DINB RGH· Itemno '7 Report no THE CITV Of! EDINaURGH COUNCJL Pla-n'ning Permission in Principle 07/04646/0UT at 1A Old Liston Road Newbridge EH288SJ
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
Previous Committee This application was previously considered by Committee on 12.11.2008
Outcome of previous Committee
The application was continued by Committee for further information on conditions and the heads of terms for the legal agreement following the decision that the Committee was minded to grant planning permission for the development. The addendum at the end of the report sets out this information and the proposed developer contributions.
DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This development proposed by this application is a departure from the development plan:
The proposed residential development is contrary to the adopted local plan where the majority of the site is allocated for economic development purposes.
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 07/04646/0UT, submitted by Ediston Properties Limited. The application is for: Application for outline planning permission for proposed demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide new residential development including family + affordable
1 housing, residential care home, public transport facilities, community recycling facilities, new access roads, car parking, footpaths + cycleways, public park, open space, landscaping + other ancillary community facilities
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The application site, which measures 24.87 hectares, is an existing industrial site with a number of large industrial buildings. The site is located on the western side of the Newbridge Industrial Estate. The majority of the application site is brownfield with the exception of the River Almond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). To the west the site is bounded by the River Almond and to the north is the village of Newbridge. To the south and east of the site there are industrial units and a railway line. Access to the site is from the Old Liston Road which connects with the A89 and A8/ M8 at the Newbridge roundabout. To the east of site lies a Scheduled Ancient Monument - Huly Hill, Cairn and Stone Circle. Beyond this to the north east is the main runway at Edinburgh Airport, the Public Safety Zone for which passes through the application site.
The application site was originally developed in 1968 as Uniroyal Englebert Tyres Ltd. This was rationalised and transferred to Continental with Uniroyal Plastic Division (now VTS Royalite), separated into a self contained unit to the south west corner outwith the application site. The site is currently vacant.
Site History
November 1998- Planning permission approved for the installation of portable units associated with the tyre factory (Application 98/02835/FUL).
July 2001 - Outline planning permission approved for the erection of Offices (Class 4) and hybrid industrial units (Application 00/03246/0UT).
December 2003 - Reserved matters approved for the erection of Offices (Class 4) and hybrid industrial units on a 5.64 hectare site on the east and south eastern part of the larger site which previously had been granted outline consent (Application 03/02233/REM).
August 2006 - Outline permission for 500 residential units (application 06/01924/0UT) was refused for the following reasons:
2 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy ECON1 of the Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan, Policy ED1 of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan and the West Edinburgh Planning Framework as the proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of land identified for employment use to the detriment of both the local area and longer term economic objectives of national significance.
2. The proposal is contrary to Policy H3 of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan as residential use is not compatible with the adjacent industrial land and will be detrimental to the character of the Newbridge Industrial Estate and conflicts with other provisions of the Local Plan.
3. The proposed development is likely to generate additional children of school age for which there is insufficient secondary school capacity with no means of resolution through developer contributions.
4. It has not been demonstrated that the development of the site for residential use will not have an adverse impact on:- a) the road network; b) road safety; c) the natural environment; d) drainage; e) flood risk; and f) ai rcraft safety.
5. It has not been demonstrated that the site is appropriate for residential development in terms of: a) noise; b) odour; c) land contamination; and d) flooding.
Pre-Application Process
No information in original report.
3 Description Of The Proposal
The application is for outline planning permission for a residential development of 490 units, 75 of which would be affordable. The outline proposal also includes a residential care home, community facilities, energy centre, shops and play facilities within an indicative layout.
Supporting documentation, noted below, includes an indicative site plan with a mix of detached, semi-detached, terraced and flatted blocks. The indicative plan includes open space and structural planting throughout the site. Around the perimeters with neighbouring industrial sites, there is a landscape buffer. Improvements are also indicated to the SINC boundary. A linear park including planting and footpaths is proposed across the centre of the site within the Airport Public Safety Zone.
It is proposed that vehicular access would be provided from the existing access on Old Liston Road. One emergency access is proposed into Riverside, Newbridge to the north of the site. A public transport hub is indicated towards the centre of the site, adjacent to the proposed energy centre.
Supporting Statements
The applicant has submitted the following documents in support of their application:
* Supporting Planning Statement
* Employment Land Assessment
* Geo I Environmental and Utilities Overview
* Environmental Noise Assessment
* Transportation Assessment and Accessibility Report
* Transportation Assessment Supplementary Information
* Residential Development Appraisal
* Community Consultation Statement
* Report on Affordable Housing Provision
* Flood Risk Assessment
* Sustainability Statement
* Drainage Assessment
4 * Ecology Assessment
* Education Advice
* Conceptual Framework for Community Regeneration
* Conceptual Framework for Community Regeneration Landscape Appraisal
* Proposed Community Benefits
* Odour impact assessment
3. Officer's Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them? ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) Whether the principle of the development is acceptable; b) Whether the amenity of occupiers would be safeguarded; c) Whether there is any risk to aircraft safety; d) Whether there are any transport implications; e) Whether there is adequate school capacity; f) Whether ecology will be protected and enhanced; g) Whether there is adequate drainage and a risk of flooding; h) Whether there are any archaeological implications; i) Whether the proposal complies with the Standards for Sustainable Building; j) Whether there is adequate affordable housing provision;
5 k) Whether there are any other material considerations a) Principle of the development
Newbridge forms part of the Newbridge/Kirkliston/Ratho core development area (NKRCDA) where infrastructure capacity exists or where new infrastructure would be cost effective. The Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan 2015 (ELSP) states that core development areas will contribute to meeting the strategic requirements for housing and business land. The success of the strategy is dependant on providing land uses in appropriate locations and the development of transport networks. The justification for identification of the NKRCDA is the potential for further economic development at Newbridge. Any housing development required within this area is required in support of the growth of this economic development.
The ELSP sets a target for the relevant local plan to identify land for 1,000 new houses in the area identified as Newbridge, Kirkliston and Ratho. The application site falls within this area and the NKRCDA. Structure Plan Policy ECON1 also requires Local Plans to review business and industrial land supply and, where sites are no longer appropriate for this use, to allocate alternative sites.
The local plan identifies housing sites within Kirkliston, Newbridge, Ratho Station and Ratho with an estimated capacity of 1058. The estimated capacity of these sites will meet the housing requirements for the NKRCDA set out in the structure plan. The majority of the housing land is identified in Kirkliston, some of which either has consent or the proposals are pending consideration. A small site, with an estimated capacity of 25, is identified in Newbridge. The location of the housing required in the NKRCDA was considered at the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan (RWELP) Inquiry. The application site was considered as part of the options for new housing in the area and was discounted. The Reporter found that "The loss of this major employment site would be contrary to the Structure Plan strategy and the provisions of the West Edinburgh Planning Framework." Alternative sites have been allocated within the Housing Market Area to accommodate the requirements of the Structure Plan. (The comments of the Reporter are considered briefly below and in more detail in section k).
The site is allocated for business and industry where, under the provisions of policy ED1 of the RWELP, there is support for business (Class 4) and subordinate industrial (class 5) or storage and distribution (class 6) uses. However, the terms of the policy also permit other uses if they meet the following criteria:
6 i) Compatible with business / industrial activity;
ii) There is no significant adverse impact upon the amount, quality or distribution of business and industrial land supply in the local plan area; and,
iii) The use is compatible with the character of the site and surrounding area in respect of the nature of the use, siting, layout and design and that there would be no significant adverse affect in terms of transport or environmental impact.
Through proposal ECON 8, the RWELP also provides a development brief for a high quality low density business park within the site of predominantly Class 4 and subordinate Class 5 and Class 6 uses. The proposal also highlights some constraints and potential for the site. In respect of the current proposal, the constraints and potential are covered in more detail below. The provisions of the RWELP do not support residential development on the site.
Following the conclusions of the RWELP Inquiry, the application site has been retained as land for economic development within the adopted RWELP. The proposal would result in a land use which is incompatible with business and industrial activity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ECON1 of the ELSP and policy ED1 of the RWELP.
The applicants supporting statement notes that the site is not of a quality suitable for class 4 use due to its existing characteristics and backland location. It also states that other sites within the immediate location (West Edinburgh and West Lothian) will meet the city region's class 5 and 6 requirements. The applicants supporting statement also makes a quantitative assessment of the economic land supply in Edinburgh and West Lothian. Based on previous take-up rates, the supporting statement suggests that the loss of this site to housing would not adversely affect the supply of allocated employment land. The document focuses on the quantity of employment land supply and concludes that the loss of the application site to housing would not have a significant adverse impact upon the overall amount, quality or distribution of business/land supply.
The proposal fails to comply with the development plan. Planning decisions should to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The first material consideration is the Scottish Planning Policy 2 Economic Development (SPP2), which advocates the provision of marketable land in a sufficient quality and quantity to meet diverse requirements. A number of existing consents exist and applications are pending consideration on sites ECON 3-7. Should these all be developed, the quantity of industrial land available in Newbridge would be reduced substantially.
7 West Edinburgh is identified as having a key role in continued national and strategic employment and economic growth. The locational advantages of Newbridge were identified in the initial West Edinburgh Planning Framework (WEPF) due to the proximity of the strategic road network and Edinburgh Airport. The WEPF 2008, from May 2008, intends to complement the Structure Plan CDA's and excludes Ratho Station and Newbridge from the Vision Map or proposals.
It is not possible to accurately account for future take-up of economic land and the applicants' supporting statement also notes that previous take-up may not have been truly representative of demand. Within appendix 1, it notes that previously the effective land supply was limited and that this may have resulted in developers and businesses being lost to the Edinburgh and the Lothian's. The statement also notes that the increase in economic and employment land supply is primarily attributed to emerging development proposals at Little France, Granton Waterfront and Newbridge.
The site is deemed to be category 1 employment land due to its allocation in the local plan and being readily available, serviced and marketable. The quality of the site is evident through its location adjacent to existing industrial uses combined with its connectivity through the proximity to major road and air networks and the proposed tram route. SPP2 notes that there is a decentralising of businesses from city centre locations to highly accessible locations. Land in Newbridge is comparatively inexpensive by comparison and changes to the Assisted Area map mean that it can compete with West Lothian.
A second material consideration is the applicant's efforts to market the site. Knight Frank (KF) were commissioned by the applicant to market the site for business and industry. Whilst KF have produced a supporting document on a Residential Development Appraisal for the site, they have also summarised, for the applicant, their brief, a marketing strategy and marketing response for the site. KF highlight the lack of prominence as being an issue in marketing the site and have also advised that a large single user is unlikely to be attracted to the site. Six parties were initially interested, through marketing, in developing on the site. However, none took their interest further. Reasons for dismissing the site included height restrictions (BAA height contours restrict new development on the site), the Public Safety Zone which extends through the site and access difficulties. As a result of the failed marketing, the site has remained vacant.
A third material consideration is the emerging policy framework in relation to the West Edinburgh Strategic Design Framework (WESDF). The Planning Committee approved, on 2 October 2008, a draft for public consultation and as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications until a finalised version is approved. The WESDF defines the area subject of the framework and divides it into five sub areas, of which Newbridge and Ratho Station are one. The WESDF promotes housing led regeneration in Newbridge, subject to addressing issues such as the proximity to existing industrial uses, noise from aircraft and the road/rail network, flood risk, and
8 transport impact. The WESDF indicates low / medium density housing to the north of the Public Safety Zone and predominantly housing with a mix of uses to the south of the site. Subsequently on 29 October, committee approved a draft alteration to the RWELP for public consultation and as material consideration. The alteration is consistent with the WESDF.
The approved development plan does not support the loss of business land. The issue is whether material considerations - the availability of other business land, the current take up of land in this area and Members support for housing led regeneration at Newbridge, justify an exception to the development plan. The most recent policy documents, the WESDF, and the alteration to the RWELP support such an exception. b) Amenity of occupiers of the development
The site's industrial history would result in a requirement for a contaminated land survey. Details of mitigation would be required if further works were identified. This could be addressed by a condition.
The existing and proposed residents of Newbridge would benefit from the enhanced riverside walkway along the River Almond that the applicant proposes.
The site wraps around an existing industrial use to the south west of the site, VTS Royalite. The applicant has undertaken an Odour Impact Assessment in order to consider the impact of this building on the proposed residential development. The assessment identifies a portion of the site that is not suitable for residential development. The findings are based on modelling which the consultant acknowledges is based on "best guess" and assumption. Monitoring would be required to establish the true impact of the plastics factory and this could be subject of a condition.
The site either adjoins or is in close proximity to a number of noise generating sources - existing industry to the east and west, the elevated railway line to the south, the MS and M9 to the east, AS9 to the north, 87030 to the south and Edinburgh Airport to the east.
A more detailed noise assessment accounting for noise from the neighbouring business and industrial uses including detailed mitigation would be required. The applicant proposes an acoustic barrier combined with a buffer to mitigate against noise from the factory, neighbouring business and industrial uses. It is noted within PAN 56 that the proximity of incompatible uses can cause problems for occupiers of new and existing developments. It specifically states that the expectations of residents in a new housing development adjacent to industrial sites may exceed local authority standards when considering noise from the neighbouring uses. To combat this, in addition to mitigation to meet local authority standards, compensation through a larger garden, deeper than the standard 9 metres, would give the occupants more amenity space. A more detailed consideration of noise from neighbouring
9 business and industrial uses would ensure that their interests were not prejudiced.
The noise and odour mitigation would ensure that the interests and operations of the existing neighbouring industrial! business uses would not be prejudiced.
The submitted noise assessment states that noise mitigation can be provided to prevent noise from the railway, which is the main Edinburgh to Glasgow line, adversely affecting the amenity of nearby units. It is advised that single storey dwellings parallel with the railway line would form a part of a buffer for the rest of the development. This would require a more detailed assessment under any future reserved matters applications for the southern section of the site, given the elevation of the railway line and varying distance between the site boundary and the railway line (30-80 metres).
As with residential units adjacent to the business and industrial uses, the expectation of the occupants adjacent to the southern boundary in terms of the amenity they should enjoy may exceed local authority standards and to compensate they COUld, in addition to any mitigation identified, receive compensation through the provision of larger private gardens.
With regard to noise from aircraft flying to and from Edinburgh Airport, the noise report shows that the whole site is falls within Noise Exposure Category (NEC) C as defined in Planning Advice Note (PAN) 56 Planning and Noise. This states that "planning permission should not normally be granted. Based upon the evidence contained within a Noise Impact Assessment, however, it may be possible to grant permission subject to measures that ensure an adequate level of protection against noise'~ Environmental Health have advised that any residential properties on this site would suffer from poor amenity due to aircraft noise.
In 2006, BAA calculated the average noise levels generated by aircraft noise for a summer's day. In 2006, the majority of the site was exposed to noise levels between 63 and 66dB in an average 16 hour day (0700 to 2300 local time) in the summer (15 June to 15 September). Three quarters of the planes that fly out of Edinburgh flyover the site and planes taking off are noisier than those that land. Aircraft noise is calculated by recording the noise of each plane and averaging this across the whole of the day, so this includes both periods where there are no planes and the peaks in air traffic. Peaks in air traffic at Edinburgh are between 5am to 9am and 3pm to 7pm. As a result of this, the average noise level over a whole day can be much less than the noise levels at peak times and much less than the noise heard each time an aeroplane passes overhead. There is also no restriction on night flights at Edinburgh Airport.
10 The Edinburgh Airport Master Plan states that air traffic has grown an average of 10% per year since 1995, from 55,487 movements per year in 1995 to 109,249 in 2005 (movements are defined as take off or landing, but excludes those solely for training purposes in light aircraft). BAA forecast that this figure is set to increase. There is no control over the time or frequency of aircraft movements and the existing residents of Newbridge have been subject to the gradual increase.
The applicant has produced a map detailing the decrease in the properties exposed to average noise levels of 57dB from 1990 to 2006. This is due to quieter aircraft. It should be noted that the Government use a daytime noise level of 57dB as the threshold for significant community annoyance. PAN 56 refers to World Health Organisation guidance which advises that external daytime noise levels should be less than 55dB to prevent significant community annoyance. The application site is exposed to noise levels above this.
PAN 56 advises that internal noise levels should not exceed 45dB in daytime hours and 35dB during night-time hours. To put this into perspective, the Scottish Noise Mapping website (www.scottishnoisemapping.org) advises that the doubling or halving of the sound pressure level is the equivalent of a change of approximately 3dB. However, a subjective impression in the doubling of noise levels equates to a 10dB sound level increase. The website provides examples of noises with differences of 10dB. Examples include a library at 40dB, an ordinary conversation 50dB, office environment 60dB and passenger car travelling at 60km/h (37mph) at a distance of 7.0 metres is 70dB. At the same distance, a heavy diesel lorry travelling at 40 km/h (25mph) or an un silenced pneumatic drill is 83dB and 95dB respectively. Noise from a modern twin-engined jet is noted at 81dB at take-off at a 152 metre distance.
The applicant has advised that each dwelling would include acoustic insulation to the standard proposed by BAA. Detail of this was sought and detail of the required glazing specification and acoustic insulation for roof space has been submitted. The applicant has advised that the glazing and loft specification could achieve a 43dB reduction. A greater noise reduction, of around 53dB, would be required to address noise peaks and to ensure that the internal noise levels would not exceed World Health Organisation standards. The applicant has indicated that a greater noise reduction is possible. No detail of the noise insulation qualities of walls has been submitted.
The BAA masterplan forecasts that by 2015 the site will be exposed to 66- 69dB and that by 2030, if a second runway is realised, the majority of the site will still be exposed to this level of noise. The north eastern section of the site would be within the 69-72dB threshold.
Whilst it is recognised that the existing 125 house settlement of Newbridge is already exposed to similar, if not worse, average noise levels, it should be highlighted that with the exception of some infill development of single
11 houses, these dwellings were in situ before Edinburgh Airport developed. The planning authority has not, as a result, been able to consider the impact of the increasing air traffic and noise levels on the amenity of the residents at Newbridge. The proposal would result in up to 490 dwelling houses and a 60 bed care home, potentially over 1000 further people, being exposed increasing average noise levels and peaks generated by increasing aeroplane movements. The Department for Transport states in The Future of Air Transport 2003 that their "basic aim is to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise." The document states that in 2003 there were 4,500 people were within the 57dB noise contour at Edinburgh Airport and that the Department of Transport seek to reduce this number. Development at the scale proposed would increase the number by 20%.
There are similarities to two recent English appeal decisions against the refusal of outline consent for residential development near Birmingham International Airport (BIA) by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC). The applications related to one site where the appellant and 5MBC agreed that the main issue was whether or not the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future residents given noise levels from the nearby airport. One proposal was for 16 apartments and 55 houses and the other for 16 apartments and 57 houses.
The forecast 2030 noise levels at the 5MBC appeal site are not as high as those forecast at the application site in 2030. In terms of aircraft noise, the 5MBC site fell into Noise Exposure Category (NEC) B (57-66dB) for daytime noise and NEC C (57-66dB) for night time noise [based on the English equivalent to PAN 56] although the Report considered it to fall into NEC C overall. The Reporter advised that ground based noise can be mitigated against, but the proximity and noise from the airport was something that is harder to mitigate against and short-term peaks in noise were intrusive in nature and impaired normal conversation. The Reporter also advised that special justification is required for properties which would only allow the occupants to gain an undisturbed nights sleep through artificial or forced ventilation.
Annex A of The Future of Air Transport 2003 refers to Government documents that forecast national demand for air travel based on low, medium and high . scenario cases. The forecasts account for a number of matters ranging from ticket prices to the capacity at an individual airport assuming there are no airspace constraints. When the applicant's environmental noise assessment was undertaken in 2004, there were 103,977 aircraft movements per annum at Edinburgh Airport. This has now risen to 128,000 aircraft movements per year, with BM forecasting that by 2020 this may have risen to between 157,500 and 192,300 aircraft movements per year. If these forecasts are realised and a second runway is not created until sometime between 2020 and 2030, there may be up to 50 plane movements each hour during peak times. The applicant has advised that the average noise level combined with the future use of quieter aircraft will only result in an increase of 3dB, but that the site would still fall within NEC C for aircraft noise. Whilst the 3dB increase
12 could be regarded as modest, this is the equivalent of doubling or halving the sound pressure level, as noted above. Additionally, the number of noise peaks which are up to 85-90db could increase by over 60 per cent.
Circular 10/1999 Planning and Noise states that planning "has a role to play in preventing and minimising the impact of noise through its influence over the location and design of new developments." One aim is to ensure that noise sensitive development, such as housing, are guided away from noisy activities. Planning authorities are expected to have regard to the NEC standards in reaching development control decisions.
The circular specifically notes that whilst "it may be possible to mitigate the adverse effects of noise, noise-sensitive development [such as housing] will rarely be appropriate in areas which are already subject to unacceptably high levels of noise or are expected to become so." It goes on to note that "noise sensitive development should be discouraged where high levels of noise will occur either intermittently or continuously during the night." In the case of the application site, the noise peaks would be intermittent and there is no control over night flying.
The applicant proposes to mitigate against aircraft noise by installing noise insulation and mechanical ventilation to the properties. However, PAN 56 states that "Only in exceptional circumstances should satisfactory noise levels be achievable only with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided." There is no way of mitigating against the impact of aircraft noise upon external amenity space, including private garden ground. This is contrary to the guidance contained within PAN 56 which states that " ... most residents will also expect a reasonable degree of peaceful enjoyment of their gardens and adjacent amenity areas.". The residents of the housing and care home would, through noise insulation and mechanical ventilation be able to achieve acceptable noise levels internally, but their enjoyment of private garden ground or public amenity space will be compromised.
The indicative site layout contains a number of areas for play provision and a central amenity space, which is located within the Public Safety Zone for Edinburgh Airport. Whilst the location and scale of play areas is indicative at this stage, the location and mix should reflect the scale of development sought. Circular 8/2002 Control of Development in Public Safety Zones states that no gardens, play areas or playing fields should be located in public safety zones, although unmanned structures, such as the indicated energy centre, are acceptable.
To conclude, it is possible to mitigate against noise generated by land uses immediately around the edge of the site, and provide compensation as required. In relation to aircraft noise, residents would have a compromised living environment. There is no acceptable mitigation against aircraft noise to external amenity space. PAN 56 only supports the use of mechanical ventilation in exceptional circumstances. The issue is whether Members consider that such living conditions for 490 residential units and a 60 bed care home is warranted by the support for housing led regeneration in Newbridge.
13 c) Ai rcraft safety;
The British Airport Authority (BAA) are satisfied that the proposal does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria, providing building and structure heights, landscaping, external lighting, bird hazard management and surface water drainage are appropriately conditioned. BAA also note the requirements regarding development in Public Safety Zones (PSZ). Circular 8/2002 Control of Development in Public Safety Zones in its policy objectives states that there should be "no increase in the number of people living, working or congregating in PSZs and that, overtime, the number should be reduced as circumstances allow".
The Department of Transport is due to review Edinburgh Airport PSZ. Whilst the extent of the future PSZ cannot be accounted for fully, it could be conditioned that no development is to take place within the PSZ. This would allow future reserved matters applications to account for any amendments to the PSZ. However, if this approach was adopted and consent granted, some early development may be within the PSZ if it was increased in the future. This would be contrary to the objective of reducing the number of people within the PSZ over time. A precautionary approach would be to set the development back from the PSZ. d) Transport implications
Vehicular access to the site is obtained from Old Liston Road where the majority of vehicles accessing or exiting the site will do so via the Newbridge Roundabout. The Newbridge Roundabout is currently operating above capacity at peak times and the proposed development would exacerbate this. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy TRA2 of the RWELP and, Transport advises that it should not be supported.
If the development were supported, some contributions would be required. The site is located within 250 metres of tram line 3 and would require a contribution of £790,900 towards its implementation, in accordance with the Council guidelines on Tram Developer Contributions. Further contributions to address impacts from the development would be required towards public transport infrastructure, the cycle network and upgrading of the signals on Newbridge Roundabout.
Transport Scotland do not object to the proposal and the public transport requirements sought could be part of a legal agreement if the proposal was to be approved.
The physical separation of Newbridge from Ratho Station by the M8/9 prevents school pupils from walking or cycling to Hillwood Primary School easily. A school bus service to Hillwood Primary School should ensure that limited school run traffic is generated. A contribution would be required to support this bus service. A contribution would also be required towards the bus service for the additional children travelling to Craigmount High School.
14 e) School capacity.
The Children and Families Department have advised that the proposed development would increase the school roll at the local primary school, Hillwood Primary School, and make more efficient use of the school. However, the school would have to be extended to create a single-stream 7 class organisation, which would result in the relocation of the community hall, mentioned below. A feasibility study to establish potential costs and how to extend the school would be required. The cost of both the feasibility study and the extension would have to be borne by the developer. This could be the subject of a legal agreement.
The application site is within the secondary school catchment area for Craigmount High School. Craigmount High school is currently operating at or near capacity and due to the school being built under the PPP initiative extending the school is problematic.
At present, almost one third of the students at Craigmount are from outwith school catchment area. Following a recent catchment re-alignment and the predicted pupil generation for new housing sites (SASA and Queen Margaret University College) in the Craigmount catchment being less than anticipated, Craigmount can accommodate the non denominational secondary school students generated by the proposed development. However, due to Craigmount's popularity, the school role is likely to continue to be filled by placing requests. In order to address accommodation pressures on non denominational schools in west Edinburgh a developer contribution would be required: £593,490 based on the indicative development of 337 houses and 163 flats. Such a contribution would be secured through an appropriate agreement.
Denominational education provision for Newbridge is provided by West Lothian Council. West Lothian Council have advised that both the primary school, St. Nicholas RC, and secondary school, St. Margaret's Academy, are currently operating at capacity. An extension to the latter school is also earmarked for allocated sites and sites currently being developed. West Lothian Council therefore object on the basis of there being insufficient capacity to cater for the proposed development. They also advise that if the application was to be granted, the applicant would have to enter into an appropriate legal agreement for a contribution towards additional school capacity. This would be a separate legal agreement between West Lothian Council and the applicant and would have to be concluded prior to consent being issued.
Subject to the applicant entering into appropriate legal agreements with both West Lothian Council and The City of Edinburgh Council, adequate educational provision can be provided at primary and secondary school level to serve the development.
15 o Ecology
The indicated site layout overlaps with the River Almond SINC area as defined in the RWELP and indicates development within the SINC. The applicant has produced information to support their view that the SINC boundary is to the west of the boundary defined in the RWELP. The supporting information includes a title plan from the Section 75 Legal Agreement from 2001 associated with the existing outline consent for offices and hybrid industrial units with associated carlvehicle parking and landscaping.
The legal agreement pre-dates the adoption of the RWELP, in 2006, and the Council is of the opinion that the position contained within the RWELP is the correct SINC, settlement and ECON 8 boundary following the RWELP inquiry. Furthermore, the additional land contained within the Council's SINC boundary is of ecological value. Any new development proposals for the site should correspond with the SINC boundary within the RWELP and comply with Policy E18, including appropriate mitigation. The conditions contained within the applicants ecology report would also be required if consent was granted. The RWELP seeks to achieve a landscape buffer along the edge of the SINC, this too would be conditioned.
The location of development, type of planting and impact from the drainage proposal could be addressed through appropriate conditions in order to minimise and mitigate the impact upon the River Almond SINC. To date, no European Protected Species (EPS) have been identified on the development site. From the ecological survey provided for the SINC area, bats were shown to be present and otters were recorded as being generally present along the River Almond. Therefore, to ensure no impact on EPS, an Ecology Impact Survey should form part of any reserved matter application. The development would also provide an opportunity to add to the biodiversity value of the site through the inclusion of swift boxes. g) Drainage and a risk of flooding
In principle, the drainage proposals contained within the Drainage Assessment are acceptable to SEPA and the City of Edinburgh Council's Bridges and Flooding section. Subject to both detailing and limiting the runoff rate to 4.5 litres per second per hectare, the site would be adequately drained. This could be conditioned.
SEPA have advised that in principle the flood risk assessment is acceptable, but a more detailed flood risk assessment would be required as part of any reserved matters application. The Council's Bridges and Flooding section initially advised that the flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application is insufficient to support the conclusion that the site is at low risk of flooding from the River Almond. This conclusion is based on the applicants assessment relying on flood study work carried out previously by The City of Edinburgh Council in 2001. A full flood risk assessment requires to be undertaken to ascertain the current risk of flooding, existing or post
16 development site topography and the impact on the floodplain of the River Almond. The requirement for a flood risk assessment could be dealt with through an appropriate condition.
Should flood mitigation be required, this should be outwith the River Almond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. h) Archaeological implications;
Archaeological finds have been discovered at a number of sites within Newbridge and in order to assess this site's archaeological potential, a full programme of archaeological evaluation would be required if the site was to be developed. This could be conditioned. i) Standards for Sustainable Building;
The applicant has submitted a Sustainability Statement which provides an overview of how it is intended to address the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Buildings (ESSB). The assessment predicts that a BREEAM Ecohomes 'Very Good' development. However, the ESSB require an 'Excellent' rating for this type of assessment and proposal. The need to achieve an 'excellent' rating could be conditioned.
The indicative strategy includes potential renewable energy generation from biomass fuelled energy centre, solar thermal panels, photovoltaics, ground source heat pumps, combined heat and power and wind turbines. The latter is unlikely to be supported given the proximity to Edinburgh Airport. Other features, such as SuDS and recycling facilities would be integrated into the development.
Whilst some of the sustainability statement relies on 'predicted' and 'assumed' information, the provisional scores are as follows;
Principle Points Applicable Poi nts Scored Threshold
1 Design Quality 9 6 5
2 Inclusion, Health 13 12 8
3 Renewable Energy 34 0* 14
4 Sustainable Resources 17 0* 10
5 Improve Recycling 6 5 5
6 Sustainable Operation 8 5 4
Totals 87 28+* 46
17 * Although an energy strategy has been submitted, fully detailed proposals have been drawn up in order to assess these principles fully.
Based on the Sustainability Statement submitted in support of this outline application, the proposal could satisfy 4 out of the 6 principles within the ESSB. It would be a requirement that any reserved matters applications provided a full sustainability statement and followed all of the principles within the ESSB. j) Affordable housing provision
Within the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan area, 15% of all units in housing developments of between 12 and 499 units are to be affordable. The applicant proposes to create 75 affordable units, just over 15%. The quantity of affordable units proposed is acceptable and the principle of offering a wide mix of unit types noted in supporting documentation, which includes flats, terraced and semi-detached houses, is also appropriate. Subject to an appropriate legal agreement, satisfactory affordable housing provision could be provided. k) Other material considerations
As mentioned in section e), above, the extension of Hillwood Primary School would remove the existing community facility in Ratho Station. The developer proposes to build a new facility in Newbridge and this would be part of a suitable legal agreement. The WESDF details the size of facility required (50 square metres plus 1 square metres of net floor area per dwelling). Consideration would need to be given to when the facility would be required, where and who would own (to ensure access was maintained), fund and manage the facility. In order to ensure that the community did not lose the facility whilst the school was being extended, it should be completed before the school extension commenced. It would also be beneficial if the facility formed part of the northern phase, in order to have greater benefit for the existing community. If the overall development took place in phases, the community facility could also be built to allow extensions as the community and development grew.
This assessment refers principally to the residential element of the development. The inclusion of a care home would be a useful addition to the local facilities.
The applicants have within their Proposed Community Benefits document set out how the existing communities of Newbridge and Ratho Station and the new residents would benefit. They have also written to Ratho & District Community Council detailing the proposed community benefits and financial contributions, including triggers. They advise that the benefits will only be secured if consent is granted. It is accepted that some of the benefits would be achieved through the planning consent, namely affordable houses, relocated community facilities, a management plan for the River Almond SINC and an extension to the new school. There would also be a requirement for a
18 tram contribution. The other benefits listed would be expected as standard as part of a residential development, or form part of the proposal, for example the care home. A legal agreement could provide improvements to Bridge Street, but the application would not provide new shops. The proposal could be a catalyst for the new retail development referred to within Newbridge. As stated within the draft WESDF, housing could complement recent and future business developments whilst breathing new life into the local community.
Conclusion
There would be benefits for the existing community at Newbridge from housing led regeneration. However, the new residents would be exposed to noise levels to the detriment of their enjoyment of their properties. The existing local community have lived with the increasing noise levels and the proposed residents' would be exposed to similar noise levels. The issue for members is whether the potential community benefits to the existing 125 unit community are outweighed by the reduced amenity that the new dwellings would be afforded.
In the Report into Objections to the Finalised Local Plan [RWELP], the Reporters noted the positives about developing the site, such as brownfield development, but rejected the idea of any residential component within ECON 8 [the application site] due to loss of employment opportunities, conflict with the structure plan, unacceptable noise exposure to future residents, and problems with the accessibility of schools and school capacity. The WESDF addresses the policy issue whilst the applicant has successfully addressed the lack of school capacity. However, the noise and access issues remain.
The evidence contained within the amenity of occupiers and transport sections above indicate that based on the national and local planning guidelines and the response of consultees, the application should be refused. However, the Planning Committee through agreeing the use of the draft WESDF, and draft alteration to the RWELP as a material consideration in determining planning applications in west Edinburgh have indicated support for housing led regeneration in Newbridge and Ratho Station.
Should the Development Management Sub-Committee as a result wish to approve the development, in the knowledge that there would be a reduced standard of amenity for residents and the local road network is already operating above saturation point at peak times, the following would be reserved matters: siting, design, massing, height and external appearance of all buildings and other structures, along with the drainage, compliance with the ESSB, external lighting, play facilities, car and cycle parking, walkways and cycleways, access, waste management strategy, open space provision and hard and soft landscaping. Detailed conditions relating to the need for an odour assessment, noise mitigation and maximum internal noise levels, ventilation details, road infrastructure improvements, flood risk assessment, archaeology, contaminated land survey, no development within the SING or PSZ, a SING management plan, the submission of an ecological impact assessment, phasing of development, garden depth, restrictions on care
19 home deliveries, swift boxes, bird hazard management plan, the number of and mix of units and landscape implementation would be required.
In addition to the reserved matters and conditions, the applicant would have to enter into an appropriate legal agreement with the City of Edinburgh Council to provide affordable housing, a contribution towards education provision and an extension to Hillwood Primary School, public transport provision, parkland provision, community facilities and improvements to Bridge Street. A further, separate, legal agreement would be required with West Lothian Council for a contribution towards denominational education provision.
The application would need to be referred to Scottish Ministers as a proposal contrary to the development plan.
In summary, the redevelopment of this site presents a difficult choice. The WESDF and the draft alteration to the RWELP has established the principle of housing development in this location as an exception to the development plan. However, detailed assessment has concluded that in relation to aircraft noise, the proposals would create a compromised living environment. Members need to judge whether the community benefits arising from these proposals outweigh these environmental concerns.
Addendum The application was presented to Committee on 12 November 2008. In the circumstances of this particular case, the Head of Planning decided not to make a recommendation in his report as to whether planning consent should be granted or not.
The Committee indicated that it was minded to grant planning permission for the development, subject to being satisfied on appropriate conditions, and any r~served matters for the consent, and the terms of the legal agreements required.
Following this meeting, discussions have been ongoing with the applicant and the Council to agree the conditions and requirements for the legal agreement. !
A catchment review was undertaken by CEC and West Lothian Council (WLC) to address the difficulties caused by the denomination school boundaries. The c~tchment review sought to align the denominational school catchment boundaries within the council boundary.
Previously, Kirkliston, Newbridge, Ratho Station and Ratho were served by three denominational primary schools in West Lothian. St Margaret's Academy in Livingston was the denominational secondary school which served this area. Part of West Lothian Council was served by St Margaret's RC Primary School in Queensferry. The catchment boundaries affected other housing sites in Rural West Edinburgh in addition to this application.
20 The catchment review was approved in June 2011 and the revised catchment boundaries were in place for the 2011-12 school year. The approval of the 'revised catchment boundaries has removed the need for education contributions to WLC.
Conditions and informatives have been added to the report. The following will require AMC applications(s): siting, layout, design, height, external appearance, landscaping, access and parking, boundary treatments, sustainable urban drainage systems, waste management and play provision.
The list of conditions include a restriction on the number of residential units, and requirements for a flood risk assessment, integrated drainage strategy, landscaping scheme (and subsequent maintenance), ecological impact, ventilation and noise mitigation schemes and site investigation surveys.
In respect of the location of the site and the airport, the conditions also restrict the types of development permitted within the Edinburgh Airport Safety Zone and require an application for the landscaped parkland within the Safety Zone to be submitted prior to the occupation of the 100th house, with the approved plan completed prior to the occupation of the 200th residential property. The development of the site to the north of the Safety Zone must commence prior to the southern section of the site commencing.
Conditions are also included to mitigate against negative impacts on the River Almond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.
Discussions have been ongoing with the applicant, CEC and local community organisations (Newbridge Residents Working Group and the Ratho and District Community Council) regarding the s75 contributions, particularly in respect of the community hall. Ratho and District Community Council (speaking also on behalf the Newbridge Residents Working Group) has written to support the offer from the applicant to build and fit-out a building of approximately 600 sqm as a single phase.
The list of contributions required by means of the Section 75 agreement can be summarised as follows:
1. A maximum of £1.78 million for the extension of Hillwood Primary School, including works to link the school with the community centre. (NB - this could be partly off-set by s75 contributions for other developments in Ratho Station.)
2. The applicant is required to build and fit out a new community hall with a floor area of 600 sqm. This building can be initially used both by the community and as a marketing suite for the residential development with the full building reverting to the community at the end of the development. This will be retained by the applicant and leased to the community. The applicant will provide a maximum of £100,000 over a five year period as a contribution towards the running costs, including the initial start-up costs.
21 3. 17% of all residential units will be affordable. If development is phased, each phase will contain 17% affordable units.
4. A contribution of £165,000 is required towards the upgrading of signals on the Newbridge roundabout.
5. A contribution of £44,000 is required for improvements to the public transport infrastructure (bus stops/shelters at the new bus turning area and improvements to the stop on Old Liston Road). (NB the applicant will incorporate the bus turning / setting down area on Old Liston Road into the development. )
6. A contribution of £20,000 is required for links from the development site to the National Cycle Network.
7. A tram contribution of £790,000 is required. This will be deferred for a period of five years. The applicant is required to contribute £20,000 per year to support the bus service for the site for this five year period. (The £100,000 will then be deducted from the £790,000).
8. A contribution of £12,500 is required towards street improvements to Bridge Street / Old Liston Road, Newbridge.
9. A contribution of £25,000 is required to upgrade the children's playground at Parkside.
All of the details of the contributions will be formally incorporated into the S75 agreement.
Conclusion
The wording of the proposed conditions has been agreed by the relevant consultees. The Heads of Terms for the section 75 have been agreed with the consultees and, where relevant, by the local community groups. The previous objection from West Lothian Council has been resolved with the completion of the review of catchment boundaries.
Due to legislative change, the application no longer has to be notified to Scottish Ministers.
It is recommended that Committee agrees the proposed conditions and heads of terms to enable the section 75 to be signed and the decision issued.
22 REASON FOR DECISION
Whilst this proposal represents a departure from the development plan, it represents an opportunity to meet housing need in the area and any adverse environmental impacts can be mitigated with suitable conditions.
John Bury Head of Planning
, ...... _...... ~----,------...... -.-.-.....•.... - ...... - ...... - ...... - ...... _..... _... _ ..... _._...... i Contact/tel I Linda Hamilton on 0131 5293146 l-..... _.. _-_._._ .. _. __ ._ ..... __ ... __ ..... _._-_ . .. Ward affected I A01 - Almond
-<~""".-.. - ..-- ....• -----.---... --.-.--.-.-•••• ----.-...-_._ ... ---. 11 Local Plan : Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan
f"'------.---.. -.. --.... - ... -.. -.--..... -.--.-.-.--.. ---~--. -.---.-.-.------~.---- .. -~.--...... - ...... -.. ---.---.... -.---.-...... ! Statutory I Strategic Housing Site i i Development Plan I Provision i !... --...... -.. --...... ;.-...... - ...... ~; ... --. I Date registered 1 31 October 2007
I ..... _ ..... +--...... ---..... ---...... - ...... - ...... _ ... _----~------I Drawing numbersl I 1 and 3 ; Scheme I Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.ukJplanning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Linda Hamilton, 0131 5293146, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
23 Appendix A ·EDINBVRGH· THE CITY Of EDINBURGH COUNCIL
CITY DEVELOPMENT Application Type Planning Permission in Principle Application Address: 1A Old liston Road Newbridge EH288SJ
Proposal: Application for outline planning permission for proposed demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide new residential development including family + affordable housing, residential care home, public transport facilities, community recycling facilities, new access roads, car parking, footpaths + cycleways, public park, open space, landscaping + other ancillary community facilities Reference No: o7/04646/0 UT
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Scottish Water
In terms of planning consent, Scottish Water will not object to this planning application however please note that any planning approval granted by the Local Authority does not guarantee a connection to our infrastructure until a satisfactory solution is identified. Due to the size of this proposed development it is necessary for Scottish Water to assess the impact of this development on our existing infrastructure.
Marchbank Water Treatment Works currently has sufficient capacity to service this proposed development.
There are no known issues at present within our Water Network that serves this proposed development.
AVSE PFI Newbridge Waste Water Treatment Works - at present there is insufficient capacity to serve your proposed development.
Waste Water Network - there maybe issues within our Waste Water Network that serves your proposed development.
Scottish Water would be keen to understand the proposed phasing and timescales to enable us to examine all options available to allow connection. Please advise the developer to make contact with Scottish Water Development Planning Team to discuss further. In view of the network issues it will be necessary for the developer to ensure that this development will not
24 have any detrimental impact on the water services that we currently provide to our existing customers. The developer will be required, as part of any network upgrading work, to provide a solution that would prevent or mitigate any further impact.
The Scottish Ministers have issued Regulations (The Provision of Water and Sewerage Services (Reasonable Cost) (Scotland) Regulations 2006) regarding the upgrading of networks i.e. water mains, sewer, pumping stations, etc. If this development requires the existing network to be upgraded, these costs will generally be met by the developer.
Scottish Water will make a Reasonable Cost Contribution per property where additional public sewers or water mains are provided by a developer. This payment can be up to a maximum of £1,321 for water and £1,492 for waste water per household connection. For non-domestic connections the level of contribution is based on an average unit cost of water delivered and waste water treated. A totally separate drainage system will be required with the surface water discharging to a suitable outlet. Scottish Water supports the principal of a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) and the developer should consider utilising this in the surface water drainage design. It is important to note that Scottish Water will not adopt surface water drainage systems that require the flows to be pumped.
If the developer requires any further assistance or information on our response, please contact Scottish Water BAA
The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and could conflict with safeguarding criteria unless any planning permission granted is subject to the conditions detailed below:
Submission of a Bird Hazard Management Plan
Development shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The submitted plan shall include details of:
- Management of any flat/shallow pitched roofs on buildings within the site which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and "loafing" birds * See para below for information * - Physical arrangements for the collection (including litter bins) and storage of putrescible waste, arrangements for and frequency of the removal of putrescible waste
The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved, upon completion of the development. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
25 Reason: It is necessary to manage the site in order to minimise its attractiveness to birds which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Edinburgh Airport.
For Information: The Bird Hazard Management Plan must ensure that fiat/shalloW pitched roofs be constructed to allow access to all areas by foot using permanent fixed access stairs ladders or similar. The owner/occupier must not allow gulls, to nest, roost or loaf on the building. Checks must be made weekly or sooner if bird activity dictates, during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season gull activity must be monitored and the roof checked regularly to ensure that gulls do not utilise the roof. Any gulls found nesting, roosting or loafing must be dispersed by the owner/occupier when detected or when requested by BAA Airfield Operations staff. In some instances it may be necessary to contact BAA Airfield Operations staff before bird dispersal takes place. The owner/occupier must remove any nests or eggs found on the roof.
The breeding season for gulls typically runs from March to June. The owner/occupier must obtain the appropriate licences from the Scottish Government Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) before the removal of nests and eggs.
Height Limitation on Buildings and Structures
No building or structure, including cranes & construction equipment associated with the development hereby permitted shall exceed 51.5m AOD in at the North East end of the site to 66.5 m AOD at the South West end of the site (part of the 1:50 angled take off climb surface).
Reason: Development exceeding this height would penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) surrounding Edinburgh Airport and endanger aircraft movements and the safe operation of the aerodrome. See Advice Note 1 'Safeguarding an Overview' for further information (available at www.caa.co.uk/srg/aerodrome).
If you require any further information regarding height restrictions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Submission of Landscaping Scheme
No development shall take place until full details of soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, details must comply with Advice Note 3 'Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping & Building Design' (available at www.caa.co.uk/srg/aerodrome). These details shall include:
26 - Grassed areas
- The species, number and spacing of trees and shrubs
No subsequent alterations to the approved landscaping scheme are to take place unless submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Edinburgh Airport through the attraction of birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the application site.
For Information: For a site in this location we would wish to see less than 5% berry/fruit bearing species included and those species must be distributed throughout the planting palette to avoid pockets of exploitable habitat from being formed.
Tree planting centres should be 4m or greater to ensure no dense canopies are formed which are attractive to corvids and pigeons for nesting and roosting. Oak and Scots Pine form dense canopies and these species should be avoided.
Submission of a Scheme for Construction & Permanent Lighting of the Development
Before development commences details of the lighting to be used in the construction phase and the permanent lighting scheme for the development shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for their written approval. The approved lighting scheme is to be implemented as approved, no subsequent alterations shall take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: It is necessary to control the lighting arrangements on this development to avoid confusion with aeronautical ground lights which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Edinburgh Airport. For further information please refer to Advice Note 2 'Lighting Near Aerodromes' (available at www.caa.co.uk/srg/aerodromes).
For Information: Lighting schemes required during construction and for the completed development shall be of flat glass, full cut off design, mounted horizontally, and shall ensure that there is no light spill above the horizontal.
Submission of SUDS Details
Development shall not commence until details of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details must comply with Advice Note 6 'Potential Bird Hazards from Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS).
27 No subsequent alterations to the approved SUDS scheme are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Edinburgh Airport through the attraction of Birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the application site.
We would also make the following observations:
Cranes
Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane may be required during its construction. We WOUld, therefore, draw the applicant's attention to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in Advice Note 4, 'Cranes and Other Construction Issues' (available at www.caa.co.uk/srglaerodrome).
It is advisable that you contact Norman Allan the Airside Safety & Environment Coordinator at Edinburgh Airport on 0131 3443525 regarding restrictions on the height of cranes for this development. He will also be able to advise you on the need for a crane permit at this site.
Public Safety Zones
This site, or part of this site, lies within the Public Safety Zone. Please refer to DFT Circular 112002 'Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones' for further information.
We, therefore, have no aerodrome safeguarding objection to this proposal, provided that the above conditions are applied to any planning permission.
As the application is for outline approval, it is important that BAA is consulted on all Reserved Matters relating to siting and design, external appearance (including lighting) and landscaping.
It is important that the conditions requested in this response are applied to a planning approval. Where a Planning Authority proposes to grant permission against the advice of BAA, or not to attach conditions which BAA has advised, it shall notify BAA, and the Civil Aviation Authority and the Scottish Ministers as specified in the Safeguarding of Aerodromes Direction 2003.
Scottish Natural Heritage
Scottish Natural Heritage do not object to this application. However, we strongly recommend that the Council secures the mitigation measures, to protect and enhance the SINC and its biodiversity, described within the ecological report accompanying the application.
28 River Almond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) Part of the SINC lies within the development site boundary, with woodland and open habitats occurring to the west of the development site. Potential negative impacts on the SINC from the development, as described within the ecological survey report, are:
* Loss of SINC area
* Loss of SINC biodiversity
* Change to SINC hydrology
* Disturbance to the SINC from construction
* Disturbance to wildlife from construction
It was therefore concluded that it would be necessary to avoid or mitigate against these impacts to protect the integrity of the SINC. Within the report, a variety of measures are described to ensure that impacts on the SINC are minimised and that the site is positively maintained and enhanced.
The Council should therefore ensure that the mitigation measures listed within the report (page 10, Recommendations) are secured by way of conditions attached to any planning consent.
In addition, it is recommended that the Council secure the provision of a landscape and management plan (as detailed in page 12, SINC Management Plan).
Protected species
Bats
All bats and their roosts are protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 as 'European Protected Species' (EPS) and also under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. The ecological survey found no signs of bat roosts and concluded that the buildings were of a type unlikely to house bats. The trees within the development site also showed few signs of bat use and were deemed insufficiently mature to be likely to contain roosts.
We are therefore content with the findings of bat survey. However, should any signs of bats be discovered during demolition and re-development, then work should cease and SNH contacted for further advice.
29 Otters
Otters are protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 as 'European Protected Species' and also under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. It is an offence to damage or disturb an otter holt whether or not an otter is present, unless licensed to do so by the Scottish Executive. Evidence of the presence of otters was found along the River Almond adjacent to the development area, although no signs of any holts were found within or adjacent to the development area.
We are content with the findings of this survey. Should there be a significant period between consent being granted and site preparation or construction commencing, we recommend that a further walkover survey is undertaken, to ensure no holts have been constructed during that time.
Badgers
Under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 it is an offence to harm, damage or disturb badgers and their setts unless licensed to do so by SNH. No signs of badger were found within the development area during the ecological survey. The nearest recorded setts are more than 1km away.
We are content with the findings of this survey. However, should there be a significant period between consent being granted and site preparation or construction commencing, we recommend that a further walkover survey is undertaken, to ensure that badgers have not moved into the area.
Public access
We would support the provision of enhanced public access to the River Almond from the development and improvements to the path at the River Almond, as detailed on page 10 and page 12 of the Report. We recommend that this is secured as a condition of planning and that the CEC Access Officer be consulted in this respect.
Scotways
We have checked and there are no recorded rights of way here even along the Almond. The records are incomplete so there could be routes there that meet the criteria but have never been recorded.
West Lothian Council
West Lothian Council objects to this planning application.
The application site is indetified as site ECON 8 in the adopted Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan and is safeguarded for business, general industry, and storage and distribution by Policy ED1.
30 Your Council has reviewed the economic land supply in the area as required by policy ECON 1 in the approved Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015 and concluded that this site should remain part of the established employments land supply.
The proposal to develop the site for housing is, therefore, contrary to the development plan and for this reason, the application should be refused.
It is also the case that this was one of the reasons a previous application on the site of a similar nature was refused planning permission by your council for residential development (500 units) in August 2006 with other reasons including the loss of employment land to the detriment of both local and national provision, insufficient secondary school capacity with no means of resolution, incompatibility with neighbouring land use and a failure to address a number of key issues, including residential amenity.
The application site is zoned for employment purposes in the adopted Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan (June 2006). Policies ED1 and ECONB apply which seek to protect the area for employment uses - predominantly class 4 uses with subordinate class 5 and 6 uses. There is a presumption against residential uses. The adopted Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan indicates that the site is affected by land use and height restrictions associated with the public safety zone for the main runway at Edinburgh Airport. The site is also identified as a redevelopme,nt opportunity to provide a business park.
Residential development of the site would be contrary to the approved Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan, the adopted Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan and both the approved West Edinburgh Planning Framework 2003 and draft West edinburgh Planning Framework 2006 which all identify the site for employment uses.
You should also be aware that the application site is located within the catchment areas for schools within West Lothian, namely St Margaret's Academy in Uvingston and St Nicholas RC Primary School in Broxburn. St Margaret's Academy is at capacity as is St Nicholas RC Primary School and although the latter school is being extended at present, this capacity is earmarked for other existing allocated sites and sites that are presently being developed.
In these circumstances, West Lothian Council also objects on the ground that there is insufficient school capacity to cater for the proposed housing development. If Edinburgh City Council is minded to recommend approval of the application, West Lothians Council would require an agreement to be reached with the applicants on appropriate developer contributions to provide additional school capacity.
31 Historic Scotland
Historic Scotland has no comment to make on this application.
SEPA
You will be aware that SEPA previously objected to the former application for planning permission at this site (Ref.' 0610192410UT), on the grounds of insufficient information relating to SUDS.
SEPA notes that the revised planning application now sets out to provide additional information on a number of matters. Upon assessment SEPA has the following comments to make:
Foul Drainage
SEPA notes that the Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) submitted alongside the planning application states that there is spare capacity available at the Newbridge Waste Water Treatment Works.
Connection to the sewer is subject to the approval of Scottish Water (SW) and permission to connect may depend on the availability of spare capacity. Your attention is drawn to SW's consultation response for clarification of the position.
Surface Water Drainage
The SEPA Edinburgh Environmental Protection and Improvement Team have assessed the SUDS proposals as contained within the Sustainability Statement and the DIA.
Upon assessment SEPA are satisfied with the proposals, which consist of underground storage, as BM require no areas of open water, source control measures which consist of porous paving with a granular sub-base for private curtilages and road side swales for distributor roads. SEPA therefore have no objections in principle to the proposed SUDS.
SEPA notes that the final solution will be dependant upon the final details of the development and therefore recommends the imposition of a planning condition, which makes reference to the requirement for an integrated SUDS scheme to be submitted alongside the reserved matters application.
The applicant/agent should contact a member of the Edinburgh Environmental Protection and Improvement Team on 0131 449 7296, once the final SUDS details of the development are decided.
32 For the benefit of the applicant/agent
The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (as amended) (CAR) requires general binding rules (GBRs) 10 of CAR to be complied with in relation to surface water drainage. The applicant/agent should be informed that it is an offence under section 40 of CAR not to comply with the relevant GBRs. GBR 10 includes a requirement that the discharge must not result in pollution of the water environment. It also makes Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) a requirement for new development, with the exemptions of runoff from a single dwelling and discharges to coastal waters.
SEPA would remind the Council that while SEPA seek to provide the Planning Authority with best advice on whether or not a proposal is "capable" of being authorised through their interaction with the planning system, the final decision on this matter cannot be prejudged and wi/l only be made on determination of the corresponding application for CAR authorisation.
SEPA would remind your authority of their duties as a "responsible authority" in respect of the Directive (Designation of Responsible Authorities and Functions Order 2006 http://www.opsi.gov.ukllegislation/scotland/ssi2006/20060126.htm) . In fulfilling these duties, planning authorities are required to exercise their functions in a way that wi/l secure compliance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. SEPA would also highlight the fact that the consentability of a proposal under a regime outwith the Town and Country Planning System can be a material consideration in determining individual planning applications, (Para 49, PAN 51 refers).
Further details relating to CAR requirements can be found on SEPA's web site at; http://www.sepa.org.uklwfd/index.htm
SEPA guidance on SUDS can be found at: http://www.sepa.org.uklpdf/publications/wfd/suds_leaf/et.pdf
SUDS and Airport Proximity
SEPA acknowledges constraints on SUDS design resulting from proximity to the Edinburgh Airport. To avoid areas of 'open water' that may attract birds, SEPA suggests that a SUDS wet/and pond with 100% reed coverage or 'wet woodland' be considered. This should be acceptable to CAAlBAA, who are currently involved with SEPA in the development of bird strike/SUDS guidelines. There are a number of techniques that can be used to deter birds from open water bodies, such as, netting, bird balls and high visibility cables. The applicant/agent should consider a construction phase sediment retention pond that incorporates bird deterrent measures.
33 Contaminated Land
SEPA is aware that previous historic activities at this site may have resulted in land contamination issues and it is noted that a site investigation has been carried out at the site.
The local authority is the planning authority and lead regulator for Part /lA and as such has the responsibility to ensure that land affected by contamination which is subject to development management is assessed and remediated as appropriate. SEPA welcomes the opportunity to be consulted by the planning authority in instances where the local authority would normally have consulted SEPA in terms of pollution of controlled waters issues under Part /lA.
Therefore it is recommended that the planning authority consult with those responsible for contaminated land within Environmental Health in the first instance in order to establish the above.
Flood Risk
The SEPA Hydrology unit have assessed the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) provided alongside the application, and have the following observations to make:
* ??The FRA provided in support of this development identifies 0.5% annual probability flood levels provided by Alvin Barber of Edinburgh City Council. The particular report to which these levels were attained from has not been submitted with this application as supporting information and therefore SEPA cannot provide comment on the accuracy of these levels.
* ??The development extends across the area currently elevated above 38.1m ADD (generally above the stated 0.5% annual probability flood level). The proposed finished floor levels have not been identified. SEPA recommends that all proposed new development be provided with a minimum of 600mm freeboard above the 0.5% annual probability flood level.
* ??The general principle of this development appears to be acceptable. However, review of a more detailed flood risk assessment (identifying the site specific flood levels) and/or detailed plans showing the site topography (existing and proposed), proposed finished floor levels and associated freeboard, would be appropriate at the reserved matters stage.
The advice on flood risk contained in this letter is supplied to you by SEPA in terms of Section 25(2) of the Environment Act 1995 on the basis of information held by SEPA as at the date thereof.
It is intended as advice solely to the City of Edinburgh Council as planning authority in terms of the said section 25.
34 Air Quality and Transport
Air Quality
The proposed development, which includes 400 residential units, has the potential to increase congestion and may lead to cumulative impacts upon air quality within the city.
In line with Local Authority responsibilities for local air quality management under the Environment Act 1995, SEPA recommends that this development proposal is assessed alongside other developments that are also likely to contribute to an increase in road traffic. This increase may exacerbate local air pollution and noise issues, particularly at busy junctions and controlled crossing points.
The practice of assessing developments in isolation may lead to provide misleading information and hide the rate at which road traffic is increasing. The Council is therefore advised to consider the cumulative impact of all development in the local area. For further guidance regarding these issues please refer to NSCA guidance published in 2006 titled; Development Control: Planning for Air Quality.
Transport
SEPA notes that Section 3.3.2 of the Sustainability Statement, states that 'a transport hub for local bus services is to be located in the centre of the site'. SEPA supports this proposal, which reflects the statements contained within Paragraph 25 'Planning for Buses' of SPP17.
In arriving at the finalised layout, due regard should be had to the statements contained within SPP 17 'Planning for Transport', which aims to reduce reliance on the private car, improve public transport links, ensure development is easily accessible by alternative methods of travel and ensure that all new major travel generating developments are subject to transport assessments/production of travel plans.
Waste Management
SEPA notes from Section 2.6 of the Sustainability Statement that the contractor will be asked to draw up a Waste Management Plan which includes targets for waste minimisation, a strategy for segregation and a strategy for recycling. SEPA would wish to provide further comments on the Waste Management Plan, when submitted.
When arriving at the finalised layout the applicant/agent should have regard to PAN 63 'Waste Management Planning' (paragraph 83), which highlights the crucial role of new building design and layout in achieving effective waste management. It states that developers should be encouraged to provide space in their developments to accommodate:-
35 * Provision within the premises for facilities to separate and store different types of waste at source;
* Kerbside collection;
* Centralised facilities for the public to deposit waste for recycling and recovery with housing schemes.
Construction and Landscaping
Construction works associated with the development of the site must be carried out with due regard to the SEPA's pollution prevention guidelines (PPG 1, 5 & 6). These publications are available free of charge on the SEPA web site at http://www.sepa.org.uk/guidance/ppg/ or from any SEPA office.
There may be waste management licensing implications arising from the importation of waste material such as soil for landscaping or for any other purpose. Generally, waste material can only be imported to a site if a waste management license is in effect or if an activity exempt from licensing has been registered with SEPA. Similarly, any waste removed from a site must be deposited either at a suitably licensed site or at a site for which a relevant exempt activity has been registered. SEPA regards all soils, including topsoil, removed from sites as waste.
Where waste is either imported to or exported from a site, applicants and their contractors should be fully aware of the relevant requirements relating to the transport of controlled waste by registered carriers and the furnishing and keeping of duty of care waste transfer notes.
Renewable Energy and Sustainable Design
SEPA supports the proposals within the Sustainability Statement to provide a commitment to reducing C02 emissions through the application of on-site renewable energy technologies.
SEPA supports the use of renewable energy provided that non significant adverse effects are caused upon the environment or upon the amenity of residents. SEPA may wish to comment further on the methods and techniques of incorporating on site generation, maximising energy efficiency and sustain ability at the reserved matters stage.
General
For matters relating to drainage, the applicant/agent should contact a member of the Edinburgh Environmental Protection and Improvement Team on 01314487296.
36 Annex 1 - Additional Comments on Flood Risk
The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) which provides an indication of the 1 in 200 year (0.5 % annual probability), shows that this area may be at high risk of flooding. The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) has been produced following a consistent, nationally-applied methodology for catchment areas equal to or greater than 3km2 using a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) to define river cross-sections and low-lying coastal land. The outlines do not account for flooding arising from sources such as surface water runoff, surcharged culverts or drainage systems. The methodology was not designed to quantify the impacts of factors such as flood alleviation measures, buildings and transport infrastructure on flood conveyance & storage. The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) is designed to be used as a national strategic assessment of flood risk to support planning policy in Scotland.
Scottish Planning Policy 7: Planning and Flooding states in paragraphs 16 and 17 respectively that "For planning purposes the functional flood plain will generally have a greater than 0.5% (1 :200) probability of flooding in any year." and "Built development should not therefore take place on the functional flood plains. "
You are aware that it is for the planning authority to determine if further information is required from the applicant in the form of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). SEPA would be pleased to provide further comment in respect of any submitted FRA.
Details of the information relevant to any study requested by your authority is described in Annex B of SEPA's Policy 41, A SEPA-Planning Protocol which can be found on SEPA's website, www.sepa.org.uk.
Further guidance is also available on the website at, http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/flooding/planning_flooding.pdf.This provides an update to the flood risk assessment guidance given in SEPA Policy 41 with respect to both hydrological and hydraulic modelling standards.
Education
Comments are based on a residential development of an estimated 490 dwellings.
School Capacities
This site is located within the catchment areas of;
* Hillwood Primary School,
* Craigmount High School,
37 Denominational primary and secondary school provision in this area is provided by West Lothian Council so my comments only relate to Hillwood and Craigmount.
Hillwood Primary School
Hillwood Primary School is a small school with a notional capacity of 125 pupils and the roll in 2007 was 67 so the spare capacity is slightly over 50. The expected pupil generation depends on the breakdown between houses and flats, but as a general guide, 100 houses are expected to generate 25 primary school pupils, so 200 houses would take up the available capacity. Flats have lower pupil generation so 200 flats would only create a projected demand for 8 places. Based on a 490 dwelling development, orientated towards family housing, if approval was granted, a developer contribution will be required to make additional class provision at Hillwood. Current rates are £1,864 per house and £298 per flat.
Craigmount High School is still operating above capacity at present and is forecast to remain in this position over the next several years. A recent catchment review was undertaken to potentially free up capacity at the school by increasing the catchment area of Forrester's. This review was aimed at meeting development needs arising from the Edinburgh City Local Plan housing land allocations and to cater for other smaller scale, windfall developments in the area. The two local plan sites are:
* HSG1: Craigs Road (SASA) - 280 Dwellings * HSG8: Clermiston Campus - 295 Dwellings
In addition there is a current application for 199 dwellings (190 flats) at the former United Distillers HQ in Ellersly Road, which is being treated as windfall development.
Development of the Newbridge site for 490 dwellings (mainly for family housing with significant pupil generation) could generate around 100 secondary school pupils. On top of catering for local plan and other windfall development the scale and nature of this development would cause both short and long term problems at the school.
In the short term i all the yearly intakes are operating at capacity so there is limited scope to take new pupils of secondary school age that move into the area. In the longer term, this development would put pressure back onto Craigmount High School and would negate the value of the earlier catchment review. Craigmount High School is also a Public Private Partnership (PPP) school, leased by the Council from Edinburgh Schools Partnership so extending the school is not a straightforward option.
In addition, the Children & Families Department considers that 1,400 pupils is the maximum size considered appropriate for a secondary school.
38 Conclusion
The proposed development could be accommodated at Hillwood Primary School subject to a developer contribution. However the impact of a large 490 dwelling development directed towards family housing, over and above other expected developments, is likely to cause severe accommodation pressure at CraigmountHigh School. Accordingly I would advise that the Children and Families Department objects to the planning application the following reasons:
1. There is insufficient capacity at the present time at Craigmount High School to accommodate the pupils that are likely to be generated by the development
2. The status of Craigmount as a PPP school that is leased by the Council precludes the option of the Council extending the school or adding a Temporary Unit
3. An extension to Craigmount High School would take the school beyond the maximum notional capacity of 1,400 that is considered appropriate for a secondary school.
Education response dated 13 October 2008
Introduction
Further to a meeting with agents acting on behalf of the applicants where fresh information was supplied and where educational issues were discussed in detail, I can advise that the Children & Families Department is prepared to withdraw its original objection to the application subject to reaching agreement on developer contributions. The revised position is set out below using updated information from the provisional 2008-09 school rolls
School Capacities
This site is located within the catchment areas of;
* Hillwood Primary School,
* Craigmount High School,
Denominational primary and secondary school provision in this area is provided by West Lothian Council so my comments only relate to Hillwood and Craigmount.
39 Primary School Provision - Hillwood Primary School
* Hillwood Primary School is a small school with a 125 pupil capacity and a current roll of 62 in 2008-09 (provisional figures). An increased roll would be welcomed by Children and Families as it would make more efficient use of the school.
* Based on a development of 200 and 163 flats as indicated by agents for the developer this is expected to generate approximately 60 pupils based on current modelling. With a projected increase in the birth rate now resu(ting in increased P1 intakes, the development may well exceed the capacity of the school. Provision should be made for potentially increasing the school to a 6 class organisation with a capacity of 145 pupils.
* A feasibility study would be required to establish how best to extend the school and the cost of the feasibility study and school extension, if required, would have to be borne by the developer.
* The school extension will not be required until the latter stages of the development and the position can be appraised halfway through the development along with a review of the phasing programme and whether the ratio of house to flats has changed.
* The relocation of the existing community facility from within the school building to a new purpose-built community centre (as proposed on the tyre factory site) would be welcomed - subject to revenue implications of running a standalone facility yet to be assessed.
Secondary School Provision and Developer Requirements
* Craigmount has a capacity for 1400 pupils; and a roll of 1365 pupils, but only 926 of these pupils live within the Craigmount catchment area as a result of recent catchment changes. 331 pupils attend from the neighbouring Forrester catchment - formerly in the Craigmount catchment area.
* Craigmount has operated at or near capacity because of high demand for places. A catchment review was recently undertaken to free up capacity (by transferring part of the catchment to Forrester) and allow the development of two local plan sites within the school catchment boundary.
* Craigmount High School has an intake restriction of 260 pupils at S1 and placing requests are utilising any spare capacity left over from accommodating catchment children. With the capacity restraint at Craigmount there may not be any places for pupils of secondary school age moving into the development.
40 * Forrester High School is likely to operate around 75% capacity as many pupils living in the catchment will continue to make placing requests to Craigmount High School. A replacement high school is under construction and the expectation is that the new school will relive pressure on Craigmount, freeing up capacity to allow the Newbridge development to proceed.
* Craigmount is a PPP school, currently in the ownership of Edinburgh Schools Partnership (ESP) so extending the school capacity is problematic. In normal circumstances, if Children & Families were to support the application, a developer contribution would be sought towards alleviating capacity issues at Craigmount.
* Instead a Section 75 Agreement is sought seeking education contributions to fund improvements to the wider west Edinburgh secondary school estate (which covers Craigmount and Forrester). The developer contributions would be set against the cost the providing the new Forrester High School and assisting the removal of the capacity pressure that currently applies to Craigmount High School.
* Standard developer contributions are sought towards works that address or are currently addressing accommodation pressures on non-denominational, secondary school provision in west Edinburgh. Based on an indicative development of 200 houses and 163 flats contributions of £593,490 would be sought through a Section 75 Agreement.
* The contributions have a July 2006 base date and will be linked to the RICS tender price index at the time of payment.
Services for Communities - Environmental Services
This development raises a number of issues which are of concern to Environmental Health.
Odour from the Royalite Plastics Factory:
An assessment of odour from the Royalite factory has been submitted by the applicant which shows that a portion of the site would not be suitable for residential development. This report is entirely theoretical in its approach and from discussions with the consultant it is clear that a substantial amount of monitoring would be required to determine the true impact of the plastics factory on any nearby residential development. Should this application be granted, it would be necessary to require this further information by applying an appropriate condition.
Noise from the Royalite Plastics Factory:
The Noise Assessment submitted by the applicant shows that noise from the RoyaJite factory is likely to be a problem for any nearby residential properties. The applicant has not undertaken a full assessment of noise from the Royalite factory. Should this application be approved, it would be necessary to apply a
41 suitable condition requiring the implementation of a scheme to protect nearby residential properties from noise from the RoyaJite factory.
Noise from the Railway Line:
The southern part of the site is close to an operational railway line. The noise report submitted by the applicant has shown that a scheme to protect nearby residential properties from railway noise would be necessary if the application is to be approved. Again, an appropriate condition should be applied to any consent to require these works.
Contaminated Land:
It is believed that parts of this site are contaminated to some degree and should this application be granted, the site will require remediation such that it is suitable for the proposed uses. This should be required by applying a suitable condition.
Noise from the Aircraft:
This site is in close proximity to Edinburgh Airport. The noise report submitted by the applicant shows that the whole site is falls within Noise Exposure Category (NEC) C as defined in Planning Advice Note (PAN) 56.
It is the opinion of Environmental Health that any residential properties on this site would suffer from poor amenity due to aircraft noise. It is understood that the applicant proposes to mitigate against this by installing noise insulation and acoustic ventilation to the properties. However, PAN 56 states that 'In some cases, sound insulation measures may be appropriate e.g. of windows although it is reasonable for occupiers of noise sensitive premises to expect satisfactory internal noise levels with their windows sufficiently open for ventilation purposes. Only in exceptional circumstances should satisfactory noise levels be achievable only with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided. '
Noise will also impact negatively on the peaceful enjoyment of gardens and external amenity areas. PAN 56 states that 'Sound levels within a building are not the only consideration; noise can impact negatively upon the environment generally and most residents will also (jJxpect a reasonable degree of peaceful enjoyment of their gardens and adjacent amenity areas. ' There are no feasible measures to mitigate against the impact of aircraft noise on external amenity.
As a result of the impact of aircraft noise on the level of amenity in residential properties and on the level of external amenity, Environmental Health does not believe this site is suitable for use as a new residential development. We therefore recommend that the application be refused.
42 Services for Communities - Environmental Assessment response dated 10 October 2008
This application is for a proposed residential development of houses with gardens and a residential care home on the site of the former Continental Tyre Factory in Newbridge. The site is situated to the west of the runway for Edinburgh Airport and is bisected by the public safety zone associated with the runway. Thus the site is over-flown by aircraft approaching and leaving the Airport. The site is also surrounded by existing industrial uses to the east and the west and borders a major railway line to the south, the M8 and M9 to the east, the A89 to the north and the 87030 to the south. As a result the site is exposed to noise from industry, roads, rail and aircraft. The noise from roads, rail and industry does not preclude the greater part of the site from being developed for residential use. However, noise from aircraft will lead to very poor amenity for residents on all parts of the site.
Outdoor Amenity
Outdoor amenity areas such as parks and gardens will be exposed to high average noise levels due to aircraft during daytime hours. Planning Advice Note (PAN) 56 gives a value of 57d8(A) Leq as the threshold for the onset of community annoyance from Air Traffic (outdoors). Measurements in the noise report submitted with the application are 65-68 d8(A) Leq, perceptually twice as loud. Also, this noise will be characterised by frequent very loud noise events of 85- 95 d8(A) as aircraft pass overhead. Such noise events will lead to very poor amenity and annoyance for future residents and other users. In addition,the World Health Organisation Guidelines on Community Noise quote figures of 50d8(A) and 55d8(A) for moderate and serious annoyance respectively in outdoor living areas during daytime and evening hours.
Residential amenity and Sleep Disturbance Internally, dwellings will also be exposed to high levels of noise from aircraft which has the potential to disturb residents' peaceful enjoyment of their homes as well as the potential to cause sleep disturbance. As the site is over flown by aircraft, it is unlikely that any dwellings will benefit from a quiet facade on which windows to living apartments could be situated. As mentioned in our previous response, the noise levels on the application site are such that the entire site should be classified as Noise Exposure Category (NEC) C (63-72 d8(A) day and 57-66 d8(A) night) in accordance with the guidance in PAN 56. This states that "Planning permission should not normally be granted" for developments in NEC C. The scottishnoisemapping.org website shows that the application site is exposed to noise levels of 55-60dB(A) Lnight. The WHO Night Noise Guidelines for Europe recommend working towards a level of 30 d8(A) Lnight with interim targets of 55 d8(A) and 40 d8(A). The noise levels are at or above the highest interim target on all parts of the application site.
NOTE: The WHO Night Noise Guidelines do not represent policy or legislation but were commissioned by the European Commission for the
43 purpose of developing future legislations. The final implementation report was published in 2007.
The applicant proposes mitigation in the form of upgraded acoustic glazing and, possibly, loft insulation with a mechanical forced ventilation system to negate the need for residents to open windows for ventilation. However the guidance in PAN 56 states that "it is reasonable for occupiers of noise sensitive premises to expect satisfactory internal noise levels with their windows sufficiently open for ventilation purposes': The WHO Guidelines for Community Noise (2000) and the WHO Night Noise Guidelines (2007) also recommend that indoor noise levels be achievable with windows open for ventilation.
Also, use of mechanical forced ventilation systems for in place of opening windows for ventilation defeats the City of Edinburgh Councils' sustain ability objectives.
Vulnerable Groups
This application includes the provision of a care home as well as family homes. Children and the elderly are particularly affected by noise. The WHO Night Noise Guidelines note that sleep structure becomes more fragmented with age and as a result, the elderly are more vulnerable to disturbance. Children spend more time in bed and so are considered a risk grqup.
Relevant Case Law
I would draw your attention to a recent decision by the Planning Inspectorate for England and Wales in relation to two similar applications near Birmingham International Airport (BIA). In this case, the appellant challenged the refusal of planning permission by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) for 2 alternative proposals on the same site (one proposal was for 16 apartments and 55 houses and the other 16 apartments and 57 houses). The application site was near to and to one side of the airport runway. The noise levels on the appeal site were slightly less than those at the current application site and the site was not over-flown by aircraft however, the noise environment was broadly similar to the current application. The reporter dismissed the appeal. In his decision, the reporter noted the following important points: * The reporter noted that the recommendation (that planning permission should not normally be granted) in relation to NEC C sites was made in the acknowledgement that mitigation was possible.
* The reporter did not find that the appeal proposals overcame the "high probability that they will fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future residents':
44 ' Recommendation
Though there are existing properties near the airport exposed to similar levels of noise, we do not accept that it is reasonable to introduce more residential properties in an area where it is known that noise levels are unacceptably high and are likely to increase in the future. Future increases in aircraft movements will result in a small increase in average noise levels at the application site and a considerable increase in the number of loud noise events which are likely to cause sleep disturbance and annoyance.
Finally, the noise levels at the application site exceed that recommended in all of the relevant guidance therefore we would reiterate in the strongest possible terms that this application should be refused.
Summary of relevant guideline values
PAN 56 - Planning & Noise
Environment
Average Noise Level (LAeq)
Internal Noise Levels in living apartments at night <35dB(A)Leq
Internal Noise Levels in living apartments, daytime <45dB(A)Leq
Onset of community annoyance from Air Traffic (outdoors) 57dB(A) Leq
World Health Organisation - Guidelines for Community Noise (2000) Environment .
Average Noise Level (LAeq)
Peak Noise Level (LAmax, fast)
Indoors, daytime and evenings 35 dB (16 hour)
Sleep disturbance in bedrooms at night 30 dB (8 hour)
45 dB
Outside bedrooms, window open (outdoor values) 45 dB (8 hour)
45 60 dB
Outdoor living area, daytime & evening
55 dB (16 hour) = Serious annoyance
50 dB (16 hour) = Moderate annoyance
World Health Organisation - Night Noise Guidelines for Europe (2007) Proposed night noise guidelines and interim targets
Interim target I (IT-I)
Lnight,outside = 55 dB
Interim target 11 (IT-II)
Lnight,outside =40 dB
Night noise guideline (NNGL)
Lnight,outside =30 dB
PAN 56 Noise Exposure Categories (NECs)
NOISE LEVELS CORRESPONDING TO NECs FOR NEW DWELLINGS LAeq, T dB
NOISE EXPOSURE CA TEGORY (NEC)
NOISE SOURCE
TIME
A
B
C
D road traffic ii
07.00 - 23.00
23.00 - 07.00 vi
46 <55
<45
55- 63
45- 57
63-72
57-66
>72
>66 rail traffic iii
07.00 - 23.00
23.00 - 07.00 vi
<55
<45
55-66
45-59
66-74
59-66
>74
>66 air traffic iv
07.00 - 23.00
23.00 - 07.00 vi
<57
<48
57-66
47 48- 57
66-72
57-66
>72
>66 mixed sources v
07.00 - 23.00
23.00 - 07.00 vi
<55
<45
55- 63
45-57
63-72
57-66
>72
>66
Glossary
A weighting An adjustment made to noise measurements to simulate the response of the human ear.
LAeq, LAeq, T
The average noise level over a specified time (T) (A weighted).
LAmax -
The highest A weighted noise level recorded during a noise event. The time weighting used (Fast or Slow) should be stated.
48 Lnight
The A-weighted long-term average sound level, determined over all the night periods (23:00 - 07:00) of a year.
Bridges and Flooding
The site directly borders a watercourse and therefore any application must be considered under Scottish Planning Policy 7 (SPP7) Planning and Flooding, issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland. SPP7 states "new development should not take place if it would be at significant risk of flooding': and "not materially increase the probability of flooding elsewhere': Also, flood protection by landraising in the floodplain should be linked to the provision and maintenance of compensatory flood water storage.
The flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application is insufficient to support the conclusion that the site is at low risk of inundation from the river Almond. This conclusion is primarily based on flood study work carried out previously by City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) deriving a flood level of between 38.6 to 38.1 mAOD in the River Almond adjacent to the site.
The flood level estimated by CEC was based on hydrology carried out in 2001 and should be fully reviewed for this point in time.
The FRA report states "the proposed minimum ground levels around the site are similar to this level" and "any [flood] risk which may be determined in the future should be adequately dealt with by incorporating a suitable freeboard allowance to the finished floor levels"
Part of the site could be at risk of flooding and could therefore require flood protection by landraising. The application also shows the development area extending closer to the river than the existing extent of the industrial site. No details of the existing or post development site topography are included and no assessment has been made on the extent of floodplain within the site and the possibility of the development impinging on the floodplain of the river.
The planning submission must include a full flood risk assessment to ascertain the extent of floodplain on the existing site and to demonstrate that the application is in accordance with the requirements set out in SPP7.
Bridges and Flooding response dated 1 October 2008-10-09
Confirmed that a flood risk assessment could be a condition of any consent and that drainage runoff should also be 4.SI/s/ha. The latter could also be conditioned.
49 Services for Communities - Affordable Housing
The Housing Department has worked with Planning to develop a methodology for assessing housing requirements by tenure, which supports an Affordable Housing Policy (AHP) for the city. The AHP makes the provision of affordable housing a planning condition for sites over a particular size. While it is acknowledged that the proportion of affordable housing required is set at a city-wide level of 25% for all proposals of 12 units or more (this being consistent with Policy Hou 7 Affordable Housing in the Finalised Edinburgh City Local Plan) in the Rural West of Edinburgh the affordable housing contribution is set at 15%.
As this proposal lies within the Rural West of Edinburgh, and as it is a proposal for just under 500 residential units, approximately 75 affordable units would be required. The applicant is therefore commended for the inclusion of a "significant element" and "wide mix" of affordable units in the application documentation, including amenity, wheelchair-accessible units and properties of a variety of sizes, as is intimated in page 17 (section 5.2 "Masterplan Detail : Indicative Accommodation Schedule'? of the "Conceptual Framework for Community Regeneration" document supporting the current application.
This range and mix of property types helps to reflect the mix of non-affordable units within the development, and in that respect serves to meet the AHP requirement for such an application. Also, we commend the fact that the applicant has consulted and discussed with a partner RSL, Hillcrest Housing Association, with whom we have worked closely as a Department. We welcome the fact that the RSL is satisfied with the number and size of the affordable units proposed, and that discussions have taken place regarding the location of the units with a view to ensuring an appropriate dispersal of the units is achieved, in the interests of creating a mixed and sustainable community on this large site, using the energy and transport hubs as a starting point for the dispersal.
The Department welcomes the Affordable Housing contribution contained within the application, the fact that it has been developed in very close consultation with both the local community and the partner RSL, and we further welcome and support the expressed wishes of the applicant - as expressed at our meeting of 29 January 2008 - to provide Affordable Housing at a rate of 17%, which is 2% above the requirement.
Another key aspect of discussions in our meeting of 29 January 2008 which we welcomed was the commitment expressed by the applicant concerning timescales (which are anticipated at between 3 and 5 years upon receipt of planning permission) and commitments concerning the planned delivery of the affordable housing contribution. The applicant expressed a commitment to ensure that the affordable housing was not the last part of the development to be delivered, and indeed expressed a willingness to provide a commitment that affordable housing would be provided on a pro-rata basis throughout the build, the example given being that at least 17% of each 100 units built would
50 be for affordable housing, which sits alongside a commitment to provide the community centre facilities within the first 18 months of the project.
The Department also welcomes the commitment, as expressed by Hillcrest, to realise at least 70% (and possibly an even higher percentage) of the affordable housing as social rented accommodation, and to seek at least 50% of the affordable housing as main-door accommodation and family houses with garden space. We also acknowledge and welcome the commitment expressed by Hillcrest that they aim to exceed the minimum 10% requirement for housing within the affordable housing contribution to be wheelchair accessible housing.
The Department therefore welcomes and supports this outline planning application, having discussed the points outlined above with the applicant on 29th January 2008.
This Department would be pleased to assist in negotiations with the applicant in respect of any queries relating to affordable housing.
Transportation
Advise that the application be refused.
Traffic movements associated with the proposed development will result in higher level of over saturation during the am/pm peaks at certain entry links to Newbridge roundabout ( Newbridge Road/Cliftonhall Road/Roundabout, Liston Road/A89/Roundabout) leading to unacceptable delays and excessive queue lengths.
Should the application be recommended for approval the following condition should apply. Prior to the issuing of consent the applicant to enter into a suitable legal agreement to provide the following: a) Contribute the sum of £165,000 for the upgrading of signals on Newbridge Roundabout. (The current traffic signals equipment is in excess of 15 years old and is in need of a full upgrade, to deal more efficiently with increasing movements, to a more modern, dynamic system of operation. All the traffic signal lanterns would be replaced with high spec LED lanterns and consideration will be given to converting the current 'fixed time operation' to a MOVA Microprocessor, Optimised Vehicle Actuation- system of operation. MOVA is a self-optimising control system for traffic signals and utilises an online microprocessor to measure detected traffic queues in order to maintain optimum 'green times', cycle times and minimise traffic queues effectively at signal controlled junctions). The introduction of the MO VA system will be of benefit to vehicular movements through the roundabout during the off peak and slightly reduce the over saturation during peak times.
51 b) Contribute the sum of £60,000 towards improvements to the Public Transport Infrastructure. (Bus stops/shelters at new bus turning area, improvements to stop on Bridge Road/A89). c) Contribute the sum of £20,000 for links from the development site to the National Cycle Network.
The above contributions payable on commencement of building operations and if not utilised within 5 years will be returned
A tram contribution in line with council policy to the value of £790,900 is payable. (Calculated on 490 residential units- £680,500 and a 3,600 sqm Residential care home - £110,400)
Transport Scotland
Advise that the following conditions are attached to any permission the Council may give:
1. Prior to the commencement of any development on site the modification to the B7030 access to Newbridge roundabout, generally as indicated in the Grontmij Transport Assessment Appendix E dated October 2007, shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the planning authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland - Trunk Roads Network Management Directorate. 2. Prior to the commencement of any development on site the modification to Newbridge roundabout, as detailed in condition 16 of planning consent 01/00829/0UT and generally in accordance with Colin Buchanan and Partners drawing number CBP/52021/01/005, will be implemented to the satisfaction of the Plannign authority, in consultation with TransportScotland Trunk Roads Network Management Directorate. 3. Prior to the commencement of any development on site, details for provision/enhancement of public transport services and facilities shall be submitted to and agreed with the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland - Trunk Roads Network Management Directorate. 4. Prior to the commencement of any development on site the public transport services and facilities referred to in condition 3 shall be implemented.
Reasons
1 & 2 To ensure that the safety and flow of the traffic on the trunk road is not diminished.
3 & 4 To be consistent with the requirements of SPP17: Planning for Transport and PAN 75 Planning for Transport.
Details of works necessary within the trunk road boundary
The proposed modifications to the trunk road network shall in all respects comply with the design manual for Roads and bridges (DMRB) and with the
52 specification for Highway Works published by the HMSO. The developer shall issue a certificate to that effect signed by the design organisation.
Any trunk road works will necessitate a Minute of Agreement with the Trunk Roads Authority prior to commencement of any works.
Network Rail Scotland
No response received.
National Grid
No response received.
Representations
The application was advertised on 16 November 2007.
Thirty three letters of support, including one from an MP, an MSP and the Ratho _ District Community Council were received and 5 letters of objection and a petition objecting to the emergency access onto Riverside signed by 19 people.
The following material points in support of the proposal were made:
* Regeneration of the village, addressed in section k).
* Increase the school role at Ratho Station Primary, addressed in section e).
* Developer contributions, addressed in section k).
* Additional community facilities, such as shops and a care home, addressed in section k).
* Brownfield development, addressed in section a).
* Provision of affordable housing, addressed in section j).
* Energy Centre providing 20% of the proposals requirements, addressed in section i).
The following material objections were raised:
* Impact upon amenity of existing residents through traffic generation and proximity of development, addressed in section b).
* Reduction of strategically important industrial land supply, addressed in section a).
53 * Precedent for development on industrial/business sites, addressed in section a).
* Impact upon operations and use of existing or proposed commercial sites, addressed in section b).
* Noise and odour 24 hours per day from neighbouring industrial uses and Edinburgh Airport impacting upon amenity, contrary to PAN 56 Planning and Noise, addressed in section b).
* Contrary to West Edinburgh Planning Framework, addressed in section a).
* Contrary to the Development Plan, addressed in section a).
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure plan identifies the site being located within a Core Development Area. The Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan locates the majority of the site for economic development opportunities. The section of site outwith the economic development allocation is apart of the River Almond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.
Scottish Government Policy, Circulars and Advice
Scottish Planning Policy 2 Economic Development
Planning Advice Note 52 Planning and Noise
Circular 8/2002: Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan Policy HOU2 supports the development of suitable urban brownfield sites for housing through re-use, redevelopment or conversion.
Policy HOU3 states that land shall be allocated in local plans to accommodate the following number of dwellings identified: Newbridge/Kirkliston/Ratho (1,000), Waterfront Edinburgh (1,700 min), Rest of Edinburgh Urban Area (1,100 min), Edinburgh Urban Fringe (400)
Policy HOU5 states that the development of housing land should not proceed beyond the infrastructure capacity of each site until improvements are· provided or committed.
54 Policy HOU6 states that in addition to the requirements set out in Policy HOU5, contributions will be required from housing developers to remedy any deficiencies in local facilities and amenities.
Policy ECON1 states that local plans should support the development of the established economic land supply and monitor where necessary.
Policy ENV1 D states that local plans should include policies for protecting and enhancing Regional and Local Natural Built Environment Interests.
Policy ENV1 F states that development proposals affecting any designated natural heritage site, protected priority habitat or species or other important non-statutory locations will require an appropriate level of environmental and biodiversity assessment.
Policy IMP4 states that agreements between developers and local planning authorities must be in place to secure the key items included in Schedule 3 of the Action Plan prior to the granting of planning permission.
Relevant policies of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.
Policy E15 seeks to ensure the survival and retention of healthy mature trees as part of development proposals. Where the loss of woodland, trees or hedgerows is unavoidable, the developer will be required to undertake equivalent replacement planting.
Policy E18 protects identified sites of local nature conservation interest. Development within or affecting Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation will not be permitted unless there are appropriate mitigation measures to enhance or safeguard the nature conservation interest of the site.
Policy E27 encourages and supports a number of measures for the protection and enhancement of the recreational potential of the River Almond, Water of Leith and their tributaries
Policy E30 says that any planning application affecting a site of archaeological significance will require an archaeological field evaluation to be undertaken in consultation with the Council's Archaeologist
Policy R45 says that as a general principle all new residential and business development should be designed to avoid or manage any threat to susceptible properties from a 200 year flood
Policy E46 states that planning applications should demonstrate that proposals will not result in a significant increase in surface water run-off relative to the capacity of the receiving water course in flood risk areas. Policy H2 says that housing development will be supported on sites HSP1 to HSP8
55 Policy H5 states that all new housing should harmonise with and reflect the character of its surroundings and should adhere to the criteria set out in the policy.
Policy H7 states that planning permission for residential development, including conversions, consisting of 12 or more units, should include provision for affordable housing amounting to 25% of the total number of units proposed.
Policy H9 says that the Council will encourage and promote developments designed to increase the range and type of housing available within the local plan area.
Policy ED1 says that the Council will support the development of sites ECON1-ECON11 for the preferred uses outlined in the Schedule of Economic Development Proposals subject to the criteria listed
Policy ED9 says that development will not be permitted within the Airport Public Safety Zones as defined on the Proposals Map
Policy TRA2 states that proposals will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the existing road network; public transport operations; air quality; road safety, residential amenity and walking and cycling
Policy TRA3 says that a transport assessment will normally be required for significant development proposals
Policy TRA4 says that development proposals should make specific provision for the needs of cyclists and pedestrians and provide convenient and safe access to existing or proposed networks where practicable
Policy TRA6 says that the Council will support the development of a comprehensive network of cycle and pedestrian routes, including on-road provision and off-road cycleways and footpaths
Policy TRA7 says that development proposals should be laid out and designed to allow public transport to be as accessible as possible
Policy IMP2 says that agreements between developers and the Council must be place to secure the key items included in Schedule 2 of the Action Plan prior to the granting of planning consent
Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines
Non-statutory guidelines on 'AFFORDABLE HOUSING' sets out the requirements for the provision of affordable housing within housing developments.
56 Non-statutory guidelines on BIODIVERSITY sets objectives for habitat creation and enhancement, lists protected species and how developments can make provision for these, and lists the sites of national and local nature conservation interest.
Non-statutory guidelines on Developer contributions in schools gives guidance on the situations where developers will be asked to make financial or other contributions towards the cost of providing new facilities for schools.
Non-statutory guidelines on 'OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT' set the required standards for open space provision.
Non-statutory guidelines FLOODING AND PLANNING Provides guidance on how to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of flooding, and how to minimise the risk of sensitive new developments being flooded themselves.
Non-statutory guidelines - Tram Developer Contributions sets out the criteria where new development should make a contribution towards the construction of the tram system and associated public ream.
57 Appendix B ·EDINBVR.GH· THE CITY Of EDINBURGH COUNCil
CITY DEVELOPMENT Application Type Planning Permission in Principle Application Address: 1A Old Liston Road Newbridge EH288SJ
Proposal: Application for outline planning permission for proposed demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide new residential development including family + affordable housing, residential care home, public transport facilities, community recycling facilities, new access roads, car parking, footpaths + cycleways, public park, open space, landscaping + other ancillary community facilities Reference No: o7/04646/0 UT
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
Recommendation
It is recommended that for the reasons below.
1. Before any work on eact1 phase of the site is commenced, an application(s) for the approval of matters specified in conditions shall be submitted to and approved by the planning authority; the submission shall be in the form of a detailed layout of the site (including landscaping and car parking), and include detailed plans, sections and elevations of the building( s).
Approval of Matters:
(a) siting, design, massing, height and external appearance of all buildings and other structures (including acoustic capabilities), design and configuration of public and open spaces, all external materials and finishes, and external lighting;
(b) Car, motor cycle and cycle parking, access, road layouts, alignment, servicing areas;
(c) Footpaths, river walkway and cycle routes;
(d) Boundary treatments;
(e) Details and the timescale for the hard and soft landscaping which shall include:
i) Existing and finished ground levels in relation to Ordnance Datum;
58 ii) Layout and design, including walls, fences and gates;
iii) Other structures such as street furniture, including permanent lighting and play facilities;
iv) Programme of completion and subsequent maintenance;
v) Location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and grasses;
vi) A schedule of plants to comprise species, plant size and proposed number I density;
vii) Details of any water features;
(f) Surface water drainage in the form of sustainable urban drainage systems;
(g) The provision of waste management and recycling facilities;
(h) Play provision for a variety of age groups
(i) Full details of sustainability in accordance with the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building or BREEAM.
2. The maximum number of residential units on the site shall be restricted to 490 units, of which 70% are to be dwelling houses.
3. No development within any phase of development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, (excavation, analysis and reporting, publication) in relation to that phase, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning, having first been agreed by the City Archaeologist.
4. A flood risk assessment must be submitted for the entire site as part of any initial AMC application and will detail the probability of any part of the site being flooded by either the River Almond or surface water. The flood risk assessment must include appropriate mitigation and maintenance. If the site is developed in phases, each AMC application must review the flood risk assessment, ensuring that th~ risk is assessed for that phase and ensure that there is not an adverse effect on other phases, the existing village of Newbridge or neighbouring sites. No development should be commenced until the approved scheme of mitigation for that phase has been implemented. No development or flood mitigation works shall take place within the River Almond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, as defined in the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan proposals map, unless agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
59 5. Should the development be phased, an integrated drainage strategy, including a strategic Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDs), must be submitted for the entire site as part of any initial reserved matters application. Each application shall be accompanied by a SUDs proposal for that phase draining to the strategic SUDs. Runoff will be limited to 4.3 litres per second per hectare. Details must also comply with Advice Note 6 'Potential Bird Hazards from SUDs' and include details of the maintenance for the approved SUDs.
No subsequent alterations to the approved SUDs scheme are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved SUDs scheme shall be implemented as approved prior to the occupation of any dwelling house in that phase.
6. A detailed documented construction method statement for the site shall be submitted to and agreed by the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA, before development commences. This method statement must address the temporary measures proposed to deal with surface water run-off during construction in accordance with the requirements of (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 and the relevant General Binding Rules prior to the operation of the final SUDs. It must ensure that the SUDs performance is not compromised during construction, either by avoiding use of the final SUDs or completely reinstating the SUDs used.
7. Development should not commence until a scheme mitigating against run-off or contamination of the River Almond Site of Important for Nature Conservation during construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
8. Before development commences details of the lighting to be used in the construction phase and the permanent lighting scheme for the development shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for their written approval. The approved lighting scheme is to be implemented as approved; no subsequent alterations shall take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
9. Development shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The submitted plan shall include details of:
Management of any flat I shallow pitched roofs on buildings within the site which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and 'loafing' birds (see Informatives, below, for information)
Physical arrangements for the collection (including litter bins) and storage of putrescible waste, arrangements for and frequency of the removal of putrescible waste at the care home or community facility.
60 The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved upon completion of the development. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
10. No building or structure, including cranes and construction equipment associated with the development herby permitted shall exceed the elevation of the Take Off Climb Surface for Runway 24 or the Approach Surface for Runway 06 at Edinburgh Airport as shown on the attached plan ref: EDI 1426.
11. No development shall take place until full details of soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority; details must comply with Advice Note 3 'Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping and Building Design'. These details shall include:
Grassed areas
The species, number and spacing of trees and shrubs.
No subsequent alterations to the approved landscaping scheme are to take place unless submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
12. The approved landscaping scheme shall be fully implemented within six months of the completion of the development and thereafter maintained by the applicants and or their successors to the entire satisfaction of the planning authority; maintenance shall include the replacement of plant stock which fails to survive for whatever reason, as often as may be required to ensure the establishment of the approved landscape scheme.
13. Reserved matters applications for dwellings and the care home must be accompanied by full details of internal ventilation proposals, acoustic barriers, construction materials and acoustic insulation for each dwelling to achieve noise levels no greater than 45dBLAmax and 35dBLAeq at night, when measured internally. The approved ventilation and noise mitigation scheme shall be completed and operational to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority before any part of the development is occupied and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
14. i) Prior to the commencement of construction works on any phase of the site:
a) A site survey (including intrusive investigation where necessary) must be carried out to establish to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Strategy, either that the level of risk posed to human health and the wider environment by contaminants in, on or under the
61 land is acceptable, or that remedial and/or protective measures could be undertaken to bring the risks to an acceptable level in relation to the development; and
b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any required remedial and for protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Strategy.
ii) Any required remedial and/or protective measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved schedule and documentary evidence to certify those works shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Strategy.
15. Any AMC application detailing a residential property within 100 metres of the factory site boundary to the south west of the site, 1BOld Liston Road, shall include an odour impact assessment and details of mitigation, if required, within the application site. Any approved mitigation shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority prior to the development, subject of the application, being occupied and subsequently retained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
16. With the exception of any dwelling houses proposed along the northern boundary adjacent to the existing dwelling houses in Newbridge, the rear garden of dwelling houses nearest to neighbouring industrial uses and/or the Edinburgh to Glasgow railway line to be a minimum of 12 metres in depth.
17. Only development in accordance with paragraphs 8-13 of Circular 8/2002 Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones shall be permitted within the Edinburgh Airport Safety Zone. The Edinburgh Airport Public Safety Zone is defined by the Department of Transport.
18. Any AMC application incorporating or adjacent to the River Almond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) must include a full ecological impact assessment. The ecological impact assessment should contain a survey of water vole / otter activity along the River Almond and highlight opportunities for enhancing other habitats and species with reference to the Edinburgh Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Mitigation and enhancement measures, within or adjacent to the SINC, contained within the assessment and their implementation shall be approved by the Planning Authority as part of any AMC application.
62 19. Prior to development commencing, a protective fence will be erected along the River Almond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation boundary, as defined in the local plan, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and retained until construction works are complete, or unless agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. No vehicles, equipment or materials shall be stored within the SINC before, during or after construction works commence.
20. Pedestrian links from the development to the River Almond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation must provide a species rich neutral grassland area on either side and be implemented within 6 months of the completion of the development.
21. Before the development is occupied, bus stop and bus shelter facilities shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of City Development and at no cost to the Council.
22. Development of the site to the north of the Edinburgh Airport Public Safety Zone must commence prior to the southern section of the site commencing.
23. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland)Order 1992, and any subsequent amendments, planning consent will be required for any alterations and/or extensions listed within Classes 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 1.
24. Prior to the completion of the 1Oath residential property, an application for the landscaped parkland within the Edinburgh Airport Public Safety Zone shall be submitted to the Head of Planning. The approved scheme will be implemented prior to the occupation of the 200th residential property.
1. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
2. This is the number of units sought
3. In order to safeguard the interests of archaeological heritage.
4. To ensure that there is no risk of flooding.
5. To ensure the site is adequately drained and to prevent pollution of watercourses.
6. To ensure that there is no pollution from the surface water run-off.
7. To ensure there is no pollution from surface water run-off.
63 8. To avoid confusion with aeronautical ground lights which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft, and the operation of Edinburgh Airport.
9. In order to minimise the attractiveness of the site to birds which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Edinburgh Airport.
10. Development exceeding this height would penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surface surrounding Edinburgh Airport and endanger aircraft movements and the safe operation of the aerodrome.
11. To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Edinburgh Airport through the attraction of birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the application site.
12. In order to ensure that the approved landscaping works are properly established on site.
13. In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the development from noise of aircraft, trains or neighbouring land uses.
14. In order to ensure that the site is suitable for redevelopment, given the nature of previous uses/processes on the site.
15. In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the development.
16. To provide compensation for noise exposure.
17. To accord with the guidance contained within circular 8/2002: Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones.
18. To ensure the biodiversity value of the site is assessed, maintained and enhanced.
19. In order to protect the biodiversity value of the River Almond Site of I mportance for Nature Conservation.
20. To maintain the ecological value of the River Almond Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.
21. To facilitate public transport linkage.
22. To ensure that the proposed development is implemented in a logical manner and to allow linkage to the existing village.
64 23. In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the development.
24. In order to ensure that a high standard of landscaping is achieved, appropriate to the location of the site.
INFORMATIVES
It should be noted that:
1. a) Application for the approval of matters specified in conditions shall be made before the expiration of 3 years from the date of the grant of planning permission in principle, unless an earlier application for such approval has been refused or an appeal against such refusal has been dismissed, in which case application for the approval of all outstanding matters specified in conditions must be made within 6 months of the date of such refusal or dismissal.
b) The approved development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of grant of planning permission in principle or 2 years from the final approval of matters specified in conditions, whichever is later.
2. The Bird Hazard Management Plan must ensure that fiat/shallow pitched roofs be constructed to allow access to all areas by foot using permanent fixed access stair ladders or similar. The owner/occupier must not allow gulls to nest, roost or loaf on the building. Checks must be made weekly or sooner if bird activity dictates during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season, gull activity must be monitored and the roof checked regularly to ensure that gulls do not utilise the roof. Any gulls found nesting, roosting or loafing must be dispersed by the owner/occupier when detected or when requested by BAA Airfield Operations staff. In some instances it may be necessary to contact BAA Airfield Operations staff before bird dispersal takes place. The owner/occupier must remove any nests or eggs found on the roof.
The breeding season for gulls typically runs from March to June. The owner/occupier must obtain the appropriate licenses from the Scottish Government Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) before the removal of nests and eggs.
3. Lighting schemes required during construction and for the completed development shall be of flat glass, full cut off design, mounted horizontally, and shall ensure that there is no light spillage above the horizontal.
65 4. If a crane is required during construction, there is a requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in Advice Note 4, 'Cranes and Other Construction Issues' (available at www.caa.co.uklsrg/aerodrome).
5. This site, or part of this site, lies within the Public Safety Zone. Please refer to the Department for Transport Circular 1/2002 'Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones' and the Scottish Government Circular 8/2002: 'Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones' for further information.
6. Disposal of surface water from the site should comply with General Binding Rules (GBRs) 10 and 11 of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities)(Scotland) Regulations 2005 (CAR) (as amended). Details of the requirements of these GBRs can be found in http://www.sepa.org.uklcustomerinformationlwater.aspx.
CIRIA's SUDs Manual (C967) provides general guidance on designing and constructing SUDS and advocates the treatment train approach to surface water disposal through the promotion of infiltration structures such as porous paving beneath areas of hardstanding and soakaways for roof water, conveyancing structures such as swales culminating in a treatment facility such as a pond.
A suitable SUDs based system should also be able to provide flow attenuation to ensure that runoff from the development does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
End
66 Appendix C
·EDINBVRGH· THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL
CITY DEVE·LOPMENT Application Type Planning Permission in Principle Proposal: Application for outline planning permission for proposed demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide new residential development including family + affordable housing, residential care home, public transport facilities, community recycling facilities, new access roads, car parking, footpaths + cycleways, public park, open space, landscaping + other ancillary community facilities Reference No: o7/04646/0 UT
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
67