PURPOSE OF REPORT Since the application is considered by the Appointed Officer to be sensitive the planning application is presented to the Committee for a decision.

COMPETENCE

1.1 There are no legal, financial or other constraints to the recommendation being implemented.

SUMMARY

2.1 This Report relates to a Planning Application to extract 5000 tonnes (c. 3,030m³) of sand, over a period of ten years, from a 1.4 hectare site within a high dune system in the north east area of the uninhabited Island of Vallay, Isle of North Uist.

2.2 The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (OHLDP) identifies in Policy 21 a landbank of permitted reserves to meet local needs for minerals and aggregate for the Plan period. Included within the identified reserves is a site is Balemartin, North Uist, a site with an extant planning permission for sand extraction with considerable unexploited reserves, sufficient to serve the needs of the local community for the foreseeable future.

2.3 An analysis of sand at Balemartin by the British Geological Survey (BGS) (labelled as Balelone by BGS) and the supporting statements in the BGS report indicate that the sand is of a quality suitable for a range of use including building sand for rendering and mortaring.

2.4 The applicant has submitted statements by local building merchants in support of his planning application, which claim that the sand from Vallay Island has properties that make it more suitable for certain building works (rendering and mortaring in particular), than the sand from the consented site at Balemartin. However, in order to provide more substance to these statements, the applicant’s agent was asked to provide a sand analysis, which would enable an objective comparison of the proposed sand with that from the identified and consented site. The applicant has declined to provide this analysis and in its absence there is no basis for independent verification of the stated need.

2.5 Policy 21 states that “proposals for development outwith the sites listed will require to demonstrate that needs cannot be met from existing consented sites and recycled sources; the extension of existing sites; and the reopening of dormant or old workings…”. The proposal fails to make such a demonstration, in particular because of the ample reserves of sand at the site in the Policy 21 list at Balemartin.

2.6 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The applicant’s failure to substantiate claims with objective scientific analysis suggests that there are no material considerations of sufficient weight that might justify a decision other than in accordance with the OHLDP. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

3.1 It is recommended that the application be REFUSED for the reasons shown in Appendix 1 to this Report.

Contact Officer Alastair Banks Telephone: 01870 604990, Email: alastair.banks@cne-siar.gov.uk

Appendix 1 Schedule of Proposed Reason for Refusal

2 Location Plan

Background Papers None

ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 16 JUNE 2015

15/00076/MIN – PLANNING APPLICATION FOR SAND EXTRACTION FROM VALLAY ISLAND, CLADDACH VALLAY, SOLLAS, ISLE OF NORTH UIST

Report by Director of Development

REPORT DETAILS

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

4.1 It is proposed to extract 5000 tonnes (an estimated 3,030m³) of sand over a period of ten years from a 1.4 hectare site within a high dune system in the north east area of the uninhabited Island of Vallay.

4.2 The sand would be excavated by a tracked machine and transported from the island by a tractor and trailer. An average of two daily loads of over three tonnes would be taken off the island. A direct route would be taken from the sand pit directly to the south and joining an existing machair track which is used for general farm management. The sand would then be transported across Vallay Strand to Claddach Vallay where it would be loaded on to lorries. Timings would be dictated by the low tide, but are expected to take place between 8am and 5pm. Operations would take place throughout the year based on demand.

4.3 The application form says that “The proposed pit will not change the overall landscape of the area as there are already several large open sand dunes. Therefore no landscaping should be required. When the site is no longer used it will be covered with seaweed from the nearby shore. This will allow the natural regeneration of the site. The site will (then) be used for rough grazing of cattle.”

4.4 The proposal is within the class of Local development within the Planning Hierarchy.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

5.1 The planning application by R.C. MacAulay Kirkibost Ltd, Whiteshore, Bayhead, North Uist HS6 5DY, was registered on 10 March 2015.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2011

6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (The 2011 Regulations) apply to this proposal.

6.2 The proposed development is Schedule 2 Development – Categories 2 (Extractive industry) in terms of the 2011 Regulations.

6.3 Having assessed the characteristics and location of the development and the characteristics of the potential impact as set out in Schedule 3 to the 2011 Regulations, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar on 4 February 2015 issued a Screening Opinion stating that in its opinion the proposed development is not considered likely to have a significant impact on the environment and that the submission of an Environmental Statement was not required.

PREVIOUS PLANNING DECISIONS RELATING TO THE SITE

7.1 There are no relevant previous planning decisions which affect the site, but enforcement action in the form of an Enforcement Notice was taken in 2013 to stop the unlawful extraction of sand from Vallay.

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

8.1 The full terms of the responses to statutory and other consultations by the Planning Authority can be read on file at the Development Department. The following is a summary of those relevant to the determination of the application.

SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE (SNH)

8.2 “This proposal will have a likely significant effect on the Shifting dunes with marram and dune grassland features of the North Uist Machair Special Area of Conservation (SAC), however considering the scale of the loss in relation to the extent of these habitats throughout the site and the fact that the vegetation will be reinstated once extraction has ceased the proposal will not adversely affect the site integrity for these qualifying interests. The proposal also lies within North Uist Machair & Islands Special Protection Area (SPA) and Vallay Site of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSI), however it will not have a significant effect on designated features within these sites.”

SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY (SEPA)

8.3 An initial objection on grounds of inadequate information on impact on groundwater ecosystems was withdrawn following submission of details from SNH. “SEPA has been provided with more information from SNH by way of their email which we received on 29 May 2015. As you know, my colleague Ross Hall also discussed the proposals with the applicant in some detail on 12 May 2015 and this discussion has also informed our advice. We are now in a position to withdraw our objection to this application on the presumption that condition or conditions will be applied to cover restoration. Advice for the planning authority: 1. Groundwater dependant terrestrial ecosystems 1.1 We are content that the information now provided suggest that groundwater dependant

terrestrial ecosystems will not be impacted by this proposal. 2. Pollution prevention and environmental management 2.1 The applicant has confirmed that extraction works will not occur below the water table

and that there are no water bodies on or surrounding the site which could be impacted by the proposals. We therefore consider that this development is unlikely to result in significant impacts on the water environment.

3. Regulatory requirements 3.1 Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be

found on the Regulations section of our website. If you are unable to find the advice you need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the operations team in your local SEPA office”

COMHAIRLE - TECHNICAL SERVICES – ROADS

8.4 “No objections. Would advise upgrading/repairing access track to shore.”

COMHAIRLE - ARCHAEOLOGIST 8.5 “Thank you for consulting the Archaeology Service CnES. We have no archaeological issues

with this application. However it should be noted that Vallay is made up of a machair environment with large sand dunes along it northern edge and similar to other areas in North Uist it has a large amount recorded archaeological sites spanning from prehistory to the relatively modern. These sites range from large structures to human burials and middens; given the machair environment it should be appreciated that there is high potential for further unrecorded archaeological sites and features to be present on the island as a whole. In respect of this please add as an informative that the Comhairle Archaeology Service would appreciate being contacted should any archaeological deposits be encountered during sand extraction activities.”

REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 None.

VIEWS OF THE APPLICANT

10.1 The full details of the views of the applicant can be read on the file at the Development Department. However, they can be summarised as follows:

10.2 “Both Builders Merchants in Benbecula whose customers cover an area from Berneray to Eriskay have indicated that they wish to purchase sand from the proposed pit on Vallay Island. They are both currently importing sand to the island as the quality of sand available locally is not of the quality they desire. Letters from companies confirming this are attached to the application.” These letters state the following:

a) Caley Timber, Benbecula:

“Our company currently has to import sand from the mainland to meet the requirements of our builder customers as the quality of local sand presently available is not acceptable.

Having had samples of sand from Vallay Island trialled by some customers, we can confirm that we would purchase sand of this quality provided it was to become available in sustainable quantity.”

Following a request for further clarification, Caley Timber’s local manager has said: “I am only going by feedback from customers, we have in the past had sand from Balemartin and found it difficult to sell to our customers for mortar or render mixes who say it does not create a ‘fluffy’ workable mix, when the mix is in a wheelbarrow the water rapidly separates leaving a dry hard mix with no workability. However it is fine for putting under slabs & concrete work. But as the majority of our regular customers will not use it and to avoid the problem of having to keep 2 different sands in stock we have continued to source from the mainland. As I said earlier we have given these customers samples & they have stated that they are quite happy with the workability of the mix using that sand, therefore it would be a useful local asset avoiding the haulage & ferry costs onto the island.”

b) MacInnes Brothers, Benbecula:

“With regards to the supply of sand for your project, the intention would be to use Vallay sand should it be available, instead of importing sand from Ireland.” Following a request for further clarification, MacInnes Brothers have said: “The Sand from Vallay has a different consistency and is needed for rendering works. The Vallay sand is the equivalent of Irish sand which we currently have to import for use and selling. The sand at Balmartin is not suitable for this type of work.”

10.3 Following requests to supply sand analysis to show how the sand at Vallay differs in quality and its potential for different uses, the applicant’s agent says, “The other pit has provided you with an analysis saying how wonderful it is but yet the builders say it isn't so great and won't buy it from the Merchants - hence the reason they are importing it. Therefore I still believe it is a pointless exercise as even if it is proved (who is going to do / pay for the comparison?) that one is better than another for certain purposes the crux of the matter is to prove there is a need for our pit, not whose sand is the best as the end user will dictate the market. To that extent we have proved that there is a demand for our product and we can meet that demand.”

ASSESSMENT OF EIA

11.1 A Screening Opinion has been adopted that EIA is not required (ref 15/00064/SCR_L).

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

12.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An assessment against the policies and provisions of the Development Plan is therefore made initially. This is then followed by an assessment of any other material considerations, prior to a conclusion and recommendation as to the determination.

Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan

12.2 Policy 1 – Development Strategy

Development proposals in Remote Areas will be limited. New residential uses will not be permitted and other uses will need to be clearly justified. Careful planning and design will be required to minimise environmental impacts. Only applications for detailed planning permission will be considered. Details of measures to maintain or enhance the area’s landscape attributes, including any wild land qualities will be required.

Supplementary guidance will be prepared in relation to both wind energy and fish farm proposals.

Proposals for development will only be acceptable where at least one of the following is met:

1. the development is required for reasons of over-riding public interest (including those of an economic or social nature);

2. a locational need has been demonstrated; 3. it is for, or associated with, the sustainable development of a natural resource; 4. it is for, or associated with, the sustainable development of fish farming in marine or

freshwater environments.

Where any of the conditions above can be satisfied, proposals will be required to meet all the following criteria:

e. sensitive siting, design and scale of development to minimise impact on the open and rural character of the landscape and its qualities of remoteness;

f. no unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape character (including any wild land attributes); or natural heritage resource will result from the proposal.

12.3 The applicant was asked to supply an analysis of the sand to show why it is suited for critical building works locally in a manner that the sand from the consented site at Balemartin is not. However, the applicant has resisted providing such information. Accordingly, it is not possible to show how the proposal could comply with the criteria set by this policy. Overriding public interest has not been proved; there is no locational advantage offered by Vallay; and to allow commercial sand extraction from a source other than the OHLDP - identified site at Balemartin would, it is considered, contradict the sustainable management of mineral resources intended by Policy 21 of the OLDP (below).

12.4 Policy 2 – Assessment of Development

Underpinning each of the policies in the Plan is a requirement to demonstrate that development proposals:

a) will not significantly adversely affect biodiversity and ecological interests and, where possible, result in an enhancement of these interests (The online Biodiversity Planning Toolkit should be consulted for general advice and good practice on habitats and species, and the NBN Gateway for site specific biodiversity data);

b) will not result in pollution or discharges outwith prescribed limits to the air, land, freshwater or sea;

c) have been designed to take account of the requirements of safeguarding zones notified by the Health and Safety Executive, Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Services,

Ministry of Defence, Marine Consultation Areas, relevant Harbour Authorities and Marine Protected Areas.

All development will be assessed for its impacts individually, incrementally and cumulatively to ensure no significant detrimental effects arise.

The Comhairle may negotiate with developers a fair and reasonable contribution towards infrastructure and/or services required as a consequence of the proposed development. The contributions will be proportionate to the scale and nature of the development (including cumulative) and will be addressed through planning conditions or through a legal agreement if appropriate.

12.5 The proposed sand extraction and associated vehicle movements would have some impact on the local biodiversity and ecology of Vallay, which is an SSSI and SAC. However, neither SNH nor SEPA have objected and it is considered that the proposal could, subject to conditions, comply with this policy.

12.6 Policy 21 – Minerals

Outer Hebrides mineral and aggregate local needs for the Plan period will be met from the following landbank of permitted reserves:

Lewis Harris North Uist

Eoropaidh (sand)

Carinish (sand and gravel)

Marybank (rock)

Bennadrove (rock)

Loch Leiniscal (rock)

Creed Quarry (rock)

Raoinabhat (rock)

Aird Nisabost (sand)

Ardhasaig (rock)

East Stocklett (rock)

Balemartin (sand)

Crogarry Beag (rock)

Druim Reallasger (rock)

Loch Euphort Road End (gravel)

Loch Euphort (gravel & rock)

Benbecula South Uist Barra

Stiaraval A (rock)

Stiaraval B (rock)

Askernish (rock)

Rueval (gravel)

Cleat & Lower Grean (rock

Garrygall (gravel)

Eoligarry (sand)

Proposals for mineral development outwith the sites listed above will require to demonstrate that needs cannot be met from: in the first instance, existing consented sites and recycled sources; in the second, the extension of existing sites, and; in the third, the reopening of dormant or old workings (subject to a Review of the Mineral Permission [ROMP] where relevant), and either:

• there are overriding operational, environmental, or community reasons for the development of the proposed site; or

• The site is required to support a clearly defined and justified local need* or single development (e.g., borrow pit for road or construction project).

Where the proposal is to support a single development, the extraction site should be located within or in close proximity to the site of the associated project and will in all cases be tied to and time limited to completion of the associated project (including restoration proposals).

In addition all mineral extraction proposals, including extensions to existing sites and proposals to re‐open dormant mineral workings, will be required to satisfy all the following:

a) satisfactory management, operation, transportation, and restoration arrangements to be submitted as part of the planning application. Details of how restoration of the site will be carried out both during operation and following completion should form part of a phased programme of extraction;

b) submission of information on waste management demonstrating appropriate planning for the minimisation, treatment, recovery and disposal of extractive waste with a view to ensuring efficient production of primary materials, minimising waste generation and where appropriate recycling mineral waste;

c) wherever possible restoration and after use proposals should include the creation of new habitats and maximise recreation opportunities. If operators cannot demonstrate that their programme of restoration (including the necessary financing, phasing and aftercare of the sites) is sufficient, a financial guarantee through the use of a planning agreement may be sought;

d) submission of sufficient information as detailed within Planning Advice Note 50 paragraphs 52‐57, to enable a balanced assessment of the likely effects of the development together with proposals for appropriate control, mitigation and monitoring of such effects.

Development proposals for mineral extraction for export from the Outer Hebrides will be considered against all the criteria listed above together with the impacts on the long term sustainability of the local community and environment. Consideration of such proposals will include examination of the social, economic and environmental impacts of such a development and any benefits that might accrue to the community.

All applications for a Review of a Mineral Permission will, as a minimum, be subject to a requirement for phased site restoration, and aftercare.

The Comhairle will negotiate with developers a fair and reasonable contribution towards the mitigation of impacts on the environment and local amenity arising from proposed development. The contributions will be proportionate to the scale, nature, and impact of the development (including cumulative) and will be addressed through conditions attached to the planning consent, or through a planning agreement if appropriate.

The opportunity to develop new waste management facilities on mineral sites should be considered in line with Policy 8 Waste Management.

*Local need is defined as being for the predominant use within a 10 mile radius of the extraction site.

12.7 The proposed sand extraction would be from a site that is not an existing consented site or recycled source; or the extension of an existing site, or dormant or old workings. The submissions made in support of the proposal, notably that the sand is considered to be of better quality for local building work such as mortaring, have not be supported by a sand analysis despite a request for on 18 May.

12.8 Underlying the identification of Balemartin (labelled as Balelone by BGS) as a sand resource was a study undertaken by the British Geological Survey (BGS) in 1993. This identifies a potential resource of 690,000 tonnes (460,000m3). BGS undertook analyses of the sand at various locations throughout the Western Isles but not, it would seem, on Vallay; hence a request to the applicant for an analysis to enable an objective comparison. In respect to sand from the Hosta and Balelone areas (including Balemartain), the BGS report says “the sand from Balelone is slightly finer grained that that from Hosta, but samples from both meet similar BS specifications, being suitable for rendering-plastering and mortaring…..Extraction should be allowed to continue at Balelone as long as appropriate measures are taken to avoid wind erosion. The sand here is highly valued by the local builders and the resources targeted on the map are large enough to last for up to 230 years at a rate of extraction of 3000 tonnes pa.” A ten-year planning permission for sand extraction from Balelone was granted in August 2007 (07/00343/MIN). The temporary period was “to maintain a measure of control over temporary development in the interest of visual amenity.” Most of the Balelone resource identified by BGS remains unexploited and, given its identification in the OHDLP, any application to renew planning permission is likely to be considered favourably.

12.9 Accordingly overriding operational, environmental, or community reasons for the development of the proposed site at Vallay have not been proved. Similarly the site is not required to support a clearly defined and justified local need or single development.

12.10 Policy 28 – Natural Heritage

Development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site and is not directly connected with or necessary to the conservation management of that site will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment by the Comhairle. Development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site will only be permitted where:

• an Appropriate Assessment has demonstrated that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, or

• there are no alternative solutions, and • there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or

economic nature.

Development that affects a National Scenic Area (NSA), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or National Nature Reserve (NNR) will only be permitted where:

• it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated, or

• any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance.

All Ramsar wetland sites are also Natura sites and/or Sites of Special Scientific Interest and are included in the statutory requirements noted above.

Where there is good reason to suggest that a protected species is present on site, or may be affected by a proposed development, the Comhairle will require any such presence to be established and, if necessary, a mitigation plan provided to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts on the species, prior to determining the application.

Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a European protected species unless the Comhairle is satisfied that:

• there is no satisfactory alternative, and • the development is required for preserving public health or public safety or for other

imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, and

• the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a European protected species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range.

Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 unless the development is required for preserving public health or public safety. For development affecting a species of bird protected under the 1981 Act there must also be no other satisfactory solution.

Applicants should submit supporting evidence for any development meeting these tests, demonstrating both the need for the development and that a full range of possible alternative courses of action have been properly examined and none found to acceptably meet the need identified.

Development affecting the Loch Stiapavat Local Nature Reserve (LNR) should aim to enhance the site and will not be permitted if it will have an unacceptable impact on the features of interest of the site.

In addition to the conditions listed above, developers are encouraged to assess the impacts of their proposed development on UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and habitats and Local BAP habitats and species. Developers should refer to the Scottish Biodiversity List* for a full list of animals, plants and habitats considered to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland (this list includes all UK priority species).

12.11 SNH has said that the proposed sand extraction would have a likely significant effect on the shifting dunes with marram and dune grassland features of the North Uist Machair SAC but, considering the scale of the loss in relation to the extent of these habitats throughout the site and the fact that the vegetation would be reinstated once extraction has ceased, the proposal would not adversely affect the site integrity for these qualifying interests. Similarly, SNH has no objection to the proposal to its impact on the SSSI, SPA and National Scenic Area (NSA) designations that cover the site. It is considered, therefore, that the proposal could, subject to conditions, comply with this policy.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

13.1 Having reviewed the provisions of the Development Plan as detailed above, the proposal is considered to not accord with the Comhairle’s adopted Development Plan.

MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

14.1 Having carried out an assessment against the Development Plan, the Planning Authority requires to identify and consider relevant material planning considerations, for and against the proposal, and assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the Development Plan. The weight to be attached to any relevant material consideration is for the judgment of the decision maker.

14.2 The following are material planning considerations considered relevant to this planning

application:

ENFORCEMENT HISTORY 14.3 Action taken to prevent unlawful commercial extraction of sand from Vallay in 2013 and the

existence of an extant planning permission for sand extraction at Balemartin are material considerations which lend weight to a refusal of this proposal.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

15.1 None.

CONCLUSION

16.1 The proposed sand extraction site is not identified for such in the OHLDP. Balemartin, also in North Uist, is a sand extraction site. Balemartin also has an extant planning permission for sand extraction and unexploited reserves that would allow it to serve the needs of the local community for the foreseeable future.

16.2 The comments submitted by local building contractors in support of the proposal have some weight, but lack scientific evidence to support them. The BGS analysis of sand at Balemartin suggests that it should be suitable for the uses that are claimed in support of the proposal associated with this application. So, in order to provide more substance to the claims that the Vallay sand has properties that make it more suitable for certain building works, the applicant was asked to undertake a sand analysis which would enable an objective comparison. The applicant has declined to do this, which means that insufficient information is available to validate the claims of the sand being of a particular quality that would satisfy a need not met by the existing permitted reserves.

RECOMMENDATION AND REASONS

17.1 It is considered that insufficient justification has been provided to give weight to a decision to approve a proposal that would clearly be contrary to the OHLDP. Crucially, Policy 21 says that “proposals for development outwith the sites listed will require to demonstrate that needs cannot be met from existing consented sites and recycled sources; the extension of existing sites; and the reopening of dormant or old workings…”. The proposal fails to make such a demonstration, in particular because of the ample reserves of sand at the site in the Policy 21 List at Balemartin. Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The applicant’s failure to substantiate claims with objective analysis means that there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify a decision other than in accordance with the OHLDP.

17.2 Further, the site is on an uninhabited island and is within a “Remote Area” for the purposes of Policy 1 (DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY) of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan where proposals for development will only be acceptable where at least one of the following is met: 1. the development is required for reasons of over-riding public interest (including those of an

economic or social nature); 2. a locational need has been demonstrated; 3. it is for, or associated with, the sustainable development of a natural resource; 4. it is for, or associated with, the sustainable development of fish farming in marine or

freshwater environments.

17.3 The proposal would not comply with any of these 4 requirements because: 1. any economic advantage from taking sand from this site would not provide a reason of over-

riding public interest; 2. there is no particular locational need demonstrated for sand to have to be taken from this site; 3. although the proposal is for development of a natural resource, it is not considered a

sustainable use of a mineral resource in the context of there being adequate supplies of the resource in existing consented sites (in particular Balemartin, North Uist, which is nearby); and

4. it is not associated with fish farming in marine or freshwater environments.

17.4 The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons given in Appendix 1 to this Report.

APPENDIX 1

SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED REASONS FOR REFUSAL

Reason 1 The proposal is for mineral development outwith the landbank of permitted reserves

for sand identified by Policy 21 (MINERALS) of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan and the applicant has failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that needs cannot be met from existing consented sites (in particular Balemartin, North Uist, which is nearby) or from an extension to such sites; or that there are overriding operational, environmental, or community reasons for the development of the proposed site; or that this site is required to support a clearly defined and justified local need or single development. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to Policy 21 (MINERALS) of the Outer Hebrides Local Development.

Reason 2 The site is on an uninhabited island and is within a “Remote Area” for the purposes

of Policy 1 (DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY) of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan where proposals for development will only be acceptable where at least one of the following is met:

1. the development is required for reasons of over-riding public interest (including

those of an economic or social nature); 2. a locational need has been demonstrated; 3. it is for, or associated with, the sustainable development of a natural resource; 4. it is for, or associated with, the sustainable development of fish farming in marine

or freshwater environments. The proposal would not comply with any of these 4 requirements because:

1. any economic advantage from taking sand from this site would not provide a reason of over-riding public interest;

2. there is no particular locational need demonstrated for sand to have to be taken from this site;

3. although the proposal is for development of a natural resource, it is not considered a sustainable use of a mineral resource in the context of there being adequate supplies of the resource in existing consented sites (in particular Balemartin, North Uist, which is nearby); and

4. it is not associated with fish farming in marine or freshwater environments.

Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy 1 (DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY) of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan.

APPENDIX 2