CLACKMANNANSHIRE COUNCIL

Report to: Planning Committee

Date of Meeting: 26th January 2017

Subject: Planning Application Ref: 16/00218/FULL – Importation, Sorting And Spreading Of Inert Waste Materials Comprising Soil, Sub Soil, Crushed Brick And Stone To Alter Existing Ground Levels To Form Grazing Land, With associated Access Track, Drainage and Landscaping Works (Partly Retrospective) - (Re-Submission of Planning Application15/00228/FULL) at Brandyhill Wood, Fishcross

Report by: Keith Johnstone, Principal Planner

1.0 Purpose

1.1. The report comprises the Report of Handling on the above application for planning permission. It summarises the proposal, site history, consultation responses, representations against the proposal, key planning policy issues and the Local Development Plan position and a recommended decision.

1.2. The proposal is for a Local Development which would normally be determined by Appointed Officers. However, in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for such applications, this application requires to be determined by Committee following a request from a Member to refer it to Committee.

2.0 Recommendations

2.1. It is recommended that the application is REFUSED for the reasons set out below.

2.2. Reasons

2.3. 1. The site is located within Green Belt as defined by the adopted Clackmannanshire Local Development Plan. LDP Policy EA8 (Green Belt) states that development will not normally be permitted within designated Green Belt except where it meets any of the criteria set out in the Policy. Having regard to the scale and nature of the works, including the importation of approximately 70,000 tonnes of inert waste onto the site, and the significance of the potential environmental impacts that could occur, the Council concludes that the development would not meet any of the relevant criteria. Notably:

(a) It would not be a necessary or essential development for agricultural use

THIS PAPER RELATES TO ITEM 4

ON THE AGENDA

9

(b) It would not be necessary or essential to forestry use.

(c) It would not be directly related to existing activities at the site and be small scale or ancillary and not significantly intensity activity at the site.

Consequently, the development would be contrary to Policy EA8.

2. The site is located within countryside as defined by the adopted Clackmannanshire Local Development Plan. Policy SC23 (Development in the Countryside – General Principles) states that development in countryside areas will only be supported where the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that it would meet the criteria listed in the Policy. Having regard to scale and nature of the works, including the importation of approximately 70,000 of inert waste onto the site, and the environmental impacts that could arise, the Council concludes that the development would not satisfy any relevant criteria, namely;

(a) A requirement for a countryside location has been demonstrated.

(b) The development is acceptable in terms of its scale and nature, in relationship to existing land uses.

(c) The proposals respect the character of the site and its location and maintain and enhance the distinctive landscape character of the area.

(d) The access arrangements are adequate.

Consequently, the development would be contrary to Policy SC23.

3. The importation of approximately 70,000 tonnes of inert waste material would result in a significant number of HGVs entering and leaving the site on a derestricted section of the B9140. In the absence of;

any locational justification for the development,

detailed information on the likely frequency, routing and duration of lorry movements.

detailed proposals of how the existing sub standard access from the B9140 would be upgraded to allow safe turning of vehicles to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority,

the development is considered to have an unacceptable adverse impact on road safety on this section of the B9140 and be contrary to Policy SC12 (Development Proposals - Access and Transport Requirements) of the Clackmannanshire Local Development Plan.

4. Notwithstanding the advice from the Service and consultees, the applicant has failed to submit sufficient information with the application to address the following issues associated with a proposal of this nature at this location;

(a) How the risks associated with legacy mining within or close to the site would be a managed, including to the satisfaction of the Coal Authority.

10

(b) How the importation of waste materials would be manged on site and accord with relevant Waste Management legislation and policy, and how surface water run off and flood risk would be managed, including to the satisfaction of SEPA.

(c) How the value of the flora and fauna on the site would be safeguarded and where possible enhanced, having regard to it’s inclusion within the Ancient Woodland Inventory and it’s inclusion as a candidate Local Nature Conservation Site in the Clackmannanshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan, 2012.

Consequently, in the absence of satisfactory information, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would accord with Clackmannanshire Local Development Plan Policies EA2 (Habitat Networks and Biodiversity), EA4 (Landscape quality), EA9 (Managing Flood Risk) and EA25 (The development of Brownfield, Unstable and Contaminated Land).

2.4 Plans to which this decision relates

1. Location Plan

2. Existing Site Plan

3. 2005-52/102A - Proposed Site Plan

4. 2015-52/03A – Proposed Part Site Plan (Phase 1)

3.0 Considerations

3.1. Background

3.2. The application seeks partly retrospective planning permission to import approximately 70,000 tonnes of inert waste materials comprising soils and crushed brick and stone to spread over parts of the land know as Brandyhill Wood to create conditions suitable for grazing of farm animals. The Wood extends to about 14.5 Ha and contains a mix of broadleaf trees of varying maturity with mainly birch, oak and ash. Tree planting within parts of the site was undertaken several years ago, while some of the areas previously felled to accommodate the overhead powerlines are being recolonised. These areas without trees are mainly scrub or the remnants of former mining at the site. The Wood is mostly surrounded by agricultural land, with Schawpark Golf Course to the south west. The areas where material would be spread generally comprise parts of the wayleaves for 2 overhead electricity lines which cross the Wood on an east – west axis, where trees have been cleared near to the lines for safety and operational reasons. The areas fall within two identifiable parts, namely;

A linear area of land that runs parallel to the B9140 near the south boundary of the site and extends from the east to the west boundaries of the Wood, a distance of about 650 metres. This part is approximately 3.7 Ha in area. It is crossed by twin 33kV lines supported by timber poles.

11

A roughly rectangular area located in the north western part of the Wood which is crossed by a 132kV line supported by pylons. The land is more wooded, including naturally regenerated areas. It extends to approximately 1.6 Ha in area and measures some 200 metres in length by 80 metres in width.

3.3 The proposal is to clear any existing trees and level out the land, infilling any low-lying areas, including sink holes, with a layer of imported materials suitable for sowing with grass and wild flowers. No detailed information on existing and proposed levels has been provided but it is proposed that the proposed contours would follow existing gradients. The depth of material spread would vary but is expected to be on average at least 1 metre in depth but deeper where hollows exist. The applicant intends to enclose the infilled areas and use them to graze animals. The use of land for grazing of animals does not require planning permission but the proposed physical engineering works to spread waste materials on the site do.

3.4 The applicant proposes to undertake the works on a phased basis and the first phase would comprise approximately half of the southern wayleave area to the east of the existing access track from the B9140.

3.5 A section of access track would also be created along the southern boundary of the first phase area which would connect with the existing access from the B9140. Surface water would be directed to ditches and these would lead to the existing or to a new pond which would be required to manage water quality and run off, before discharging to the watercourse at the northwest side to the site. A hedgerow would be established around the full perimeter of the site supplemented with tree planting between the B9140 and access track. The remaining areas of woodland would be retained and a programme to manage the wood would be carried out.

3.6 Inert waste material has already been sorted and spread on the site by the applicant on land close to the existing access track near the centre of the site. This has involved a relatively small proportion of the proposed site and the applicant has stated that this development has utilised mainly materials already deposited on the site before they bought it. The applicant has also scraped back materials next to the B9140. The above works were brought to the attention of the Service in January 2015. As part of the Service`s discussions with the landowner to try to remedy the breach or bring the situation under planning control, the Service served an Enforcement Notice in November 2015. This required the following actions to remedy the breach of planning control;

the cessation of the unauthorised deposit, sorting and spreading of waste materials within the site and the unauthorised engineering operations, including excavation of land

remove deposited materials down to subsoil level and remove it from the site

respread the excavated materials next to the B1940 to reflect the original ground levels and erect a post and wire fence and/or a hedgerow beside to the B9140 to replace the hedgerow that the been removed.

12

3.7 The applicant has undertaken works to restore most of the excavated material next to the B9140 as required by the Enforcement Notice although it should have been fully completed by June 2016. Spreading of material has also continued next to the access track following the Enforcement Notice coming into force, which is a breach although, following contact by the Service, this activity appears to have ceased at the time of compiling this report.

3.8 Prior to the Notice being served in 2015, the applicant had received advice form the Service on the need for planning permission and in October 2015, they had submitted a partly retrospective planning application for a similar description of development as currently proposed. The assessment of the application and the responses from consultees and representees had identified a number of environmental and road safety issues which had not been adequately addressed in the supporting information. The Service provided a summary of the assessment, including areas of policy conflict and the absence of adequate information identified by consultees and indicated that the application was unlikely to receive a favourable recommendation. The applicant then withdrew the application in December 2015 shortly before it was due to be determined. The applicant indicated that the application had been withdrawn to address the issues raised. A subsequent meeting took place with the applicant, the Service and representatives of the Scottish Wildlife Trust to provide advice to him on the scope of information that would be needed to help address the nature conservation constraints associated with the site. Following this pre application advice the current application was received in October 2016, over 10 months after the withdrawal.

3.9 Consultations

3.10 Roads and Transportation object on the grounds that the existing access is unsuitable in terms of road safety to accommodate HGV traffic and there is insufficient information to demonstrate that a safe access could be provided. They also note the works undertaken next to the B9140 has damaged existing drainage which serves the road.

3.11 Environmental Health advise that further information should be provided about the proposed hours and routing of vehicle movements and any plant to be used on site to be able to establish if the development could result in nuisance to noise sensitive properties.

3.12 SEPA object. They have highlighted that the supporting information is largely the same as submitted with the previous application (15/00228/FULL) which was considered inadequate. There are insufficient details about; where waste materials would be spread and that it would be the minimum amount necessary in terms of waste management regulations; and about surface water drainage to demonstrate water quality would be adequately protected. They also note that if the works resulted in an increase in water runoff, these flows would enter the watercourse to the north west of the site which passes the development at Gannel Hill View.

3.13 The Coal Authority object. The site is within an area at higher risk from legacy mining and records show that mining has taken place at the site as well as the presence of mine entries and unrecorded activity is likely. The information on mining submitted would not adequately address the potential risks from historical mining.

13

3.14 Fishcross and Benview Residents Association object. They have raised concern about the damage caused to the woodland habitat and appearance, increased HGV traffic on Pitfairn Road, the safety of the access, the risks posed by old mine workings, the infilling of the historic collapsed bell pits within the site and the risk the development could erode the countryside character of the area.

3.15 Sauchie and Fishcross Community Council and Scottish Power were consulted but have not submitted formal responses to the application.

3.16 Representations

3.17 There are no notifiable neighbouring properties. The application was publicised in the Alloa Advertiser for neighbour notification reasons. Two objections have been received from the following parties;

Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) (Stirling and Clackmannanshire Group)

The Woodland Trust, South Inch Business Centre, Shore Rd, Perth

3.18 The main issues raised in the objections can be summarised as follows;

1. The site forms part of a Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS) and there should be a presumption against development in such an area. Comment – for clarity, Brandyhill Wood is not a designated LNCS at present. It has been identified as a potential LNCS in the 2012-2017 Clackmannanshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) but the process to review and agree to designate the Wood as referenced in the LDP has still to be completed by the Council. A survey of the Wood was undertaken by the SWT in 1997 but this would have to be reviewed given the passage of time. The identification of the Wood in the LBAP is a material consideration.

2. The site is listed as part of the Ancient Woodland Inventory and this habitat is important in local and national biodiversity terms. SPP states that such woodland areas are an irreplaceable resource and the deposit of waste on the surface would damage woodland soils and fragment the habitat or adversely affect the hydrology of the area. The wayleaves still contain ancient woodland soils which are also important in biodiversity terms. Comment – the woodland value of the site is considered under Policy EA2 and EA6 below. It is considered that there are insufficient details to allow a proper assessment of how the development would affect the natural habitat value of the woodland area in terms of the scope of the works and the impact on the habitat.

3. The development would destroy the habitat value of the scrub area within the wayleave areas which comprises a species rich habitat which would be lost if covered by imported material. Comment - in the absence of a suitable assessment of the habitat value of the site with the application, it is not possible to conclude that the works would not have an unacceptable impact on the biodiversity of the site or any impact could be satisfactorily mitigated. The applicant has confirmed that the other areas of woodland would be retained and management would take place to help regenerate it while wildflowers would be sown as well as the grass. However, given the previous identification of the site as a candidate LNCS, a precautionary approach

14

would appear a reasonable and justifiable approach given the nature of the proposed works..

4. No information has been provided to verify the applicant`s statement that there are no known protected flora or fauna within the site. Comment – this is a valid point and the Service advised the applicant to provide such information both at the pre application stage (which included arranging a meeting with the applicant and representatives of the SWT to provide advice) and once the application had been submitted.

4. The development would not accord with the relevant policies in the LDP, in particular Policies EA1 and EA2. The Scottish Government`s policy on Control of Woodland Removal includes a presumption in favour of protecting woodland. Comment – this is discussed in para 3.21 below.

3.19 Planning Assessment

3.20 The application must be determined in accordance with the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The site is located within countryside and within part of the Green Belt and Clackmannanshire Green Network as defined by the Clackmannanshire LDP.

3.21 The most relevant policies in the LDP are considered to be;

SC12 (Access and Transport Requirements) – the policy states that proposals should include being capable of being safely accessed Comment – The existing access is narrow and meets the public road at an angle on a derestricted section of public road. If the principle of development was established, Roads and Transportation advise that there are insufficient details of how the access could be upgraded to allow the safe turning of HGVs associated with the importation of material. The importation of 70,000 tonnes would be equivalent to about 2,800 fully laden tipper lorries. The applicant has been made aware of this advice but has not submitted any details to date. The potential risks associated with this activity are considered to be significant and in the absence of suitable details, the proposal as submitted are judged not to accord with this Policy.

SC23 (Development in the Countryside) – the policy provides support for countryside development where it; can demonstrate a locational requirement; is acceptable in terms of its scale, nature and design quality; and it respects the character of the area. Comment – while the use of land for grazing would be consistent with a countryside location, we are concerned that the importation of 70,000 tonnes of inert waste material would be of such a scale, nature and timescale that the scheme would be inappropriate in order to form agricultural land. There is also insufficient information to demonstrate how the operation would take place and how potential adverse visual and environmental impacts associated with such activity could be mitigated to safeguard the character of the site and the surrounding area. On balance, it is considered that the proposals would not accord with this Policy.

EA1 (Clackmannanshire Green Network) – the policy states that development should comply with the principles set out in the Green

15

Network Supplementary Guidance and should not result in the reduction in the connectivity, quality or extent of the network. Comment – the Wood is connected to other woodlands and is already a valuable part of the network. While no built development is proposed, and the applicant has indicated a willingness to manage other parts of the woodland, the proposed works are likely to change the character of the site and could last for a number of years. It is considered that the Policy would have at best a neutral effect.

EA2 (Habitat Networks and Biodiversity) – the Policy seeks to protect and enhance natural habitats and biodiversity and states that; proposals should contribute to the objectives of the Clackmannanshire LBAP; include ecological appraisals where there could be an adverse impact on biodiversity; and there will be a presumption against development where it could have a detrimental impact on the habitat or biodiversity value unless suitable mitigation can be provided. Comment – having regard to the inclusion of the site in the LBAP as a candidate LNCS, the representations from SWT and advice from the Council`s Sustainability team about the potential impact of the development on the biodiversity value and ecological value of the site, it is concluded that the application would be contrary to this Policy and there is an absence of any information which would satisfactorily demonstrate that no adverse impact would occur or could be mitigated elsewhere on the site.

EA3 (Protection of Designated Sites and Protected Species) – the policy states that where a proposals could adversely affect a LNCS or protected species, an ecological appraisal would be required and would only be acceptable where there would be no significant impact on the integrity of the site, unless such impacts are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of Council wide importance. Comment – the weight that could be attached to this Policy is reduced by the fact that the site is not a designated LNCS. The applicant has not satisfied the requirements of the Policy outlined above and it is judged that no support would be afforded by this Policy.

EA4 (Landscape Quality) – the Policy states that the landscape quality and visual appearance of an area should not be adversely affected. Comment – the Wood is relatively prominent in wider views from communities and roads in the vicinity and it makes a positive contribution to the landscape character of the area. The likely visual impact and duration of the operational works, and the effect of the removal of wooded areas in the north west part of the site to accommodate the grazing area are considered to have a negative impact on the landscape character of the area. It is proposed to plant hedgerow and trees around the perimeter of the site which would help mitigate the effects although these would take time to establish and no detailed specification has been provided. In the absence of detailed information about the scale and nature of the works, it is considered that on balance, the proposal would not accord with this

EA6 (Woodland and Forestry) – the Policy states that the removal of woodland will only be supported where they are consistent with the

16

Council`s Forestry Strategy and provides clear public benefits. Comment - the proposals are not considered to satisfy the wider objectives of this Policy and the applicant has not submitted sufficient details to demonstrate that the proposals would accord with this Policy, The SG or national policy.

EA8 (Green Belt) – the policy states that new development will not normally be permitted in Green Belt areas unless if it meets one of the criteria set out in the Policy. Development should enhance the quality and distinctive character of the local landscape and the Green Network. Comment – in our judgement the proposals are not essential or necessary to any agricultural or forestry uses. Rather, we are of the view that the scale of works would be disproportionate to the benefits which may be achieved and is likely to adversely affect the character of the area.

EA9 (Managing Flood Risk) – the Policy includes a presumption against development which would increase the probability of flooding elsewhere. Comment – Given the advice from SEPA and the Council`s Flooding Officer, it is considered that the application has not satisfactorily demonstrated that there would be no risk of flooding downstream of the site. This is due to the inadequacy of the information provided about the scope of the works, changes in levels and managing surface water drainage. The applicant has been invited to submit more details but has not done so within the statutory period. The proposals would not accord with this Policy.

EA12 (Water Environment) – comment – having regard to the advice form SEPA about the risks to existing watercourses, and the absence of any exceptional need for the development, it is considered that the proposals would not accord with this Policy.

EA25 (The Development of Brownfield, Unstable and Contaminated Land) – the Policy states that where land is known to be unstable or contaminated, the applicant should demonstrate that the land can be made safe and suitable for the proposed new use. Comment – having regard to the advice from the Coal Authority, and the knowledge about the historical uses of the site relating to mining, the application would not accord with requirements of this Policy. The applicant has been invited to submit further information but has not done so to date.

3.22 Having regard to the assessment above, the application is considered to be contrary to a number of relevant Policies in the LDP. Furthermore, the nature and character of the proposals are not considered to accord with some of the Strategic Objectives of the LDP, namely;

Objective No 1 – (Clear Framework for Positive Change)

Objective No 2 (Sustainable Economic Growth)

Objective No 3 (Environmental Sustainability) and

Objective No 6 (Natural Environment)

17

and on balance would be contrary to the Plan.

3.23 Other Material Considerations

3.24 The objections from third parties and consultees have been considered above. It is considered that these raise justifiable concerns which have not been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant.

3.25 The applicant has had a considerable period of time since the receipt of the Service’s assessment of the original application and subsequent withdrawal to try to address the policy and information demands of such a proposal. Given it is partly retrospective, it is considered that there has been adequate time to respond before the determination of this application.

3.26 At present there is unauthorised development at the site, in relation to the spreading of waste materials over land and the alleged importation of material although the applicant has disputed this latter point. In the absence of adequate information and mitigation, it is not considered that there are sufficient material considerations which would outweigh the Development Plan position and support a grant of permission.

4.0 Sustainability Implications

4.1. As described in paragraphs 3.21 and 3.22 above.

5.0 Resource Implications

5.1. Financial Details

5.2. The full financial implications of the recommendations are set out in the report. This includes a reference to full life cycle costs where appropriate. Yes

5.3. Finance have been consulted and have agreed the financial implications as set out in the report. Yes

5.4. Staffing

6.0 Exempt Reports

6.1. Is this report exempt? Yes (please detail the reasons for exemption below) No

7.0 Declarations The recommendations contained within this report support or implement our Corporate Priorities and Council Policies.

(1) Our Priorities (Please double click on the check box )

18

The area has a positive image and attracts people and businesses Our communities are more cohesive and inclusive People are better skilled, trained and ready for learning and employment Our communities are safer Vulnerable people and families are supported Substance misuse and its effects are reduced Health is improving and health inequalities are reducing The environment is protected and enhanced for all The Council is effective, efficient and recognised for excellence

(2) Council Policies (Please detail)

As described in paragraph 3.21 above.

8.0 Equalities Impact

8.1 Have you undertaken the required equalities impact assessment to ensure that no groups are adversely affected by the recommendations? Yes No

9.0 Legality

9.1 It has been confirmed that in adopting the recommendations contained in this report, the Council is acting within its legal powers. Yes

10.0 Appendices

10.1 Please list any appendices attached to this report. If there are no appendices, please state "none".

None

11.0 Background Papers

11.1 Have you used other documents to compile your report? (All documents must be kept available by the author for public inspection for four years from the date of meeting at which the report is considered) Yes (please list the documents below) No

Clackmannanshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan

Clackmannanshire Local Development Plan

Planning Application Ref 15/00228/FULL

Scottish Planning Policy 3

19

Author(s)

NAME DESIGNATION TEL NO / EXTENSION

Keith Johnstone Principal Planner

01259 452614

Approved by

NAME DESIGNATION SIGNATURE

Julie Hamilton

Development Services Manager

Gordon McNeil Head of Development and Environment Services

20

290000

290000

291000

291000

6950

00

6950

00

6960

00

6960

00

1:10,000Scale:

Development & EnvironmentKilncraigs

Greenside StreetAlloa

FK10 1EB

Tel: 01259 450 000planning@clacks.gov.uk

Date:12-Jan-2017

16/00218/FULL – Brandyhill Wood, FishcrossImportation, Sorting And Spreading Of Inert Waste Materials To Alter Existing

Ground Levels To Form Land For Grazing, The Formation Of Access Track

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database right 2017.All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100020783.

Ward: Clackmannanshire Central OS Grid Ref: NS 99 NW0 100 200 300 400

Meters

LegendApplication site boundary

21

22