere. However the Body remain concerned about the intensity of development proposed for the core designed landscape and the impact this will have on the character and integrity of the designed landscape. SGLH do not consider these proposals will add value to the landscape and would advise that consideration should be given to relocating at least some of the development to more peripheral locations in the designed landscape. In addition whilst SGLH welcome the strengthening and restoration of the north and south avenues, the overall planting proposals appear somewhat confused, attempting to reinstate the radial structure of the more rigid 18th century layout on both the remnants of a now much modified landscape, and the current proposals.

82. To summarise, whilst SGLH does not wish to object outright to the current proposals but they advise that they cannot support the application in its current form. They therefore hope that some of these observations can be taken into consideration and an amended layout for the development discussed with the applicant. The SGLH’s previous comments referred to are outlined below:-

83. The SGLH advises that the designed landscape at Loudoun Castle is an Inventory site, of national importance, which is judged to be of ‘outstanding’ historical and scenic significance. We urge East Ayrshire Council ‘to protect and enhance’ such a valuable asset, as directed by Historic Scotland in Scottish Environmental Policy 2011. The Trust also respectfully reminds the council of their responsibility to ensure that any change to the site ‘should be managed carefully with the aim of ensuring that the significant elements justifying the designation are protected or enhanced’. (SHEP 3.81)

84. The East Ayrshire Local Plan 2010 makes provisions to safeguard the built heritage (Strategic Policy ENV1), listed buildings and their setting (Policy ENV 4) and designed landscapes (policy ENV 8). In addition other policies (ENV 15 and ENV 16) aim to protect landscape character.

85. The SGLH notes that the policy for Rural Area 4 Loudoun Castle and Estate refers to ‘further tourism and recreational development’ and that the Council will support ‘enabling development which would involve or contribute to the restoration of Loudoun Castle itself, and of its associated garden and grounds, or which would enhance the viability of the Castle estate as a major tourist destination.’ While we welcome the opportunity to restore the designed landscape that development will provide, we are concerned that the scale of the project will put too much pressure on a very fragile environment.

86. For example, at the Lakeside Leisure Development, with its watersports, beach, cliff face, restaurant, retail plaza. Spa building and Watersports Building - the actual experience of enjoying a designed landscape will be lost with so much activity. In addition, the construction of the irregular shaped lake itself with its associated, visually intrusive buildings, is inappropriate in this formal landscape setting. It marks a considerable change to the original landscape design and will intrude on the restored vista.

87. The 450 lodges proposed for construction in the woodland close to the castle would not be appropriate here as they would adversely impact the ‘exceptional significance’ of this part of the site.

88. Another cause for concern is the amount of housing envisaged: three new townships of 270 -350 dwellings each in the northern part of the site, niche housing comprising 20 dwellings in a wooded area to the north and 35 bespoke houses in the ‘West Fields’.

89. The SGLH asks the council to consider carefully the visual impact of these dwellings, which without adequate woodland screening would have an adverse impact on the nationally important designed landscape that lies at the heart of this site.

90. While the SGLH agrees with the principles of the Landscape and Open Space Strategy (2.38) and welcome the removal of the theme park developments and the intention to restore and repair the eighteenth century landscape, they are concerned that such a level of development cannot be contained within it without harming the significant elements that justified the inclusion of Loudoun Castle in the Inventory trusting that the Council will be able to fulfil its responsibilities in this regard.

Noted.

91. Transport Scotland (TS) advises as follows:-

Response to the Environment Statement

Site Access

92. TS notes from Chapter 10 of the ES that there will be two accesses from the development site, a tourist access and a residential access both of which would be taken the A719. As the A719 makes up part of the local road network, this is a matter for East Ayrshire Council and we would not make any further comment on this aspect of the proposals.

Environmental Impacts

93. Transportation Impacts are discussed within Chapter 10 of the ES and identifies that 650 and 754 two-way traffic flows occurring during the AM and PM peak hour periods respectively.

94. The trip distribution gravity model shown in Appendix 10.7 does not include an assessment of the trunk road network. We have therefore undertaken our own assessment which has assumed that all the traffic assigned to the A71 (West) minus the traffic assigned to “Kilmarnock Local” will travel along the A77 (T).

95. This equates to approximately 250 and 290 two-way vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours respectively on the A77(T). Based on traffic flows obtained from Transport Scotland site JTC00246, this results in a percentage increase in total traffic of 7.46% and 8.15% during the AM and PM peak respectively.

96. TS can confirm that this level of traffic generation does not trigger the need for any further assessment of environmental impacts associated with generated traffic on the trunk road network or its adjacent receptors.

97. A similar exercise could be carried out for the A76 (T) for development traffic assigned to the A719 (South). However, we can confirm that we are satisfied that the percentage impact will not trigger the need for a detailed assessment of environmental effects.

Air Quality

98. An Air Quality assessment has been undertaken in Chapter 14 of the ES, where we note that the Air Quality impacts associated with the development were concluded to be negligible. Based on the development traffic levels identified in chapter 10 and distance from the trunk road network, TS are also satisfied that any Air Quality impacts are also likely to be negligible on the trunk road network.

Noise

99. Based on the information provided, Transport Scotland accepts that the traffic associated with the proposed development will have a negligible impact on the trunk road network and its adjacent receptors in terms of Noise.

100. Based on the review undertaken, TS can confirm that we are satisfied with the submitted ES and TS have no objection to the proposed development in terms of environmental impacts at the trunk road network.

101. TS would however request that the following conditions associated with our TRNPA2 response continue to be attached to any consent that the Council may grant:-

Condition 1: No more than 250 residential units shall be occupied until the alterations to Bellfield Interchange roundabout, generally as illustrated in Local Transport Projects' Drawing No. LTP/1820/T1/03.01, are implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland TRBO.

Reason - To ensure that the standard of infrastructure modification proposed to the trunk road complies with the current standards, and that the safety and free flow of traffic on the trunk road is not diminished.

Condition 2: No part of the development shall be occupied until a comprehensive Travel Plan that sets out proposals for reducing dependency on the private car has been submitted and approved in writing by the planning authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland, as the Trunk Roads Authority. In particular this Travel Plan shall identify measures to be implemented, the system of management, monitoring, review, reporting and the duration of the plan.

Reason -To be consistent with the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and PAN 75 Planning for Transport.

Response to the planning application

102. No objections provided the following conditions are attached to any permission that the council may give.

No more than 250 residential units shall be occupied until the alterations to Bellfield Interchange roundabout, generally as illustrated in Local Transport Projects' Drawing No. LTP/1820/T1/03.01, are implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland TRBO.

REASON - To ensure that the standard of infrastructure modification proposed to the trunk road complies with the current standards, and that the safety and free flow of traffic on the trunk road is not diminished.

No part of the development shall be occupied until a comprehensive Travel Plan that sets out proposals for reducing dependency on the private car has been submitted and approved in writing by the planning authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland, as the Trunk Roads Authority. In particular this Travel Plan shall identify measures to be implemented, the system of management, monitoring, review, reporting and the duration of the plan.

REASON - To be consistent with the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and PAN 75 Planning for Transport.

Noted. These matters can be conditioned. Noting also the comments of the Ayrshire Roads Alliance stated further in this report, if consent is to be granted.

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) advise as follows:-

Summary

103. This proposal is likely to require a species licence under protected species legislation for potential disturbance and damage to bat roosts and badger setts. Based on the information currently available to us, it is likely that the tests would be met and a licence would be granted. Please note that this advice is given without prejudice to any later consideration of an application for a licence. SNH would expect the applicant to complete all required surveys and provide a detailed mitigation/compensation plan for bats and badgers prior to applying for full planning permission. SNH have included more detailed advice below which they hope will be found to be useful.

Appraisal of impacts and advice

Bats

104. The castle, gatehouse and ruined cottages provide roosting sites for five species of bat throughout the year. At least one tree roost is present on the site and it is likely that more will be found as 750 mature trees were identified as having bat roost potential. Foraging habitat on site is high quality with a mix of woodland/grassland/watercourses (see Appendix 5.1 of the ES). The site is considered to be of high value for bats and it is unlikely the development can proceed without causing some degree of disturbance/damage to existing bat roosts.

105. All bats are European Protected Species (EPS) and this means that if you are minded to approve this application you must satisfy yourself, in line with your statutory duties under the Habitats Regulations 1994 (as amended), that the licensing tests set out in those regulations are likely to be met. If not, you could risk the applicant being unable to make practical use of the planning permission or committing an offence.

106. Five of the six bat species recorded from the site are common and widespread in the local area and across Scotland. The applicant has provided a reasonable outline species protection plan and mitigation/compensation plan. A small number of Leisler’s bats, an uncommon species, were recorded by static detectors and could roost in some of the trees. However, the small numbers recorded indicate there is unlikely to be maternity roost on site and standard mitigation for tree roosting bats would be adequate.

107. Therefore, based on the information currently available to us, it is likely that the tests would be met and a licence would be granted. SNH advise that this advice is given without prejudice to any later consideration of an application for a licence.

Badgers

108. There are twelve setts within the development area and two are thought to be active main setts. Foraging habitat on site is of a high quality and is thought to be used by three separate social groups of badgers (see Chapter 5 of ES). It is likely, based on the information provided, that the development cannot proceed without some degree of disturbance/damage to setts and displacement of foraging animals.

109. If you are minded to approve this application, you must satisfy yourself that the tests for a species licence under the relevant protected species legislation are likely to be met. If not, you could risk the applicant being unable to make practical use of the planning permission or committing an offence.

110. The applicant has not completed a badger survey within the agreed 250 metre buffer (extending to 1km if evidence of badger activity was found) beyond the development boundary which prevents us from making an assessment of how displaced animals from the development could affect neighbouring social groups. The applicant will be required to complete all surveys and provide a detailed badger protection plan in support of any species licence application.

111. Badgers are considered to be a low value receptor due to being common and widespread in the local area. It is anticipated there will be flexibility to accommodate badgers on site and scope to provide mitigation/compensation as appropriate.

112. Therefore, based on the information currently available to us, it is likely that the tests would be met and a licence would be granted. Please note that this advice is given without prejudice to any later consideration of an application for a licence.

Conclusion

113. This proposal is likely to require a species licence under protected species legislation for potential disturbance and destruction to bat roosts and badger setts. We would expect the applicant to complete all required surveys and provide a detailed mitigation/compensation plan prior to applying for full planning permission.

Background

114. The application received is for planning permission in principle for a major leisure and residential development and therefore contains little detail on the design and siting of the development’s attributes. The applicant has engaged in pre-application discussions with SNH and we have responded to a previous submission for planning permission in principle in February 2015.

Noted and this matter is given further consideration within this report where the council’s position and responsibilities under the Habitats Regulations 1994 are addressed. The Council’s position is clearly explained below in the report taking into account the advice from Scottish Natural Heritage.

115. NHS Ayrshire and Arran (NHSA&A) has advised that whilst they have no objections to the application they are nervous relative to the proposals. The reason for this relates to the fact that when NHSA&A considered this application in isolation, the response from individual services was that there appeared to be sufficient capacity. However when NHSA&A started to look across East Ayrshire and the other major housing applications at Stewarton and Riccarton in Kilmarnock, NHS services are starting to become stretched as is the supporting NHS/Social Care infrastructure.

116. The NHS advise that an example of this would be the existing GP capacity in Galston. If this development went ahead NHSA&A expect that this Practice would have capacity if supported by another practice in Kilmarnock, which also covers this area. However the Kilmarnock Practice may be unable to provide this support if the housing development at Riccarton goes ahead etc.

117. Therefore whilst there is unlikely to be strong objections the NHS advise that they probably need to have a conversation around the potential for contributions towards Health. Just as developers are often expected to pay towards Affordable Housing and Education, contributions towards Health from these developers must be considered if we are to continue to deliver appropriate Health and Social Care services.

Noted. No further updated response has been received from the NHS despite requests being made, prior to the call-in from Scottish Government being issued.

For Members background information, the reference to a housing development in Riccarton is understood to relate to a planning application which is being considered by the Planning Service at present ref. 15/0731/PP for a “Residential development with associated open space and infrastructure including the creation of a new roundabout to access the site from the on ramp of the A71 to the north east of the site” by Springfield Properties PLC. There is no other large scale application in for the Riccarton area of Kilmarnock at present and the proposed scheme equates to some 224 units.

118. East Ayrshire Access Panel North District has advised that the Panel has no comments to make but may comment at a further date in the process.

Noted it is likely that if planning permission in principle if granted, then the Access Panel would wish to comment or consider the detailed design and layout plans in terms of accessible access to and within the site.

119. East Ayrshire Council Legal Services have verbally advised that legal implications arising from the application will require to be addressed by appropriate planning conditions and legal agreement if Scottish Ministers consider granting planning permission.

Such matters are further addressed later in this report when considering the legal implications which Members may wish to take into account.

120. East Ayrshire Council Environmental Health Service advises the following comments for consideration:-

Any system installed in any commercial food premises within the development should be in compliance with DEFRA document “Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems”., and in addition should be interlocked with the gas supply to cooking facilities to ensure that cooking can only be carried out when the ventilation system is in operation.

Noisy work on the site during construction should be restricted to 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday, 8am – 1pm on a Saturday, and no noisy work on a Sunday.

Predicted noise levels, dust emissions levels, noise impacts and air quality impacts associated with the development, both during the construction phase and subsequent occupation/operation, do not give rise to concerns

All waste arising from the works should be disposed of to the satisfaction of the Waste Management Authority and otherwise than by burning.

All drainage within the development should be completed to the satisfaction of SEPA and/or Scottish Water and should include suitable traps for the collection of grease, oils and other debris prior to the discharge into the main sewer system from any food business within the development.

The applicant has given consideration to all aspects of the development having the potential to impact on the environment surrounding the proposed development, and has provided a satisfactory mitigation strategy for each. Accordingly this Service has no objections to the development being granted consent. Any unforeseen Statutory Nuisance condition which may arise during the lifetime of the development can be dealt with by this Service using the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The specific operation of any facility within the development, including the sports facilities, community heat plant etc. should be the subject of direct discussions with the Environmental Health Service to ensure statutory obligations are complied with.

Whilst noted, points 1 and 5 relative to the food preparation matters are not material planning considerations and would be taken forward as part of any application for a Building Warrant.

The hours of operation condition outlined within point 2 could be recommended to be conditioned to Scottish Government if consent is to be granted. In previous sites Committee has considered an 8am start up time to be acceptable in built up areas or close to residential properties, in general terms, although it is noted that each case is on its individual merits.

Points 3, 4 and 6 are otherwise noted and the disposal of construction waste otherwise than by burning is a matter for the Environmental Health Service to control under their own legislative provisions and would generally be recommended to Members as advisory notes.

121. East Ayrshire Council Contaminated Land Officer advises that having perused the Alan Wood & Partners Phase 1 Geo – Environmental Assessment Report, undertaken on behalf of Loudoun Woods Homes Ltd (November 2014), the following comments are offered:-

122. The Phase 1 Report (Desk Study) has identified that potential for soil, soil gas or groundwater contamination, is considered to be a material consideration in the development proposal. Section 5 of the report proposes that, based on the desk study, a Phase 2 (Intrusive) investigation will require to be undertaken in order to assess the risk of exposure to soil contamination (if present) to human or environmental receptors, buildings and services. We would concur that this is a requirement for the safe development of the site.

123. The Phase 2 report and its findings, along with a remediation strategy (if required) should be provided to the Council for consideration and approval. The provision of this documentation would discharge the first part of the contaminated land condition.

Clarification has been provided by the Contaminated Land Officer relative to the above response and the consultation response for the earlier application ref. 14/0852/PPP which remains relevant. In this respect conditions are requested relative to site investigations and a risk assessment being undertaken on site to identify if remedial measures are required. Thereafter a further condition is requested to ensure that all remedial works that are identified by the site investigation and risk assessment are undertaken on site with a verification report submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority.

These matters can be conditioned and recommended on this basis to Scottish Government if consent is to be granted.

124. Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) (Transport Assessment) advise that the proposed development site is situated in a relatively rural location, north of the town of Galston. To ensure a sustainable use of alternative forms of travel and prevent a significant reliance on private car use the following infrastructure improvements will be considered a necessary addition to any consent granted:

Walking and Cycling Connections:

The TA and Framework Travel Plan acknowledge that the rural location and the nature of the Tourism Development will place a fairly heavy emphasis on Private Car usage. However consideration must still be given to both Active Travel and Public Transport for all end users.

Walking and cycling connections must be fully considered between the various elements within the site and between the site and the existing roads infrastructure and the associated existing communities. The Transport Assessment highlights that the Tourism Access is within walking distance of the local facilities within Galston. However with the scale of the development many aspects of the internal design and layout will be a significant distance from external footways. It is imperative that that a Condition is attached to any Consent Granted that the internal layout in relation to footway connections to the A719 and the A71 is fully designed and agreed with ARA Roads prior to any Construction Start.

With regards to the existing pedestrian infrastructure on the A719, the existing footways are adequate from the A71/A719 Roundabout as far north as Loudoun Academy. However the section between Loudoun Academy and the proposed Tourist Access is substandard at present and the eastern footway will require to be upgraded along this length to provide a continuous 2m link.

The footway on the western side of the A719 between the school and the tourist access will not require to be upgraded.

Between the Tourist Access and the proposed Residential Accesses there is no existing footway and this section will require a construction of a 2 metre continuous footway along the east side which will require to be lit.

Pedestrian crossing facilities will require to be installed on the A719 in the vicinity of the existing Bus Stops positioned to the south of the Tourist Access. An additional pedestrian crossing facility will require to be provided somewhere between the proposed residential accesses to allow safe passage to additional bus stops that will require to be installed to satisfy the needs of the Residential Development. These crossing positions will require to be agreed in detail before any construction work starts. The crossings at both locations will require to be installed as Puffins complete with on-crossing and kerbside detection.

The Start of the existing 30MPH speed limit on the A719 will require to be moved northwards to incorporate the full extent of the footway. This 30MPH extension will be subject to a Traffic Regulation Order which will require to be paid for in full by the Developer.

There is an existing footway along the south side of the A71 with pedestrian crossing facilities to the north of the A71/A719 Roundabout. This would be considered satisfactory to ensure trips from the development can easily access Galston.

Public Transport Services and Infrastructure:

There is existing Bus Stops positioned south of the Residential Access on the A719. These would require to be completely upgraded to include hardstanding, raised kassel boarding kerbs, a shelter and flag with facilities to incorporate full RTPI provision.

The additional Bus Stops to be provided to serve the Residential Development will also require to be kitted out with the Infrastructure above. The location of these stops will require too be agreed with ARA Roads and SPT.

The Travel Plan accompanying the Transport Assessment mentions measures to provide additional bus services within the proposed Tourist and Residential Sites. The services on the A719 are not commercial and are currently supported by SPT.

Additionally the indicative road links with separate loops for Residential and Tourism would not be conducive to the provision of a satisfactory bus operation. It will therefore be necessary to provide a circumferential route connecting both the Tourism and Residential parts of the Site. The plans should take account of the proposed future Northern Residential Access also.

The introduction of bus services into the site will require funding support initially as it is unlikely that bus operators would see this route as commercially attractive in the short term.

At present there is limited information available that would assist in the identification of a trigger point for the introduction of bus services or any associated financial contributions. However Bus Penetration and Financial Contributions must be tied to a phasing plan to ensure the future commercial viability of any internal Bus Routes to be agreed.

The proposed internal bus infrastructure and phasing and the initial level of funding to be provided by the Developer to support the amended bus services initially will require to be agreed in full with ARA and SPT prior to any construction start.

The funding to be provided for the supported bus service should be arranged as part of a Section 75 Legal Agreement after full discussions with ARA and SPT accordingly. This will require to be fully in place prior to construction start.

Residential and Tourism Internal Infrastructure:

The Internal Infrastructure with regard to both Residential and Tourism must not be allowed to develop piecemeal as various elements come forward. They must be fully considered and approved as part of an all encompassing Master Plan to ensure that all elements are fit for purpose and futureproof, prior to Full Planning Consent being granted.

The parking associated with both elements must satisfy the criteria of the Roads Development Guide and be approved with full Planning Consent before any Construction will be allowed to commence.

Within the tourism car parking provision, to encourage a more sustainable vehicle usage, the developer will be required to install and maintain 2 No fast electrical vehicle charging points.

Travel Plan Framework:

Whilst the Travel Plan Framework identifies information provision to Staff and Residents, no mention is made regarding Travel Plan information provision for Visitors and Guests. The Travel Plan must be expanded accordingly to ensure that Guests and Visitors are also adequately catered for.

The Travel Plan must continue to be developed throughout all stages and phases of the Developments Construction and on this basis a Travel Plan Coordinator will require to be appointed by the Developer. The Coordinator will be expected to liaise and engage with ARA Roads through all phases and stages of the development ensuring that the plan is relevant throughout the Development’s inception and beyond.

Junction and Network Analysis:

Various forms of information were provided to the Transport Consultant to aid with travel characteristics and trip generation information for the proposed new Residential and Tourist Development.

The industry standard software “TRICS” has been used to determine the likely trip generation rates for the proposed development during the critical peak periods.

The information with regards to Base Network Flows was gathered from Traffic Surveys carried out on Tuesday 19th August 2014 and Tuesday 28th April 2015 respectively.

The traffic survey information was factored to design years of 2019 and 2014 with NRTF mid growth applied to local roads and NRTF high growth applied to trunk roads respectively. There are no Committed Developments in the vicinity of the proposal that would be likely to have a significant impact on the Development.

The distribution of the traffic associated with the proposed development was undertaken utilising a Gravity Model based upon commuting patterns of existing residents in the local area. This method was agreed during scoping and would be considered satisfactory.

All Junctions requested to be considered at Scoping were instructed to be fully analysed by the appropriate industry standard software regardless of the 2 way percentage impact link assessment value.

The general accepted performance indicator with regards to traffic capacity at road junctions is the ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC).

A given movement reaches capacity as the RFC value approaches 1.0: however a figure of 0.85-0.9 is commonly adopted as a limiting RFC value, to allow for variations in daily traffic demand.

In accordance with the above criteria a full analysis was therefore carried out on the following junctions:

1. Proposed Tourism Site Access. 2. Proposed Residential Site Access 4. A719/A71 Roundabout 6. Hurlford Cross 7. Bellfield Interchange 8. A735/B7072 Mini Roundabout 9. A735/Asda Roundabout.

The results of the junction analysis are as follows:

1. Proposed Tourism Site Access (Priority Junction)- The Picady analysis indicates that this junction would continue to operate within desirable maximum operational capacity levels at 2024 with full occupation of the proposed development.

2. Proposed residential Site Access (Priority Junction)- The Picady analysis indicates that this junction would continue to operate within desirable maximum operational capacity levels at 2024 with full occupation of the proposed development.

4. A719/A71 Roundabout (Roundabout)- The Arcady analysis indicates that this junction would continue to operate within desirable maximum operational capacity levels at 2024 with full occupation of the proposed development.

6. Hurlford Cross (Roundabout)- The Arcady analysis indicates that this junction would operate very slightly over desirable maximum operational capacity levels at 2024 with full occupation of the proposed development, however it would operate well within Maximum Capacity Limits. The 2-way percentage impact on Hurlford Cross is marginally over 10% and full occupancy of the Tourist and Residential Development indicates max RFC values of 89 and 86 percent respectively for the 2 main peak periods. Therefore no Mitigation would be required to be provided by the Developer at this Roundabout.

7. Bellfield Interchange (Roundabout)- The Arcady analysis indicates that Bellfield Interchange currently experiences some congestion on specific arms during the respective AM and PM peaks which would be exacerbated by future traffic growth and trips associated with the development. The junction was further tested with 250 Residential Units which indicated a marginal impact on the interchange on top of normal growth. Mitigation was discussed with ARA and Transport Scotland in relation to Bellfield Interchange and this proposal was re- modelled which indicted improvements for 2024 with the development trips fully in place against the existing 2024 do nothing figs. The Mitigation discussed is shown on the Local Transport Projects Drawing LTP/1820/T1/03/01/0. This Mitigation would therefore be considered as acceptable before the completion and occupation of the 251st Residential Unit.

8. A735/B7072 (Mini Roundabout)-The Arcady analysis indicates that this Mini Roundabout will operate marginally over desirable maximum operational capacity levels in 2024 with full occupation of the proposed development. These capacity levels are as a result of queues from the Bellfield Interchange which has Mitigation already discussed. Therefore this mini Roundabout layout would be considered acceptable without further mitigation offered.

9. A735/Asda (Roundabout)- The Arcady analysis indicates that this roundabout will operate within desirable maximum operational capacity levels in 2024 with full occupation of the proposed development.

In relation to Bellfield Interchange, this Interchange was further analysed against Merge/Diverge capacity criteria for 2024 with full occupation of the proposed development and was found to be compliant with the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Vol 6, TD 22/06.

Accident Data:

A specific assessment of road traffic accident data was requested by ARA to be included as part of the Transport Assessment. Over a 5 year period the records indicated a total of 8 injury accidents when considering the study area in its entirety.

Analysis of the study collisions has not revealed any identifiable existing collision issues associated with the expected movements of the proposed development; therefore it is considered that there are no existing road safety issues pertinent to the development of the site.

Additionally none of the accidents identified within the study area are indicated at proposed Development Access Points.

Therefore, provided the proposed Access Junctions are designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant Technical Memoranda with due consideration to all Road Safety Issues, then the proposals should not have a detrimental road safety impact on the local Transport Network and should not adversely affect the safety of Pedestrians and Cyclists. On this basis no further mitigation would be required to address possible road safety concerns.

Conclusion

The ARA Roads Transportation Service would have no objection to the proposed Leisure and Tourism Development at Loudoun Castle, Loudoun Estate, Galston (15/0676/PPP) provided the following conditions and advisory notes are attached to the Consent; and these will all require to be provided for in full by the Client at their expense:

1. The Internal layout of the proposed Residential and Tourist Development in relation to footway connections and links to the A719 and the A71 is fully designed and agreed with ARA Roads in conjunction with a proposed Masterplan layout prior to any Construction start.

2. The existing footway on the east side of the A719 between Loudoun Academy and the proposed Tourist Access is substandard at present and will require to be upgraded to provide a continuous 2 metres link.

3. A footway will require to be provided on the east side of the A719 between the Tourist Access and the proposed position of the northern most proposed residential Access. This will require to be 2 metres in width and will also require to be fully lit.

4. A Puffin pedestrian crossing facility will require to be installed in the vicinity of the existing bus stops on the A719 positioned approximately 140 metres to the south of the Tourist Access. The crossing position will require to be agreed in detail prior to construction start.

5. A further Puffin crossing facility will be required somewhere between the 2 proposed Residential Accesses. This position will also require to be agreed in detail before construction starts.

6. The existing 30MPH Traffic Regulation Order on the A719 will require to be extended northwards to cover the extent of the Northern most proposed Residential Access. This will be required before occupation of the first Residential Unit.

7. The existing Bus stops positioned approximately 140 metres to the south of the proposed Tourist access will require to be substantially upgraded to incorporate hardstanding, raised Kassel boarding kerbs, a shelter and flag with facilities to incorporate full RTPI provision. This upgrade will be required before any element of the Tourist proposal opens to the Public.

8. Additional bus stops to serve the residential element of the development and fully kitted out as above. The position of these will require to be agreed in detail with ARA Roads and SPT prior to construction start and will require to be fully operational prior to the occupation of the first residential property.

9. A proposed circumferential internal bus route will require to be agreed in detail with ARA Roads and SPT prior to Construction Start and taking full cognisance of a proposed Masterplan for the development as a whole.

10. The proposed internal bus infrastructure, phasing provision, and level of additional funding to be provided to support the amended Bus Service initially until a commercially viable service can be run should be agreed in detail with ARA Roads and SPT prior to any construction start.

11. The funding to be provided for the supported Bus Service will require to form part of a Section 75 Legal Agreement which must be fully agreed and in place prior to any construction start.

12. The Internal Infrastructure for the Residential and Tourist Development must be considered and approved as part of a submitted Masterplan before Full Planning Consent is granted.

13. 2 No fast electrical vehicle charging points will require to be installed and maintained within the car parking provision for the Tourism Development to encourage sustainable vehicle usage.

14. The Travel Plan to be provided prior to occupation of the 1st residential property and / also prior to commercial opening of any element of the Tourist facility must also include information for visitors and guests as well as staff and residents.

15. A Travel Plan Coordinator will require to be appointed who will be expected to liaise with ARA Roads from the outset through all aspects and phases of implementation of the development and beyond. The name of the developer contact who will be expected to take the Travel Plan forward will be provided to ARA Roads before any construction start.

16. A suitable layout for the Tourism Access including all lining and lane widths etc, will be agreed with ARA Roads prior to any construction start.

17. A suitable layout for the southernmost Residential Access including all lining and road widths will be agreed with ARA Roads prior to any construction start.

18. The northern Residential Access will be required to be operational prior to the occupation of the 251st residential property. The position of this access will require to be agreed in detail before any construction start and will require to be fully designed and agreed prior to the occupation of the 200th residential property.

19. The mitigation discussed with ARA Roads and Transport Scotland in relation to Bellfield Interchange and identified within the text of the TA and indicated on Local Transport Projects Drawing: LTP/1820/T1/03/01/0 must be fully delivered before the completion and occupation of the 251st Residential unit. This mitigation would include the proposed substantial widening along the A71 westbound on the approach to the Bellfield Interchange from the Hurlford direction.

Noted and these matters can be recommended to the Scottish Government as conditions or if appropriate subject a legal agreement if permission is to be granted.

125. Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) (Flooding) note in their consultation response that this proposed development is very detailed however comment as follows particularly as the full design detail it is yet to be completed.

The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is a desk study and does not establish Fluvial inundation maps and levels.

The Finished Floor Level’s shall be maintained at a minimum 150mm above ground level and adjacent to the floodplain at a minimum of 500mmm above the 1:200 year + CC (climate change) level; this level and outline require to be determined by a full FRA to allow the layout to be completed.

Discharge from the site will be limited to 6.95ltrs/s/ha, as identified in the Draft DIA and FRA this is because the River Irvine is very sensitive to flooding and we need to mitigate wherever possible the flows into it during storm events, therefore any attenuation should be sized to accommodate the 1:200 year + CC rainfall event for the site and release to the river at the above rates only. This attenuation must be out with the 1:200 year + CC Levels/Fluvial out line and is to be determined in a full FRA.

It is noted that it is proposed that the small watercourses passing through the site are to be culverted, we would require that they be sized to accommodate the 1:200 year storm event. However we are aware that SEPA are very anti the culverting of watercourses and would anticipate they would require compensatory Habitat areas as a minimum if they agree at all.

The Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) is acceptable in principle but will require amendment to take account of the detailed design, including the 1:200 year + CC flood event route to the attenuation that ensures that no location is put at risk of flooding. This should be the first thing done before any drainage scheme. You need to know how the drainage is going to actually work on the site prior to trying to designing the drainage.

In conclusion it should be conditioned that prior to construction commencing; the following will be required to be submitted and approved.

Full FRA establishing the actual flood risk to the site establishing the outline and level of Fluvial 1:200 year + CC event,

Full DIA, establishing the Flood Route of all Pluvial waters for 1:200 year + CC flood event to the Attenuation that does not put any part of the site a risk of flooding other than those intended. Discharge to the River Irvine to be Limited to 6.95ltrs/sec/ha.

Noted and these matters can be recommended in conditions to Scottish Government if consent is to be granted.

126. East Ayrshire Council Business Development Unit advise that Economic Development is supportive of any endeavour that seeks to create or sustain jobs and to deliver benefits to the East Ayrshire economy. To the extent that the current proposal would deliver against these objectives the application would be welcomed.

Noted.

127. East Ayrshire Leisure Countryside Access Officer advises as follows:-

Current Access Rights

The application details the existence of both a linear Public Right of Way and a Core Path route within the development site boundary. The Public Right of Way SK69 and the Core Path IV8 are correctly detailed within the application.

Area wide access rights, as contained within the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, are also currently exercisable across large areas of the application site namely the woodland areas and the agricultural fields prior to the forming of crops. Access rights within the Act are specifically excluded from certain areas within the development site boundary i.e. houses and gardens, farm buildings and their curtilages and visitor attractions where charges have been levied for a period of no fewer than 90 days in the year ending 31st January 2001 and no fewer than 90 days in each year beginning on 1st February 2001.

Planning Policy Context

Scottish Planning Policy (Scottish Government 2014b) states at paragraph 220, in relation to public access, that “Planning should protect, enhance and promote green infrastructure, including open space and green networks, as an integral component of successful placemaking” and at paragraph 270 that the planning system should support development which “provide safe and convenient opportunities for walking and cycling for both active travel and recreation, and facilitate travel by public transport”.

Proposals

The application proposes to retain the current linear Public Right of Way (SK69) and Core Path (IV8) routes within the development site boundary.

Whilst the routes are to be retained it is disappointing to note that they are detailed within the development proposals (Access Statement, Transport & Access Layout, Dwg No (02)005 Rev A as becoming “Major Service & Access Routes” to both the residential development and the leisure development.

This will result in the existing Public Right of Way and Core Path changing in character from being quiet semi-rural routes for walking and cycling to formed roads and footways servicing a sizeable housing and leisure development.

The Transport & Access Layout Dwg No (02)005 Rev A details access routes within the development. The layout of these routes appears to be on the basis of a standard road/footway patterns to service the residential properties and the individual leisure areas i.e. lodges, lake, sports area etc.

It is concerning that the access layout for the development in terms of the leisure masterplan area, housing masterplan area and the overall development proposal fails to identify, even in an indicative form, a network of off road walking and cycling routes to service the development proposals in terms of walking and cycling for both active travel and recreation between external and internal nodes.

The “Loudon Castle: Environmental Statement Chapter 12 Land Use and Recreation” states at paragraph 12:94 that area wide access rights as contained within the Land Reform (Scotland) 2003 will be gradually reduced during the construction of the project. It is concerning that these area wide access rights and there loss is not documented within Table 12.7; Summary of Likely Environmental Effect on Land Use and Recreation. Area wide access rights should be included within this summary table along with evaluation statements and a requirement to provide mitigation for their loss via a formal path network to both service the development internally and provide links to external nodes.

The application’s Access Statement at paragraph 7.5 makes a positive statement in relation to providing improved access namely “a number of pedestrian routes will be provided within the site in order to enhance pedestrian connectivity”. Whilst this is a positive commitment it is limited in its scope relating to pedestrian and on site connectivity only. In turn it is difficult to see how the applicants Framework Travel Plan can be delivered where the current proposed development access network consists of a commitment to provide on-site connected pedestrian routes only.

Recommendations

Given the scale and nature of this application the applicant should produce an Access Action Plan (AAP) for the site. The AAP should detail a network of walking and cycling routes which provide;

• internal linkages between residential, leisure, open space and woodland areas • external linkages between the development site and external nodes such as Galston, Loudoun Academy and Loudoun Golf Club • external linkages to wider path networks such as the developing Irvine Valley Path Network (nearest link SK71 and the Whitelee Access Network (nearest link IV8 then onto IV15).

The AAP should detail an access network which creates routes which can be used for both active travel journeys and recreation. The AAP should include details of networks, route lay-outs, specifications and construction phasing.

Where the Planning Service is of a mind to approve this application the production of an AAP and the delivery of routes within the AAP, on a phased basis attached to development construction phasing, should be the subject of a planning condition attached to any consent. This planning condition should also include a requirement for a S75 agreement covering the delivery of path links to adjacent nodes outwith the development site boundary.

These matters could be recommended in conditions to the Scottish Government if consent is to be granted.

128. The Coal Authority has advised that their response is one of “Material Consideration”. The Coal Authority further advise that they have reviewed the proposals and confirm that the application site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area; therefore within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application.

The Coal Authority records indicate that there are 7 mine entries and their resultant zones of influence on the site. The site is in the likely zone of influence from 6 coal seams at shallow to 149 metre depth, last worked in 1959 and is in an area of likely historic unrecorded underground coal mine workings at shallow depth. The site is also within the boundary of a site from which coal has been removed by surface mining methods.

The planning application, which is in principle, is supported by a Phase I Geo- Environmental Assessment Report, revised date 21 August 2015 and prepared by Alan Wood & Partners. This report has been informed by an appropriate range of sources of information including; British Geological Survey (BGS) records, historic maps and a Coal Mining Report.

Having reviewed the available coal mining and geological information the Phase I Report concludes that there is a risk to the development from past coal mining activity. The report therefore concludes that intrusive site investigations should be carried out on site in order to establish the exact situation in respect of coal mining legacy issues on the site.

The report states that these intrusive site investigations should include; locating and assessing the condition of the mine entries, establishing the extent of the surface mining on the site and investigating to establish if shallow coal mine workings are present beneath the site. The report identifies that dependent on the findings of these intrusive site investigations appropriate remedial measures will be required for the mine entries and shallow coal mine workings. The report also states that the layout of the development will need to be informed by the findings of the site investigations to ensure that no built development occurs on or within the zone of influence of the mine entries or the high walls of the former surface mine. The report also notes that mine gas monitoring will need to be carried out on site.

The Coal Authority Recommendation to the Local Planning Authority (LPA)

The Coal Authority concurs with the recommendations of the Phase I Geo- Environmental Assessment Report; that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and that intrusive site investigation works should be undertaken prior to development in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site.

The Coal Authority recommends that the LPA impose a Planning Condition should planning permission be granted for the proposed development requiring these site investigation works prior to commencement of development.

In the event that the site investigations confirm the need for remedial works to treat the mine entries and shallow coal mine workings to ensure the safety and stability of the proposed development, this should also be conditioned to ensure that any remedial works identified by the site investigation are undertaken prior to commencement of the development.

A condition should therefore require prior to the submission of the reserved matters:

i. The submission of a scheme of intrusive site investigations for the mine entries for approval; ii. The submission of a scheme of intrusive site investigations for the high walls and shallow coal workings for approval; iii. The undertaking of all these schemes of intrusive site investigations; iv. As part of the reserved matters application the submission of a report of findings arising from these intrusive site investigations; v. As part of the reserved matters application the submission of a layout plan which identifies appropriate zones of influence for the mine entries on site, and the definition of suitable ‘no-build’ zones; vi. As part of the reserved matters a plan indicating ‘no-build’ zones for the high walls; vii. As part of the reserved matters application the submission of a scheme of treatment for the mine entries on site for approval; viii. As part of the reserved matters application the submission of a scheme of remedial works for the shallow coal workings for approval; and

A condition should also require prior to the commencement of development:

ix. Implementation of those remedial works.

The Coal Authority therefore has no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of a condition or conditions to secure the above.

These matters could be recommended as condition(s) to the Scottish Government if consent is to be granted.

129. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) initially SEPA lodged an objection to the development on flooding grounds. Subsequent to that objection and following further clarification being provided by the applicant’s agent, SEPA request that the following planning condition be attached to the consent which states

• A detailed assessment of flood risk is undertaken and that outputs from this study are used to inform a finalised site layout that is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy. In the event that the planning authority proposes to grant planning permission contrary to this advice on flood risk, the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009 provides criteria for the referral to the Scottish Ministers of such cases.

SEPA further advise that they would expect East Ayrshire Council to undertake their responsibilities as the Flood Prevention Authority.

SEPA clarify that their most recent response to this planning application (PCS/142586 - 13 October 2015) objected to the planning application on the basis of the proposed location of the Sports Building. They also highlighted the need to ensure that the new townships, lodges and glamping site were all located so that the flood risk posed by small watercourses on site is effectively mitigated. The applicants agent, SEPA advise they agreed to undertake a detailed assessment of the ditches and watercourse on the site. This assessment was to confirm their capacity and ability to convey flow. Provided this assessment is consistent with our technical requirements (see link below) SEPA advise they are satisfied that that it will confirm the developable extent of the site in line with Scottish Planning Policy.

Their position SEPA advise remains unchanged, namely, that they believe that the Sports Building will have to be moved, they are willing to remove our previous objection subject to the above planning condition being imposed. This condition should enable the granting of planning permission in principle, on the basis of an indicative site plan, whilst retaining the right for SEPA to object at the detailed planning stage in the event that they are dissatisfied with the finalised site layout and/or the overall assessment of flood risk at the site.

SEPA recommend that the applicant takes cognisance of advice contained in a SEPA guidance document titled “Culverting of Watercourses – Position Statement and Supporting Guidance”. Further detailed advice for the applicant is provided in relation to flood risk and regulatory advice.

The matters raised by SEPA can be recommended in conditions to the Scottish Government if consent is to be granted.

130. Strathclyde Passenger Transport (SPT) advise that SPT, as the Regional Transport Partnership for the west of Scotland, has considered this application in line with the Regional Transport Strategy towards achieving: Improved Connectivity; Access for All; Reduced Emissions; and Attractive, Seamless, Reliable Travel. As such this response focuses on active travel and public transport access.

SPT note that this application differs slightly from the previous application, with 300 residential units being identified as the first phase of development. However, as with their response to the previously withdrawn application, SPT are particularly concerned that the scale and nature of the development in a relatively rural location is likely to result in reliance on travel by private car use. This is of particular concern in relation to the significant level of residential development which is proposed in this application. While it is acknowledged in their response that the proposal for the residential development is as enabling development to fund the redevelopment of Loudoun Castle, SPT consider the level of residential development proposed will inevitably result in a significant reliance on private car use.

SPT note that a Framework Travel Plan covering all aspect of the development proposal has been produced. SPT welcome the measures set out in this framework which aim to encourage travel by a range of travel modes beyond private car, but note that the a target base line mode split of 81% to private vehicle is predicted across all trips associated with the development proposal.

While SPT advise they are supportive of the measures and the mechanisms for delivery for these measures, set out in the Framework Travel Plan, SPT are of the view that further measures are required to encourage sustainable travel behaviour. In addition SPT would suggest that in order to encourage sustainable travel behaviour, conditions are attached covering following:

• Walking and cycling connections; • Public transport strategy (including service provision, infrastructure, phasing and funding); • Information provision; and • Travel plan.

As is set out within the Framework Travel Plan, an effective time to influence a person’s travel behaviour is at transition point in their lives. As such it is essential sustainable travel options and associated information provision is provided in a manner which complements the delivery of the development and therefore it is essential that the phases of the development is understood in relation to active travel and public transport opportunities.

Walking and cycling connections

The scale of the development site makes it essential that walking and cycling connections within the site and between the site and existing communities. The Transport Assessment (TA) highlights that local facilities within Galston are within a reasonable walk of the entrance to the tourism site access, with footways along the key roads adjacent to the site. However it is also noted that the scale of the development site will result in a many of the aspects of the development being a significant distance from external footways. An internal network of pedestrian routes is essential to enhancing pedestrian connectivity and reducing reliance on private car use. However this should not be restricted to connecting elements of the tourism site. Pedestrian routes between the townships and communities within the residential development are essential as are links from the residential development through the tourism site to Galston. To consider the two aspect of the site in isolation will only serve to reinforce the isolation of the residential site from Galston. We would suggest that further consideration in relation to pedestrian connectivity between the two aspects of the site and pedestrian links between the site and the external footpath network. This should be a condition of any planning consent.

Public transport services and infrastructure

The TA and the Framework Travel Plan acknowledge that the relatively rural location and the nature of the holiday park development are likely to mean that the majority of trips will be by private car. This does not mean that consideration should not be given to active travel and public transport connections for guests and staff.

As noted in the Access Statement the existing bus stops on the A719 situated near the proposed tourism site access and the bus services operating on this road would provide some access by public transport for this aspect of the development proposal. While these are marked bus stops, they would require to be upgraded to be of a suitable standard to support a development of this scale. Both the north and southbound stops would require to be upgraded with the infrastructure provision at each should include hardstanding, a raised kerb, a flag with information panel, a shelter with an electrical connection/solar panels and on-road markings. Such enhancements to bus stop infrastructure will improve access to and the attractiveness of bus services in the area for those employed in and users of the proposed development, reducing reliance on the private car. As such we would ask that a condition of any consent is the upgrading of the bus stop infrastructure at the north and southbound bus stops situated near the proposed tourism site access on the A719.

It is also noted within the TA that the bus services and stops on the A71 would provide access to the site. While footway provision provides access to these stops, they are around 750 metres from the tourism site entrance and significantly further from the area of residential development. As such are unlikely to be an attractive proposal for users of the development site.

It should be noted that the existing stops on the A719 would be beyond 400 metres from the proposed residential development and therefore as a minimum additional bus stops would be required on the A719 in proximity to the entrance to the residential development. The location of these stops would be required to be agreed by SPT, Ayrshire Roads Alliance and Police Scotland. The infrastructure requirements for these stops are as noted above.

The Framework Travel Plan identifies the potential of the providing permanent residents and staff with some form of discounted travel pass, with a Stagecoach prepay card to provide discounted travel. As far as SPT understands there is no such option available and the only option would be to buy “season tickets” upfront. In addition while Stagecoach is the main bus operator in the area, they are not the only operator. Also Stagecoach services does not operate along the A719, and as discussed bus services above services operating on the A71 are unlikely to be an attractive proposal for people accessing the development site due to the walk distances involved.

The final proposed measure to encourage public transport use as set out in the Framework Travel Plan - meet with bus operators regarding the potential for re- routing or providing additional bus services to better services – needs further consideration.

Firstly the service 332 which operates on the A719 is a not a commercial bus service, but a SPT supported service. There is no scope within the current operations of this service to allow the service to deviate from its exiting route, or for the frequency of this service to be expanded without additional cost. In addition the proposed access and internal road layout for the site would not be conducive to bus operations. While it is acknowledged that the transport and access plans are at this point indicative, it is understood that applicant proposes two distinct road networks, one serving the tourism and leisure development and one serving the residential development. This would result a “dog leg” manoeuvre for any service accessing either aspect of the development and this is not an attractive proposition in terms of bus operations. In addition suitable bus turning facilities and bus stop locations would have to be identified in the detailed design of the development. While it is noted that there is to be the option to provide a secondary access point to the townships it is not clear at this would be suitable for bus operation or how it would connect to the wider street network within the site

SPT would suggest that in order to future proof the development and provide the opportunity for bus penetration into the development site, a circumferential route connecting both the tourism and residential parts of the site should be identified. This should be designed to a standard to potentially allow two-way bus operation with bus turning facilities and bus stop locations identified. SPT would request that this is a condition of any planning consent.

To introduce a bus service into the site is likely to require funding support as it is unlikely that bus operators would see this route as commercially attractive at the outset. In all likelihood funding support would be required for a minimum of 4 years. This should be used to augment the existing bus network, through the re-routing or extension of an existing service with the view to developing a service pattern which would be considered commercially viable in the longer term and would not require on-going longer term public funding support. It should be noted that should any service which is introduced not be considered commercially viable in the longer term, then it is unlikely that such a service could be continued though public funding support.

There is insufficient phasing information is currently available to assist in the identification of a trigger point for the introduction of bus services or any associated financial contributions. However, to provide the maximum benefit and encourage future commercial operation of a bus service, bus penetration should be tied to the phased development of the site.

SPT would request that should the planning authority be minded to grant consent for this application, that conditions are attached requiring:

• the development of a public transport strategy detailing the frequency and routing of amended bus services and the provision of infrastructure for the consideration and detailed approval of the Council, in discussion with SPT, covering phasing and funding issues; and • the recommendations of the public transport strategy be implemented to the satisfaction of the Council in line with the agreed phasing strategy prior to the occupation of dwellings on the site.

Funding for a bus service should be included within the public transport strategy and a sum assured through a legal agreement.

This is to ensure adequate access to public transport and encourage sustainable travel throughout all phases of the development.

SPT would welcome the opportunity to be involved further in the development of proposals for bus access to this site.

Information Provision

The Framework Travel Plan identifies a number of measures for disseminating sustainable travel information to staff and residents. While this is welcomed SPT would suggest that public transport and active travel information provision and marketing should be expanded to include visitors and guests to the site, through the inclusion of travel information within guest welcome packs and on information boards throughout the site.

Travel Plan

While the measures the set out in the Framework Travel Plan are welcome SPT would request that a condition is attached to any consent for this development requiring that a travel plan is developed and implemented for each phase and all users of the development, in line with the Framework Travel Plan, subject to the additional points discussed above. This is to encourage travel by a variety travel modes.

Conclusion

SPT welcomes the opportunity to comment on this application. We remain concerned that the development, particularly the residential aspect of the development is likely to result in reliance on private car use. We ask that, if you are minded to grant consent for this application, conditions are attached covering:

• Walking and cycling connections; • Public transport strategy (including service provision, infrastructure, phasing and funding); • Information provision; and • Travel plan.

Such matters can be recommended as conditions to Scottish Government if consent is to be granted.

131. Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (AHSS) maintains its original objections to the principle (as per the previous application) and the scale of this ‘outline’ development proposal. Given the scale and potential impact of any development involving an A Listed Building, a Historic Designed Landscape, a full EIA should be required before any approval is considered. Much of the information submitted to date is sketchy and speculative.

The applicants have submitted an Environmental Statement having undertaken the Environmental Impact Assessment process under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. A “full” ES has therefore been submitted by the applicant’s agents.

The Master Plan documents state that the key aim is to “restore” the A Listed Loudoun Castle to a shell and to seek conversion to a Hotel. This is an aim which this Society would generally endorse as it is an important historic and prominent building set in an 18th century Designed Landscape.

The developments proposed, eventually up to 1025 houses, 450 holiday lodges, timeshare residences, tree lodges, a glamping area, a lake, watersports, spa, indoor leisure and retail facilities, a shop, hall and pub for each ‘township’, new access roads and enlarged car-park, a distillery and community heating-plant, would be excessive “enabling development”. This scale of development would overwhelm the Designed Landscape to its permanent detriment.

What is being proposed cannot be described as Enabling Development to save the Castle, Gothic Arch, Estate Buildings and Designed Landscape, but simply as overdevelopment in a Rural Area also designated as a Settlement Protection Area, in an Investment Corridor and Green Network area. Enabling Development is commonly described as the minimum required. RES 8 in the Adopted Local Plan restricts any new build element to the absolute minimum to unlock the development potential of a derelict building, such as Loudoun Castle, and to facilitate its restoration.

East Ayrshire Council will require an evaluation of the development costs required to enable the development to be carried out. No such evaluation has been submitted, even for the initial development phases, as the Castle cannot even be fully surveyed due to its unsafe condition and with internal walls obscured by trees. Three options for the Castle are listed, but the future repairs, in some places rebuild in order for conversion to a hotel, have not, and cannot yet be costed. It is unclear whether the £3 million proposed upfront, will stabilise the Castle ruin, or is simply regarded as a ‘key’ to permitting residential development. It may well be that the Castle’s future is limited to stabilisation, leaving what was called ‘The Windsor of the North’ as a noble ruin, a prominent feature in the upper Irvine Valley. But currently the proposed level of enabling development is unacceptable until this lesser level of remedial work is costed and examined to determine the level of acceptable enabling development on such a sensitive site.

Development on the scale proposed on the valley side would also impact adversely on the setting of Galston. As a Holiday Park, it would not regenerate Galston, as the type of leisure development proposed aims to be self- contained, retaining visitor expenditure within the development, as occurred with the previous Loudoun Theme Park, now closed.

The principles of the Designed Landscape are plantations, some as Belvederes, with open spaces between, all focussing on the Castle at its centre and enhancing its setting. Even though housing is not now proposed within the Spade Plantation to the north, and the lake has been slightly re-sited, the current proposed layout would mainly impact on the paddocks between trees, thus destroying key elements in the design. It is accepted that the many wooded areas and plantations need management and in some places removal of later commercial spruce planting. But development of the required access and service roads and installation of utilities, such as water, sewerage and power, are all likely to have a detrimental impact on some of the areas of Ancient Woodland which are well over 200 years old. There is no reference to a TPO, which it is understood was designated on the Estate when the Theme Park was developed.

Disturbance to relatively wild areas within the Estate where there is a Wildlife Site and many potential archaeological sites, will also reduce its habitats for deer, squirrel, bats, badgers, rare plants, birds: It will also detract from its tranquil woodland character and amenity already enjoyed by those using Core Paths and Rights of Way.

Comments in respect of wildlife, protected species and core paths and rights of way are offered by Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Access Officer at paragraphs noted above.

The Society accepts that Loudoun Castle Estate is designated in the Local Plan as Site 366M, where the Council will support holiday lodge and tourism development which would involve or contribute to the restoration or enhancement of the Castle and Grounds. However any such development is required to respect in terms of size, scale, siting etc. the location of the area within its Historic Garden and Designed Landscape: The current proposals, which contravene numerous Local and Structure Plan Policies and Government Guidance, would simply swamp the Estate, diminish its historic, environmental and ecological importance, so should be rejected in principle at this stage.

The impact of the proposals on the Estate and the assessment of the application against the Development Plan and Local Development Plan (as a material consideration) are outlinedwithin this report.

132. Moscow and Waterside Community Council object to this application for the following reasons:-

(1). Traffic Generated:

(i). Our communities are primarily served by means of the A719 which passes through both Moscow & Waterside. The A719 is one of the main routes used by commuters from the Irvine Valley heading north, accessing the A77 and thence the M77 by the northbound slip road near ‘The Eaglesham Road end’. This route is used as it avoids negotiating Hurlford and traffic congestion at the Bellfield Roundabout near Kilmarnock.

This well-used desire-line route seems to have been ignored in traffic modelling, and requires to be examined further. The modelled roads apparently only extend 1 mile north of the application site.

(ii).There appear to be several access/exit points shown on the plans which access the A719 north of the current Main Drive entrance into the Estate. Both roads shown as serving the proposed housing will require ghost lanes or mini roundabouts on to the A719 on a fast stretch of Loudoun Bank. - The new access proposed to the north is over land affected by previous mining. - The other access to housing, using the private road to Howletburn is a Right of Way. - The existing public road at Alton (U30) is unsuitable for additional traffic, such as for a distillery operation. Neither it nor the A719 north of the Castle entrance have footpaths.

Both the Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) and Transport Scotland (TS) have been consulted on this application. A Transport Assessment and Framework Travel Plan were both submitted with this application and the Environmental Statement considered traffic impacts.

The responses from the ARA and TS are considered within this report.

(2).This development would put huge demands on infrastructure; e.g. drainage & water supply. There is no recognition, nor assessment of the impact on local private water supplies.

(3). The proposed housing development, whether in phases or not, is too large. The Designed Landscape has not the capacity to absorb so much development without critical impact.

(4). The effect on Galston’s efforts at rejuvenation has not been considered. Whilst this development has the potential to bring short and long term economic benefit associated with expensive houses, we remind the Council that the Theme Park, despite all the projected advantages did not bring material economic improvement to the Irvine Valley.

(5). This development would put a sudden burden and demand on other local infrastructure and services such as schools and GP access, potentially to the detriment of existing residents and these demands will require integrated and forward planning of these services.

East Ayrshire Council’s Education Service has been consulted on this application and as stated above has no objections to make. The National Health Service (NHS) was also consulted on the proposals and has provided the comments in response as detailed above.

Loudoun Castle Estate is an asset to the area: The Council must ensure that any development is the minimum to ensure the Castle within its historic Designed Landscape is secured, without destroying its character and unique place in Scotland’s history.

The impact of the proposals on the Estate as a Designed Landscape are outlined below within this report.

133. Galston Community Council advise that Galston Community Council have no objection to the application and are very much in favour of the proposed development.

134. East Renfrewshire Council advise that as a planning authority they have no comment to make on the proposal.

135. Dumfries and Galloway Council advise that Dumfries and Galloway Council, as planning authority, has no comment to make on the proposal.

136. South Lanarkshire Council advise that the proposals do not cause any planning issues at South Lanarkshire. The area engineer has had a look at the scheme and has concluded that the council are not unduly concerned in regards to trip impact on the road network of South Lanarkshire. We therefore have no objections to offer to these proposals.

137. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have no comments to make as this development proposal doesn’t appear to fall within any HSE consultation zone.

138. The Scottish Government Culture and Historic Environment Division advise that on 1 October 2015, Historic Scotland and The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) ceased to operate and have been replaced by a new organisation, Historic Environment Scotland (HES). This new organisation (which is a Non Departmental Public Body) was established by the Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014.

Consultations received by Historic Scotland before 1 October (2015) require a response direct from Scottish Ministers. This letter contains Scottish Ministers’ comments for our historic environment interests in this context. That is world heritage sites, scheduled monuments and their setting, category A listed buildings and their setting and gardens and designed landscapes and battlefields on their respective Inventories. Your Council’s archaeology and conservation advisors will be able to provide advice on matters including impacts on unscheduled archaeology and category B and C listed buildings.

Ministers have sought the advice of Historic Environment Scotland on the proposals and on the adequacy of the environmental statement, and that advice is set out in the Annex below. While Ministers do not consider that the application raises such issues of national interest that they would raise a formal objection for their historic environment interests, we would refer you to Historic Environment Scotland’s advice and the concerns they raise and recommend that their offer to discuss mitigation is taken up.

Historic Environment Scotland (previously Historic Scotland) advise as follows:

Annex: Historic Environment Scotland Advice

Having viewed the Environmental Statement (ES), alongside the limited visualisations provided, Historic Environment Scotland welcomes the revisions to the proposals but has some concerns about the potential impacts on Loudoun Castle Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape. We recommend that mitigation measures are explored to lessen this impact and would be happy to discuss the mitigation we have recommended with East Ayrshire Council or the applicant further. However, Historic Environment Scotland does not consider that the proposals raise historic environment issues of national significance.

Background

Historic Scotland was consulted by East Ayrshire Council (via Scottish Government) regarding an Environmental Statement (ES) and associated Planning Permission in Principle application for the above works. The proposal is for a leisure and tourism development including 450 holiday lodges, 12 glamping pitches, restoration of castle shell and conversion to hotel, new leisure facilities including lake, indoor water park with retail plaza and restaurants, water sports building, indoor sports, spa and cycle store. Plus erection of distillery and community heat plant and erection of phased enabling development, first phase of 300 residential dwellings plus additional phases to complete restoration of castle to hotel, plus community facilities and infrastructure.

Historic Scotland was previously consulted on a very similar scheme in January 2015. They did not object to the proposed development but identified strong concerns over the level of impact the proposals would have on Loudoun Castle inventory garden and designed landscape (GDL). Historic Scotland had also previously been involved in pre-application discussions regarding the proposals at which they welcomed proposals to consolidate and potentially restore the castle but noted concern about potential levels of impact on the GDL. Historic Scotland continued to provide advice to the applicant and local authority prior to the current application being submitted.

The Environmental Statement

We have undertaken an appraisal of the ES and while we disagree with a number of the conclusions reached and consider that the ES underplays the impact of the proposed development on the designed landscape, we consider that the ES for the current application is an improvement from that submitted with the previous application. We welcome that following advice given by Historic Scotland the ES has assessed the GDL as a historic environment asset in Chapter 7 Cultural Heritage: Historic Buildings and Setting.

We note that the GDL is still assessed in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) chapter (Chapter 6); however, as noted in Historic Scotland’s previous responses we consider that the LVIA methodology is not appropriate for assessing impacts on historic environment assets. We are pleased therefore to note that the GDL is now being assessed using a more appropriate methodology in chapter 7, however we still have some concerns over the methodology used.

Section 7.16 indicates that ‘the significance attached to a particular asset does not always match that expected by its designation’ and the justification for this provided in the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA, Appendix 7.1) appears to be due to the current condition of the assets. As Historic Scotland have stated in previous responses to the applicant the condition of the site and its integrity are taken into account at designation and regularly reviewed in order to ensure that the site is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory; the condition of the site is therefore not relevant to an assessment of its significance or sensitivity to change. As a designated asset of national importance the GDL is of high significance and highly sensitive to change.

We consider that the methodology is still complicated, for example, it is not clear why the separate Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) criteria for listed buildings and GDLs have been combined to produce a single set of criteria when the assets themselves are assessed separately. We have some concerns over the criteria for determining magnitude of change (Table 7.4), for example, some of the criteria appear to combine both direct and indirect impacts without making this clear and some criteria are extremely specific. In addition while the complete removal of a heritage asset is certainly a high magnitude of impact there is also a high level of impact that, while it may not entirely remove an asset, would result in a greater change to the asset than the ‘appreciable’ change identified in the medium magnitude of impact criteria.

Overall the ES concludes that there will be a minor beneficial effect on the Inventory GDL; this appears to be due to the restoration of the crucial missing parts of the designed landscape however we would disagree with this overall assessment. Section 7.197 states that there would be no features of historic importance lost to the project and no notable trees lost. We would disagree with this assessment; the proposed loss of open ground / parkland combined with development within the policy woodlands of the GDL and the change of character in these elements of the GDL would constitute a major impact on the designed landscape.

Section 7.175 discusses the castle precinct and concludes that works to this area would improve the setting of the restored castle with moderate beneficial effect. Section 7.176 states that restoration of key landscape features such as the patte d’oie and works to the car park and policy woodlands would enhance the significance of this aspect of the setting. We disagree as we consider that placing a car park to the SW and lodge development in the woodland block to the SE of the castle are not restoration of GDL features but significant development screened by planting.

Section 7.171 and the Heritage Impact Assessment (Appendix 7.1) discuss the Earl of Mar’s ‘zones of activity’ at Alloa and justify the proposed development at Loudoun by indicating that ‘the historic use would change but the GDL would be respected as the infill would be in the spirit of the original design’. There is no evidence that the Earl of Mar intended to have ‘zones of activity’ at Loudoun. We do not consider that it is appropriate to use the design intentions of an early 18th century garden designer for a different designed landscape to justify high levels of development and assess the potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing structure of the GDL without the basis of firm historical evidence.

We accept the conclusion that the proposals would be likely to have a significant beneficial direct effect on the category A listed castle; however we disagree with the conclusion that they would have a beneficial effect on the Inventory GDL. As stated in detail below we have concerns over the current level of development proposed within the GDL and we recommend that consideration be given to redesigning or relocating elements of the proposals to minimise the level of impact.

Historic Environment Scotland’s Interest: Category A listed building

We fully support the proposals to carry out work to secure the future of the Category A listed Loudoun Castle; however, we do have strong concerns regarding some of the associated development. If the Council is minded to grant consent at this stage we would expect to be involved in further detailed discussion about the details of the scheme. Our views on the impact of the proposed development on the GDL are set out below. In summary we consider these impacts to be significantly detrimental and there is a need to consider carefully the extent to which the benefit of securing the future of the castle outweighs those detrimental impacts.

We understand that the Council will be examining the financial information submitted to ensure that the proposed enabling development would be the minimum necessary to secure the future of the castle. While recognising that the current application is for Planning Permission in principle and therefore does not contain full details of every element of the scheme, we consider that there continues to be a lack of financial information and justification in the application. We welcome that the enabling development is now being considered in phases, but it is unclear from the details in this application how this phased approach will mitigate the concerns raised previously.

We are content with the detail of the restoration of the castle as proposed at this stage, but our view as noted in Historic Scotland’s response to the previous application, is that there is scope for more discussion about how to balance the expense of the restoration and the impact of the surrounding development. Given the condition and scale of the castle, we recognise that any consolidation and / or restoration project will be very expensive and we would advocate a reconsideration of the scheme in order to mitigate the impact of the proposed enabling development. For example, given the extent of survival of the central tower, our view is that options for not rebuilding the collapsed parts of the tower are worth considering. We would also question whether there are areas of internal walls that might not be rebuilt and whether looking at more modern, contrasting interventions in place of traditional masonry consolidation might have an impact on the costs. If the cost of the proposed renovation can be reduced considerably, there would then be an associated reduction in the requirement for housing, which may then provide an opportunity to revisit the location of some of the other aspects of the scheme. We would recommend, for example, that the siting of the car park is amended to retain a green corridor adjacent to the formal South Avenue and reducing the number of holiday lodges in the core woodlands immediately surrounding the castle which would help to reduce the potential adverse impact of the car park and the lodges on the setting of the A listed castle. We would be very happy to discuss the restoration options with all parties if that would be helpful.

Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape

Loudoun Castle is included in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in recognition of its national importance. Laid out in the early 18th century to the designs of the 6th Earl of Mar, the designed landscape has outstanding historical and scenic value. Set in the valley of the River Irvine, the policies make use of the wide valley setting. In the original design, which is clearly shown on General Roy’s map of c. 1750, straight avenues radiated from the Castle and linked a series of belvedere woods, which have been planted to form striking features in the landscape. Together with the North and West Belvedere woods, one of the strongest features of the design which survives today is the principal South Avenue which stretches south from the Castle to the A71 road, which forms the southern boundary of the estate.

The design was in-formalised in the early 19th century when many of the avenues were inter-planted with woodland. Like the Castle, the designed landscape is in poor condition: the woods are unmanaged and in the 20th century much of the parkland was turned over to a golf course, Loudoun Academy and the remains of the theme park and its associated infrastructure (car parking, development of the walled garden, etc.). We accept that the Inventory site is in need of investment and given its condition and scale that it could absorb some carefully designed new development. However, any development should ensure the protection and conservation of the significant surviving elements of the early 18th century design.

There have been a number of revisions to the planning application since Historic Scotland was consulted on the previous application which we welcome. These include the removal of housing from the North Belvedere, which is an important surviving element of the early 18th century design and marks the northern boundary of the Inventory site. This will help to reduce the visual impact of the development in this location. We also welcome the relocation of the proposed spa building and lake off the central N-S axis north of the castle, which Historic Scotland suggested as mitigation in their previous consultation response. This will partially mitigate the impact of the development by both reducing its visual impact and retaining the N-S axis, which is an important structural element of the GDL running through the policies from the North Belvedere, through the castle and down the South Avenue.

However, we have concerns regarding the direct impact the development will have on the Inventory GDL:

ii. Lakeside leisure development – despite the proposed amendments to the scheme, this large development will continue to have a significant physical and visual impact on the designed landscape. Major earthworks are proposed to create a large lake and a number of large structures. We continue to have significant concerns over the ability of the designed landscape to absorb such a high level of development in this location. iii. Lodge development – we would like to reiterate Historic Scotland’s concerns that the proposed lodges, especially in the core woodland areas immediately adjacent to the castle will have a significant adverse impact on the designed landscape. Many of these proposed development areas are classified in the ES and its appendices as of exceptional significance and we continue to have significant concerns over the ability of these sensitive areas to absorb this level of development. We would therefore reiterate Historic Scotland’s recommendation that the lodge development should be relocated to less sensitive areas of the site, to reduce the physical and visual impact on the designed landscape. iv. New housing – Historic Scotland have previously expressed concerns regarding the need to balance the costs of restoring the castle with the detrimental impact of the surrounding development on the GDL. As stated above, if the costs of restoring the castle could be reduced this could reduce the level of enabling development required and potentially present an opportunity to relocate either the lakeside leisure development or some of the lodges to less sensitive areas of the GDL which are currently proposed for housing. v. South Avenue – this is defined as of exceptional significance in the submitted material, however most of the avenue lies outside the application boundary. Given the importance and fragility of this feature in the Inventory site, we would recommend that its full length be considered in the proposals. vi. Scope of restoration – the submitted material emphasises the value of the restoration proposals. However, the restoration of the Patte D’oie would only be a partial restoration as much of this area is not in the ownership of the applicant and as noted above most of the crucial South Avenue is outwith the red line application boundary. We therefore consider that the value of the restoration may have been overstated within the assessment. vii. Retail development – although not included in the current application, we understand that there are plans for a future retail development in the parkland to the south of the castle.

This is assessed in section 7.210 of the submitted ES under cumulative effects and concludes that the retail development ‘would have little impact on the historic landscape itself’. We disagree with this conclusion. Development in this location, set across the South Avenue would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the Inventory GDL and we would be likely to object to any future application for such development.

Given our strong concerns regarding the design of some elements of the current proposals we would recommend that if the Council is minded to grant Planning Permission in Principle that a condition is attached to the consent to ensure that the final layout of the development must be approved by the Council. We would welcome the opportunity to be involved in discussions with the Council regarding the design and layout of the proposals to ensure that the final layout has the least impact possible on the nationally important historic environment assets.

Summary

While we have concerns regarding the assessment of impacts on designated historic environment assets within the ES and we disagree with some of the conclusions reached, particularly in terms of the impact on the Inventory garden and designed landscape, we consider that there is sufficient information to come to a conclusion on the application. We welcome the amendments made to the proposed development, however, we consider that the ES has underestimated the level of impact from the proposed development to the Inventory GDL and we have strong concerns about the level of impacts the proposals will have. Nevertheless, we do not consider that the potential impacts are of such significance as to warrant an objection to this planning application. We would welcome the opportunity to be involved in discussions with the Council regarding the details of the restoration of the A listed castle and the design and layout of the proposals to ensure that the final layout has the least impact possible on the nationally important historic environment assets.

Noted.

139. North Ayrshire Council has not responded to their consultation request at the time of writing this report.

140. South Ayrshire Council has not responded to their consultation request at the time of writing this report.

141. West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) has not formally responded to their consultation request at the time of writing this report. An officer from WOSAS has however attended on site with officers and their verbal comments will be reported to Members.

142. Scottish Civic Trust no response to their consultation at the time of writing this report.

143. Scottish Water no response to their consultation at the time of writing this report.

144. East Ayrshire Council Outdoor Services no response at the time of writing this report.

145. Newmilns and Greenholm Community Council have not responded to their consultation at the time of writing this report.

146. Scotland Gas Networks no response at the time of writing this report.

REPRESENTATIONS

147. The application has received letters of representation from 9 separate objectors objecting to the proposed development (including objections from consultees including The Architectural Heritage Society, Moscow & Waterside Community Council and The Woodland Trust whose comments are outlined above within this report. The points of objection have been grouped under main headings and can be summarised as follows:-

148. This development has been proposed under the auspices of “tourism and leisure” which was previously operational on site. This was within the boundaries of the theme park and objectors can see no reason why the rest of the Estate needs to be developed ruining attractive countryside containing a diverse range of residential houses and a distillery. It is not acceptable to use a greenbelt site when there are plenty of brownfield sites available that are suitable for development.

Each planning application requires to be determined on its’ individual merits and based against the policies of the Development Plan and any other material considerations. The application site has been allocated within the Development Plan for leisure and tourism use and the planning authority is required to assess the application that has been submitted.

149. The proposed restoration and development at Loudoun Castle comprising 450 holiday lodges, a first phase of 300 houses, with potential for a total of over 1,000 houses, plus glamping pitches, indoor leisure facilities and a distillery, will have a significant adverse impact on the environs of the castle and grounds as well as the surrounding area. Even with the reduced number of houses, this development is totally disproportionate in terms of the environmental impact, and will completely change the nature of this beautiful rural location.

The application proposes a significant scale of development. The applicants are seeking planning permission in principle and detailed designs, layout etc. are all indicative at the present time. The overall design, phasing and layout will be determined at a later stage if planning permission in principle is granted through the further detailed applications that would be required to address the extent of construction works on site and the detailed impact on the landscape. All artist impressions and indicative designs are not being considered under the auspices of this application albeit the applicants’ description does contain unit numbers in terms of maximum provision on site.

150. The crux of this proposal is the need for enabling development. Until it is demonstrated and fully costed that the castle can ever be saved and brought back into use again, this is speculative over-development which should be resisted. There cannot be any clear demonstration of the need for this scale of cross subsidising development, particularly when the developers themselves express doubt about the feasibility of doing more than some stabilisation. Given the council’s past experience of development permitted with promises of restoration a Risk Assessment should be carried out event at this early stage, for example, what would happen if even one phase of the housing was to be built but then the company was liquidated with consideration of what legal safeguards should be in place at the start as otherwise this application could be a speculator’s dream.

Despite repeated requests, the Planning Service has not received a detailed Business Plan and full costings from the applicants’ to demonstrate the extent to which the castle can be restored when balanced against the enabling housing proposals.

Should the Members decide to recommend to Scottish Government that planning permission in principle and that an exception to council policy is appropriate however, there are legal matters that can be included in any legal agreement as detailed within this report which would seek to allay fears of works ongoing to provide the enabling housing development without the tourist development on site and the castle restoration.

151. A number of protected species such as badgers and bats, together with other wildlife including deer and foxes, will have their habitat severely disrupted during the period of the development, and will be adversely affected in the longer term. The site also comprises areas of ancient woodland which would be compromised by the development and would be contrary to the East Ayrshire Local Plan.

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has considered the submitted supporting information in respect of protected species and their comments are outlined within this report. SNH has not raised any objections in respect of protected species and have advised that the granting of a licence would be likely by them to facilitate these works. The Council also has a duty relative to protected species and this is considered further within this report.

152. Concern is expressed by the occupants of Alton Farm at the close proximity of the first 300 houses in the field known as Alton Park as these houses will be visible from their front windows. To anyone looking at the plans it appears that the houses are being situated as far as possible from the castle.

The detailed plans that would come forward in a further application if planning permission in principle is granted, would detail the positioning and boundary treatment including structured landscaping for the site and particularly at the residential development. The residential area has been proposed to the northern area of the Estate.

153. The site of the first houses was an open cast coal site in 1983 some 70 feet deep. The site suffers from poor drainage and subsidence as it has never been reclaimed and poorly filled in. The access road used to take this coal out was never removed as it was buried and it too has now subsided. Occupants of Alton Farm advise that they have never seen anyone boring the site to prove its suitability to build on and they look onto it permanently.

The Coal Authority is a statutory consultee for this planning application. The Coal Authority has responded to their consultation response as detailed within this report advising that in light of the historic use of the site the Coal Authority concurs with the recommendations of the Phase I Geo-Environmental Assessment Report; that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and that intrusive site investigation works should be undertaken prior to development in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site. The Coal Authority has recommended conditions if planning permission in principle is to be granted relative to site investigation works prior to commencement of development and subsequent conditions if the site investigation works show any requirement for remedial works and that these are undertaken prior to commencement of the development.

154. Residents of Alton Farm advise that they have no objections to the leisure and tourism development or the restoration of the castle, just the fact that it comes at the price of destroying their peaceful country life. As busy dairy farms they are devastated at the thought of living with this housing development which bounds their land for some considerable distance.

The application seeks planning permission in principle (PPP). If PPP was granted then the detailed design, layout, phasing and details concerning landscaping, structural planting and viewpoints would be addressed in future planning applications seeking to discharge the conditions of the PPP approval and the obligations of any legal agreement. The detailed submissions would address the impact from neighbouring properties.

155. There are already many new homes being built in Ayrshire and many are struggling to find buyers such that residents cannot see the need for such an enormous development other than to fund the castle development.

Whilst the housing market will dictate what houses sell and where, in the particular circumstances of this application the point made is considered to be a material planning consideration. The selling price and number of houses sold will have a bearing on the extent of renovation to the Castle and the length of time such renovation will take. Further, such delay in renovating the Castle could have an adverse effect on the Garden and Designed Landscape.

156. They fear that they will be left looking onto a building site for years which may or may not be completed.

The completion dates of a development site are controlled by market forces and it is not possible to condition this matter in any planning permission that might be granted.

157. This development will increase traffic on the A719 to the detriment of the villages noting also the additional access roads onto the A719. Property on the U30 from Woodhead to the A719 is a single track road used on a daily basis by far machinery, local residents walking/cycling and an ever increasing number of vehicles on a daily basis. The U30 is also a first choice diversion if for any reason there are road works/accidents on the A71 between Galston roundabout and Newmilns fire station. Under the plans this road will be the access for the distillery/housing traffic which will make this problem significantly worse.

The proposed development has been the subject of additional purporting reports and surveys including a Transport Assessment which has been considered in detail by both The Ayrshire Roads Alliance and Transport Scotland. Comments from both organisations are outlined at within this report.

No objections have been received from these consultees albeit significant and extensive conditions would likely be recommended in due course to Scottish Ministers should Members choose to adopt the view that PPP should be granted to address road and traffic matters, noting the consultation responses from Transport Scotland and the Ayrshire Roads Alliance.

158. There could be a potential population increase of 1000 plus people which would put additional pressure on health services, schools and other local facilities.

East Ayrshire Education Service has no objections to the application. The National Health Service (NHS) was consulted on the application and has responded as per their comments within this report. No amplification was provided by the NHS further to their comments stated.

159. Objectors question the financial viability of a restoration project and leisure development which requires to be supported by the sale of 300 – 1,200 houses to achieve a feasible financial model. Major concerns are expressed about the outcome, were the majority of the houses to remain unsold, with the risk that a semi-complete development would be left to become derelict. Previous projects in the area, including the earlier Loudoun Castle Theme Park, and the abandoned AllSeasons holiday development /marina between Galston and Hurlford (with a promised 400 jobs) have failed to bring any material benefits to the Irvine Valley, and there is little to suggest that the development under consideration would be any more successful.

Noted.

160. The Planning Committee recently rejected plans for an extension to a much smaller development at Craig House, on the basis that this was contrary to several planning policies, and particularly Scottish Planning Policy, which states that the planning system should protect and enhance ancient semi- natural woodlands as an important and irreplaceable resource. It would therefore be totally inconsistent and inexplicable for the Loudoun Castle development to be approved.

Each planning application is considered on its individual merits and dependent upon the individual site circumstances.

161. The proposed location of the distillery is where residents of homes in this area have their water supply and this would cause them significant problems. There does not appear to be any mention of water supply or access to it in the plans and it would appear in the objector’s opinion that the developers do not care about people who are living in the area as long as they are making money. There should be a precautionary approach in respect of private water supply.

The Council’s Environmental Health Service was contacted on the matter of private water supply and has not responded at the time of writing this report.

162. Having attended the exhibition it was stated that there would be significant investments and this was referred to in the local press as being in the region of £450,000,000. If this is the case then would the investment not be better put into restoring and re-developing the Castle into a 5* hotel and associated lodges within the theme park thereby creating long term employment for local people instead of ruining the countryside with houses. The development seems a smokescreen for building on the green belt as Loudoun Castle will never see the light of day as a hotel.

The Council has to assess the merits of the application before it and not an alternative proposal. Members are also advised that East Ayrshire does not have greenbelt land. Countryside immediately surrounding the settlement of Galston is identified in the local plan as Settlement Protection Area which is defined in the local plan as; “Areas of countryside surrounding existing settlements which the Council considers should be protected from sporadic and inappropriate development in order to protect the rural settings of the settlement concerned”.

163. The tourism & leisure proposals might have some merit if sited very carefully without physical and visual damage to the Designed Landscape. The constraints imposed by the latter together with constraints from the former mining activity and presence of known and as yet unexcavated archaeology, in addition to servicing requirements (water, sewage, access) would result in unacceptable damage to this fragile and nationally important landscape.

The Coal Authority, West of Scotland Archaeology Service and Scottish Water and SEPA were all consulted on this application and their comments are highlighted within this report. Members are advised that at the time of writing this report, Scottish Water has not responded to their consultation request. This application is for planning permission in principle of the site and does not grant consent for physical works to take place. Further detailed applications will be required which will address the capacity of the landscape and technical considerations, (that will also inform the capacity of the site along with the considerations on the impact on the Designed Landscape).

164. A previous outline planning consent appeal for holiday lodges at the north of the estate that was intended as part of the then functioning Theme Park, noted in the decision letter that the Reporter seemed to believe that some of the development would be acceptable in principle (if it continues to be screened by woodland) but that conspicuous development should be avoided on the eastern part of the site which is visible from the south side of the alley and in long views of the Estate from the south east.

Whilst noted, all applications are considered on their individual merit.

165. A phased development of over 1000 houses will inevitably be more visible and damaging than holiday accommodation (noting that the holiday accommodation would not require gardens with adjacent car parking). The objector asks the council to calculate how much of the Estate would be built over particularly as the main elements of the 18th Century Designed Landscape are the viewpoints and open spaces between plantings.

The application being considered seeks planning permission in principle (PPP) for the permitted uses only, albeit the applicants description seeks upper levels of units as part of this application detailed layouts, viewpoints and capacity assessments would require to be submitted to the planning authority under the auspices of further detailed applications to discharge the conditions of any PPP.

166. Further green-field land will be built over for the new tourism use car park.

This planning application is for planning permission in principle. If approved, it will not grant detailed approval for works to commence on site. Further detailed applications to discharge any conditions of a PPP will be required to facilitate the detailed design and layout of the site which will require council approval. The Masterplan submitted with this current application indicates that the proposals to date, illustrate that the car park will utilise the existing car park which is to be extended.

167. Car ownership for new homeowners will be high given the location and size of some of the proposed houses, yet the developer states that “one off street car parking space per house” will be provided when the likelihood is that households will have at least 2 cars.

Any future planning applications to obtain planning permission for the proposed housing units in terms of their design and layout will require detailed consultation with the Roads Authority who will set the parking standards based upon the standards in force at the time of the application. If the applicants are proposing fewer car parking provision that the council standards require then that will require to be justified by the applicants and may not be acceptable.

168. The amount of open land which will be built over with homes, parking, roads, holiday accommodation and the facilities proposed will destroy the very landscape and Castle setting, on which the concept of Minimum Enabling Development is based.

The impact on the Designed Landscape is considered in detail as part of the assessment of the application against the provisions of the Development Plan and local development plan (as a material consideration) within this report.

169. If residential development is to be accessed through a holiday park, the amenity and safety of the latter for family holidays in woodland sites would be compromised by conflict from traffic from the residential areas to the north assuming that those homeowners will be allowed access to the proposed spa / hotel facilities.

Both the Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) and Transport Scotland (TS) were consulted on this application. Detailed consultation responses are outlined within this report in so far as their responsibilities relate to the local and national road network. Neither organisation has objected in terms of the traffic and road safety implications of this development.

170. New vehicle access points proposed and the one to the north of the existing entrance from the A719 is shown as using a private track/Right of Way to Howletburn.

171. The main entrance to the townships is shown further north, east of the A719 adjacent to an area previously opencasted.

Noting the objector’s concerns regarding the previous open-casting works at this site, Members are advised that The Coal Authority has been consulted on this application in addition to the council’s Contaminated Land Officer. Comments received are outlined within this report which seek a condition on any approval granted.

172. The A719 is “de-restricted” and traffic is fast downhill. Given existing patterns of commuting from the Irvine Valley, which access the M77 by way of the A719 and A77 joining the M77 at Junction 6, avoided congestion in Hurlford at the Bellfield Roundabout, will be the natural route residents will choose to travel to Glasgow, East Kilbride etc. The main residential access to any development within the estate clearly needs to be reconsidered.

Neither organisation has objected in terms of the traffic and road safety implications of this development.

173. A third exit from the Estate is shown leading off-plan which is a track north of the proposed distillery joining the minor country road then the A719 at Alton road end. This narrow rural road is unsuitable for industrial traffic, or as an emergency exit. It is also a short-cut for estate residents. It is proposed that this narrow winding public roads could be used as a walking/cycling route and there are no footways along the east of the A719 down to the main castle drive which is further south.

Neither organisation has objected in terms of the traffic and road safety implications of this development.

174. 1000 or more houses in the countryside comprise a new settlement and there will be a lack of local services. Car usage would not produce a sustainable community. Local housing need has to be directed to Galston where sites have been identified in the new Local Development Plan for 190 houses, most of which are on sites which were previously identified but have yet to be developed. Over 20% of these houses would be for affordable housing unlike in this application.

Neither organisation has objected in terms of the traffic and road safety implications of this development.

175. Galston is a core centre and any large development outwith its settlement boundary will prejudice its regeneration and the council’s placemaking aspirations in the new LDP. The number of houses could allow for 4-5000 plus residents equivalent to Galston’s current population. This aspect of the proposals should be dismissed as unacceptable primarily in terms of sporadic development for which no justification has been submitted in terms of Policy RES2 in the EALP.