Quarry will have "exceptional adverse visual impact"

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

A Scottish Government planning reporter has shocked activists seeking to block the development of a large quarry in rural Peeblesshire by giving the controversial project the green light despite its unanimous rejection by local councillors.

In a 38-page decision notice issued today, David Bullya has allowed an appeal by sand and gravel minerals company Stonepack Ltd. against Scottish Borders Council's decision to refuse quarrying on the 30-hectare site at South Slipperfield, near the village of West Linton. 

It means Stonepack can now embark on material extraction which is scheduled to take place over 14 years. Site preparation is predicted to take six months and final restoration, a year. The extraction would have six phases and is anticipated to produce an average of 100,000 tonnes of material each year, giving a total output of approximately 1.4 million tonnes.

A council report prepared by Borders planning officers last year concluded that the application was in “contravention of national objectives and Local Development Plan policies on securing additional reserves and extraction of minerals, whilst ensuring that the environmental impacts are either acceptable with mitigation and/or outweighed by the demonstration of significant public benefit”. The planning committee unanimously supported the recommendation to refuse the application.

The council claimed: “The proposed site for the quarry at Slipperfield is within the Pentland Hills Special Landscape Area and the primary reason for our decision was the unacceptable impact that the proposed development would have on the landscape and the setting of the Roman road."

But those arguments which were backed by many local residents represented by a quarry action group have not been accepted by Mr Bullya.

He concludes: "I have concluded that that the proposal would provide an important source of materials for the construction industry and that the site is appropriately located with regard to likely centres of high future demand for its products. 

"Other than the significantly adverse landscape and visual effects that I have identified which would be localised, it would avoid any significant harm to communities or the environment. The proposal would create five new jobs on the site and there would be economic benefits from the appellant’s proposed investment in the facility. 

"Securing a steady supply of sand and gravel for the appellant’s own business and for the construction industry more widely is a positive socio-economic consequence of the proposal. Financial benefits to the farming business that is operated by the site owner could also potentially have wider spin off effects. When balanced against these benefits, the adverse effects I have identified are insufficient to overcome the presumption in favour of approval that arises from my finding that the proposal accords, overall, with the development plan. I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development accords overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which would still justify refusing to grant planning permission."

Earlier in his decision notice, the reporter concedes that within the site there would be temporary and permanent alterations to the fabric and character of the site. Temporary changes would include a soil storage mound and a low bund along the north western site boundary along with the ever-changing effects of ongoing soil stripping, extraction and restoration processes as the development moved through its six proposed phases. 

"The landform changes that would be brought about by the extraction and restoration works would be far more significant. The fabric and character of the landscape would be affected by the physical works to the ground, and its existing rural character would be affected by the presence of industrial machinery and vehicles."

 According to the Edinburgh Geological Society, the site and other land nearby represent some of the finest glacial and geomorphological features in southern Scotland. 

Mr Bullya says: "Bearing this, and what I saw when I inspected the site, in mind, I regard the sensitivity of the site to changes to its fabric and character as high. In combination with the high magnitude of change that I predict, I conclude that, during the operational period, the effect of this proposal on the fabric of the site would be of exceptional adverse significance. 

"The extraction and restoration operations would also transform the character of the site landscape from an open and peaceful grazing field into a busy industrial operation. This would have a high magnitude of impact on the character of the site and a consequent exceptional adverse (significant) effect. I also disagree that the impact magnitude here during operations would be medium. 

"During the first phase of extraction, works would be taking place immediately adjacent to the path, separated only by a fence and low bund. And as works moved further away, they would remain very prominent and intrusive. Views of the quarry processing plant would remain throughout the phases. Overall, I would assign a high level of impact magnitude during the operational phases, leading to an exceptional adverse visual impact."

A number of local residents had expressed concern that this part of the A702 road was known for excessive vehicle speeds and that this could pose a threat to road safety if slow moving vehicles were joining the trunk road at this point. 

But Mr Bullya noted there has been only one recorded personal injury accident in the last five years on this stretch of road, which was categorised as ‘slight’ in severity. This did not suggest that the road had a poor safety record at present. 

"Taking all factors into account, I find no reason to conclude the proposals would have any significant adverse access or transportation effects."

In dismissing the council's concerns for adverse impact on the Roman road adjacent to the quarry site, Mr Bullya states: "Unlike some sections of the Crawford to Inveresk Roman road (of which the council advises this section is a part), this section of Roman road is not a scheduled monument. Roman roads are not uncommon throughout the UK; scheduling appears to be confined to the most important sections. 

"Often such routes remain in use long after the Roman withdrawal, as this section appears to have done, and their form may alter over time to reflect changing requirements. I do not agree with the council’s assignment of regional value to this part of the Roman road, which appears to rely upon other sections along the route having been scheduled. There is no evidence before me as to why this section of road is undesignated, but the fact that it has no formal recognition of having a high level of cultural significance tends to suggest it should be regarded as having low sensitivity to development that could affect its setting."

Mr Bullya allows the appeal and grants planning permission subject to 34 conditions listed at the end of the decision notice.