PLANNING APPLICATION: 15/00879/APP

In the event that a recommendation on this planning application is overturned the Committee is reminded of the advice contained on the front page of the agenda for Reports on Applications

THE PROPOSAL

Erect new cooperage with disgorging/filling store, cask stores, engineering workshop, office and laboratory and amenity buildings, and warehouses together with associated roads and infrastructure at Macallan Distillery.

The cooperage with disgorging/filling facility is a single building, which is located to the north and west of the proposed warehouses and surrounded by other buildings and parking areas. The southern part of the building is approx. 120 x 20 x 6m (to eaves)/9m (to top of curved roof). At the western end of this part of the building the cooperage area as identified is approx. 40 x 20m. The northern part is approx. 80 x 20 x 6m (to eaves)/9m (to top of curved roof). The curtain glazed western and eastern (end) elevations have one or two roller shutter access doors respectively in each section of the building facing onto external yard areas. The north and south elevations will be finished with dark grey profiled metal roof and wall cladding and dark grey metal louvre facades. A 2-bay tanker island is located along the southern elevation of the cooperage.

2 cask stores are proposed, the larger store is located to the south of the smaller store. Both stores are identical in design and located to the north-west of the cooperage. The smaller cask store is approx. 44 x 18 x 4m (to eaves)/6m (to top of curved roof). The larger store is approx. 70 x 18 x 4m (to eaves)/6m (to top of curved roof). Both cask stores are open-sided except for an approx. 1m band of cladding extending below the eaves line of the north and south elevations. The proposed external material finishes and colours will match the cooperage and disgorging/filling building.

The engineering workshop (with fabrication, process control and fine engineering facilities) is a single building, approx. 70 x 17 x 4m (to eaves)/5.5m (to top of curved roof) and of similar design and material finishes as the other proposed buildings including curtain glazing to eastern (end) elevation. In the west (end) and north (side) elevations, access doors allow entry/exit to the workshop, located to the south and west of the cask stores and the cooperage facility respectively.

The office and laboratory building is located to the north-east of the cooperage and close to the existing site access off the B9102 road. The office and laboratory comprise two buildings connected by a glazed link. A pergola-style glazed canopy extends over the link to form a covered entrance link. The laboratory, approx. 24 x 13 x 3m (to eaves)/4.5m (to top of curved roof), is located to the north of the office building, approx. 35 x 13 x 3m (to eaves)/4.5m (to top of curved roof). The latter includes reception, offices, toilets and meeting rooms, etc. The proposed building design and material finishes of this building will match the other buildings including curtain glazing on the east elevation of the laboratory and the southern elevation of the office building.

The amenity building (with office, shower, meeting and canteen rooms, etc.), approx. 29 x 14 x 3m (to eaves)/4.5m (to top of curved roof), is located to the north-west of the cooperage and between the cask stores (to west) and the

offices/laboratory building and parking area (to east). The building design and material finishes are the same as the other buildings including curtain glazing in the western and eastern (end) elevations.

Ten (10) maturation warehouses are proposed to the south and east of the above noted buildings, and to the west and south of six, similar-sized warehouses already constructed/under construction. Each warehouse is approx. 115.4 x 53.3/58 x 11m (to eaves)/14.5m (to apex ridgeline of roof). The "saw tooth" roof profile reflects the internal sub-division of each warehouse into three sections, within which barrels of distilled product will be stored on racks. Each section of warehouse is accessed by a roller shutter door and several smaller extension details project off the front and rear elevations to accommodate and enclose access stairs and sprinkler/pump houses. The proposed external finishes include green and brown coloured profiled metal cladding to roofs and walls respectively together with facing brick to the base course and lower section (up to approx. 2.5m high) of the front elevation of each warehouse, to match those of the existing warehouse buildings.

A tank farm, enclosed by a 1m high bund wall is located between the cooperage (to north) and the proposed warehouses (to south) with two groups of brushed stainless steel vessels, of 12 and 9 tanks respectively. Each tank is 5m in diameter and 8m high, and connected by a mesh walkway across the top of the tanks. Between the groups of tanks is a large stainless steel tank, approx. 10m in diameter and 8m high, and a flat roofed process building, approx. 10 x 10 x 7.5m, with facing brick and brown metal profiled cladding (to match the warehouses) on the lower and upper sections of the building respectively.

A flat-roofed switch room facility (also referred to as a HV sub-station), approx. 6.6 x 5.5 x 3.3m with a single doorway and vented louvres, is located to the east of the tank farm, to be finished externally in facing brick (to match the existing/proposed warehouses).

A stacker shed, approx. 6.3 x 6.3 x 6.4m (to eaves)/7.4m (to ridgeline) and a flat roofed switch room are proposed between the warehouses. This (additional) switch room is of similar design as the other sub-station, located to the east of the stacker shed, and will be externally finished with cladding and facing brick (to match the existing/proposed warehouses).

Existing vehicle access off B9102 road to be used (which also provides access to the existing warehouse complex), off which internal roads lead to a 6-space visitor parking area and a separate 49-space parking area located to north-east and south-west of the office and laboratory building respectively, to yard areas adjacent to buildings, and around the warehouses.

An existing water supply will be used. Foul drainage will connect to a bio-disc unit for treatment prior to discharge into the surface water drainage system. The proposed surface water disposal arrangements will connect to an existing SUDs pond system which serves the existing warehouse complex, located to the south-east of the existing/proposed warehouses.

Development to be established on two 'platforms', on which 5 new warehouses will be located immediately to the east and south of the existing warehouses and set at the same finished floor level as the existing warehouses (at 150mAOD). The remainder of the development i.e. 5 warehouses and all other (support) buildings will be set at a higher finished floor level (at 153mAOD). At the gatehouse entrance off the B9102 road, the road level will be at 156mAOD.

Earth material excavated within the site to form each platform will be redistributed on the site and re-used to raise and extend the existing earth embankments (or bunds) along and around the south, south-west and west site boundaries, increasing the height of the existing bunds by up to approx. 8 - 10m (max.). The

proposed earth operations will follow similar profiles and gradients as the existing embankment arrangements. The re-structured landform will tie in to the existing embankment feature located along the B9102 road frontage of the site.

Hedge planting is proposed along the road boundary to the site. An existing area of woodland to west of site access will be retained. Around the southern and western sides of the development, new native woodland planting is proposed. In addition, some additional planting is proposed within the site, for example adjacent to the new office and laboratory building and parking areas together with grass seeding between the warehouses.

Application accompanied by supporting information including a Pre-application consultation report, Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement, Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment, Noise Impact Assessment and Transport and Drainage Statements, etc. (see Appendix 2).

THE SITE

Approx. 35ha of former cultivated land, formerly part of Overton Farm and located to north-west and west of the existing Macallan Distillery, and an existing warehouse complex (part constructed).

Site bounded by a minor public road serving the Ringorm area along part of the western boundary and by the B9102 road along the northern boundary, off which access into the site will be taken.

This existing access was formed to serve the existing warehouses to the east and the existing roadway extending along the northern side of the existing and proposed warehouses leads to the existing (and proposed) distillery area.

To the east, the site is bounded by six existing warehouses and around the southern boundary the land drops steeply downhill towards the Burn of Ringorm.

Beyond the site to the southwest, west and north, the land is predominantly agricultural in character with a scatter of residential properties. The closest (three) residential properties, including Overton House are located to the north-west on the opposite side of the B9102 road.

To the east and south of the site works are currently on-going to complete the existing warehouse complex and a new distillery premises.

A biomass heating plant is being constructed in woodland to the north of the site. HISTORY 5 June 2015 - Screening Opinion adopted for current application where, in absence of significant environmental effects, no Environmental Statement required under Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011. 15/00131/PAN - Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) for erect new cooperage disgorging store engineers workshop office laboratory warehousing and associated roads and infrastructure at Macallan Distillery - response (10 February 2015) identifies requirements for consultation with the local community including (in the absence of Speyside Community Council) consultation with Craigellachie, Archiestown and Rothes Village Councils, Aberlour Community Council, Speyside Forum, and Dufftown and District and Strathisla Community Councils with one public event, a "drop in" exhibition to be held at a local public venue before end June 2015.

07/02128/APP - Construct cooperage disgorging area and bonded warehouse storage at Overton Farm Craigellachie - approved 22 January 2008 subject to conditions. (This proposal amended the design and layout details approved under application 07/00520/FUL). 07/00520/FUL - Construct cooperage disgorging area and bonded warehouse storage at Overton Farm Craigellachie - approved 22 August 2007 subject to conditions. For Macallan Distillery (most recent proposals only): 14/00662/APP - Erect new distillery with visitor centre associated landscaping and related works at Macallan Distillery - approved 7 August 2014. 13/02305/APP - Construction of new MBR effluent plant and associated roads and drainage at Macallan Distillery - approved 27 February 2014. On land to the north (with access from B9102): 12/01490/APP - Biomass combined heat and power plant (located approximately 820 metres north of The Macallan Distillery) providing electricity to the grid and heat to The Macallan Distillery at Site at Craigellachie Wood Craigellachie - approved 8 March 2013. POLICY - SEE APPENDIX 1 ADVERTISEMENTS

Advertised for neighbour notification purposes.

Advertised as a departure from the development plan (in relation to former adopted Moray Local Plan 2008).

CONSULTATIONS Building Standards - Building Warrant required. Planning & Development - The proposal is considered to comply with policy (subject to additional information as highlighted) including policy PP1 as a major project capable of having a beneficial impact on both the immediate area and throughout the region. Expansion of the distillery will provide both local and national economic growth, due to the increase in production capabilities, whilst limiting costs and environmental impacts as a result of all stages of production being housed on the site. The proposal complies with Council objectives to deliver an increase in sustainable economic growth whilst moving Moray towards a low carbon economy which is supported by the quality of the built and natural environment. For Policy PP2, the Sustainability Statement is acceptable. The level of landscaping is key to integrating the proposal into the surrounding area. Other aspects such as location and adaptability of buildings are limited due to the nature of the proposal.

In terms of policy ED7 and due to the location of the existing distillery, the proposed development will take place in a rural setting. This is justified by the close proximity of the site to the existing distillery, the lack of other suitable sites in close proximity and the adverse effect that alternative sites would have on the local transport infrastructure. The design, siting and screening of the development is used to minimise the environmental and visual impacts of the development with excavated soil being positioned around the site boundary and planted with trees. To satisfy policy E1, measures should be taken to ensure that there is no adverse effect on the River Spey Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and species during construction or operation of the buildings. For policy E2, the development will not have an adverse effect on the size of the Site of Interest to Natural Science (SINS) designation. For policy EP5 although the existing site includes a SUDs pond, SEPA would like to see a SUDs scheme submitted with the application. For policy EP8, it is assumed that there will be no pollution factors affecting the water being discharged into the River Spey and SEPA recommend a Construction and Environmental Management Plan be submitted. For policy T2, use of the access was dealt with as part application for the new distillery. The developer has sought to deal with each issue raised in Policy IMP1. Environmental Health Manager - No objection subject to conditions where construction works audible on the boundary of any noise sensitive dwelling permitted only between 0700-1900 hours, Monday to Friday and 0700-1600 hours, Saturdays, unless otherwise agreed; submission/approval of a detailed Construction Noise Impact Assessment; cooperage operations audible at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive dwelling permitted only between 0800-1800 hours, Monday to Friday only; rating level of noise not exceed the background sound level by more than 5dBA; and external lighting arrangements to be submitted/approved for both construction and operation of the development. Dust emissions to be controlled to prevent a statutory nuisance. In terms of cumulative construction noise impacts, with the Speyside Biomass development construction phase due to conclude by end March 2016 and the majority of the final construction phases likely to be internal works, it is likely that there will be no significant cumulative construction noise impacts at noise sensitive dwellings arising from construction on both sites. With the new distillery development at a considerable distance from receptors at Overton, noise emissions from those construction works will not significantly increase noise levels. As proposed, the development will bring construction works closer to receptors, hence the construction noise assessment required to mitigate noise as far as reasonably practicable, as well as control times of operation, given the expected duration of construction. It is not uncommon for a preliminary construction noise assessment to be provided at the planning stage and later refined/updated once a contractor is appointed and actual methods of workings and plant equipment are selected. For policy EP8, construction impacts are not viewed as significant permanent impacts. In terms of cumulative operational noise impacts, a condition on the Speyside Biomass development restricts noise operations, in particular at Clachbrake to the west: this receptor (and its noise limit) is in effect the (nearest) property to control and prevent noise levels being significantly exceeded elsewhere. For the new distillery development, a condition constrains noise emissions at nearest noise sensitive dwellings to the south. Other receptors to the north, including dwellings at Overton, approx. 930m distant, have their amenity protected by the limits placed on noise emissions at houses much closer to that development, thus there is no significant additional contribution to noise levels.

Together with cumulative noise considerations, the conditions as recommended seek to minimise noise from this development which, when considered in addition to that already consented, is not considered to impact significantly on residential amenity. The noise conditions recommended here are for the development proposed. It would not be feasible, or likely enforceable, to use cumulative noise limits that take in the identified and already consented developments. Environmental Health, Contaminated Land - No objections/no comments. Environmental Protection Manager - No objections. A proposed path development between Rothes and Craigellachie is being pursued by the local community in Rothes as an aspirational Core Path, to be developed as an active travel route. As the route comes close to the distillery complex, a valid contribution would be towards up-grading the path itself and creating a direct link to/from the distillery complex, to encourage active travel and help to offset the carbon footprint generated by any extra vehicles once the new development is constructed. The local community has developed a path along the old railway but it is currently low key and informal in nature with limited accessibility, hence the desire to up-grade the route to accommodate cycles. At this stage, there are no detailed plans or costings of the path or route. If upgraded, the route would likely become a core path in the future. Transportation Manager - No objection subject to condition regarding a Construction Traffic Management Plan. To ensure the local road network is protected from construction traffic, a Wear and Tear agreement is required. Further information about the changes in traffic numbers resulting from the development indicates no significant increase in traffic volumes from staff (an increase of 18 (from 70 to 88) two-way vehicle movements per day) and no increase in HGV movements (at 288 two-way vehicle movements per day). The proposal will be accessed via the existing (Overton) access onto the B9102, currently the main access for HGV's and staff. The internal roads link the existing production facilities and consented development to the existing warehousing and the proposed development. As the proposal should not generate significant additional traffic, there is no need to consider a further capacity assessment of the road network. Moray Flood Risk Management - Following further information (about the connection to the existing SUDs system), no objection subject to a condition requiring a construction surface water management plan. Scottish Water - No response at time of report. Health & Safety Executive - On safety grounds, HSE does not advise against the granting of planning permission. Scottish Natural Heritage - Natural heritage interests of international importance on the site will not be adversely affected by the proposal. The ecological report confirms that although protected species are present within the wider area they will not be adversely affected by the development of the site. The development occupies a large area of elevated ground above the River Spey and is in close proximity to the River Spey Special Area of Conservation (SAC) boundary, and the

main stem of the river is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The development site will not directly affect the SAC but the risk of sediment running off the construction site could be high in the absence of measures to prevent this. The proposed buildings, once operational, will also change the surface water characteristics of run-off from the land and, if not managed appropriately, could lead to greater volumes of water on site affecting the rates of run-off and sediment reaching watercourses. As there is potential for the species of the SAC to be impacted upon, an appropriate assessment is required from Moray Council in view of the impact upon the SAC's conservation objectives for its (four aquatic) qualifying interests. Based on an appraisal and the applicant's commitment to implement mitigation, the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC site. SEPA is best placed to advise on the management of surface water and pollution control during construction and operation of development, including requirements for a surface water management and a construction environment management plan (CEMP) to address pollution risk. The additional information confirms that the applicant will prepare both plans. If SEPA's recommendations are implemented this should afford protection to River Spey SAC species from pollution and sediment runoff. SEPA - No objections subject to conditions as recommended regarding details of a SUDS scheme, and a site-specific finalised CEMP, to address all potential pollution prevention and environmental management issues related to construction works, and if conditions are not attached then, treat response as an objection. (Note: from subsequent correspondence, SEPA advised that their requirements for further information on both plans can be addressed through planning conditions). From an earlier response, SEPA advise that the SUDs scheme should demonstrate that all surface water is treated appropriately and the CEMP should address a range of matters to ensure there is no impact upon the environment. With the site adjacent to an indicative flood envelope but well elevated above, and with the proposed earthworks to begin from approx. 148mAOD, and therefore above the ground level of the Burn of Ringorm at approx. 136mAOD, the proposed development is unlikely to be situated within the functional flood plain hence, there is no objection to the proposal on flood risk grounds. In addition, additional measures may be required under the new COMAH 2015 Regulations to demonstrate that all measures necessary have been taken to prevent major accidents and to limit their consequences for human health and the environment. In addition, the foul discharge will require prior authorisation from SEPA under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR) (as amended). Aberdeenshire Archaeology Services - No objection subject to a condition to safeguard and record the archaeological potential of the area i.e. a programme of archaeological works to be implemented in accordance with a written scheme for investigation and recording and recovery of archaeological resources. The application occupies an area in proximity to the archaeology site where in 2007 investigations revealed archaeological features. Developer Obligations Unit - No comments. No core path contributions sought because any contribution would not meet the policy tests as set out in Circular 3/2012.

OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS NOTE: Following the determination of this application, name and address details will be/have been removed (i.e. redacted) in accordance with the Data Protection Act (paragraph 3 of Minute, Planning & Regulatory Services Committee 16 September 2014). 2 representations in OBJECTION, both received from

T and G Barry, Overton House Craigellachie Aberlour AB38 9SA ADVERTISEMENT

Application incorrectly advertised with wrong closing date for objections and a corrected notice was published on 5 June 2015.

The notice stated that the development is contrary to development plan policy (the 2008 Local Plan) but the application may be determined under (the yet to be implemented) new Local Plan meaning the notice would be incorrect with policies not being all the same or having the same numbering.

With advertisement [August 2015] the proposal is no longer stated as contrary to local plan policies. Whilst very unfortunate that the application was originally advertised under the 2008 local plan (upon which original comments were assessed), now been superseded by the new local plan, this is to the total disadvantage of lay persons trying to object in terms of the very limited time given to assess all new policies and all new documents.

There are no material changes to the relevant local plan policies such that the application suddenly ceases to be contrary to the policy. The significant change in status of the application is questioned even though, for a number of important policies, the Local Plans Section has responded simply with a "?" in respect of whether the application accords with the policy.

The application itself specifically refers to the development being contrary to the local plan in a number of respects. The applicant confirms this to be the case.

Whilst questioning the legality of the recent advertisement, convinced that the application remains contrary to the new policies in a number of important respects, including those in relation to Overton House, particularly as the proposed development remains unchanged.

Comment (PO): The incorrect date of the (first) advertisement (June 2015) was rectified and the advertisement was re-published. Later, a (second) advertisement (August 2015) afforded an opportunity to comment on the supporting information submitted at that time. Upon submission of the application (May 2015) the former development plan was in force, but then superseded by the Moray Local Development Plan 2015 (adopted 31 July 2015). Whether or not disadvantaged by the introduction of a new plan or the additional information provided, this has not prejudiced the objectors from submitting comments on the proposal. From the date of adoption all applications must be determined in accordance with the adopted Moray Local Development Plan 2015. The (second) advertisement did not continue to regard the proposal as a departure from the development plan because the basis of the first advertisement, based upon a premise that the development was located within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), was not correct. Thus to continue any further (second) advertisement on the same basis would not have been appropriate. Whilst the objectors are entitled to their opinions and interpretations on the application, including the content and quality of the submission, their comments about the applicant’s confirmation that the development is contrary to the development plan does not match statements in their Planning Statement (Appendix 2)

which support the proposal and/or state that the proposal satisfies or meets with planning policy. APPLICATION INCOMPLETE

Application would appear to be incomplete. It does not include vitally important details appropriate to a major planning application, such as a Noise Impact Assessment, a Transport Assessment and a substantial, if not formal, Environmental Impact Assessment.

A Noise Impact Assessment has been requested but no details are available. The applicant's state that no Transport Assessment will be submitted and refer to a document submitted for a previous application which is not accessible online. It is unacceptable to refer to application details that are not available to the public for comment upon and the legality of doing so is questioned.

The period for comment should be extended on receipt of these vital details missing from the application.

The original application did not include many of the important details required for a major application in view of the location and development being contrary to local plan policies, as evidenced by the Environmental Health and Transportation Service responses, and the belated and grudging submission of the supporting Planning Statement. It is also obvious that even this additional information does not address the issues raised in the submitted Transport Statement, which is still flawed, and the Noise Impact Assessment.

Comment (PO): A further period for comment on the supporting information was afforded in August 2015. The objectors are entitled to suggest information that should be submitted but this is a matter for the Council, as planning authority to determine. Ideally, all supporting information should be provided at the time of submitting the application but, in this case, following initial consideration and consultation, further information was required/requested, and thereafter consultees have sought further detail to clarify or supplement information previously provided. The Transport Statement (not Assessment), as submitted (in August 2015) included the Transport Statement from the earlier distillery application and both documents were made accessible online. The basis on which the objectors regard the submission of the Planning Statement (and later, the Transport Statement) as being "grudging" is not stated. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE

The somewhat misleading report (24 March 2015 Committee) incorrectly states that "the applicants confirmed their intent to hold a public event in June 2015" prior to submitting the application.

The report omits any mention that the application was contrary to several Local Plan policies, giving an extremely biased representation of the situation in favour of the proposals.

The applicant appears not to have taken any of the comments/concerns from Councillors McConachie and Paul into consideration when submitting the application, as finalised at the public exhibition in March. Have these issues been raised/discussed with the applicant as specifically instructed by members?

Comment (PO): The March 2015 report is not misleading: it reports the information presented by the applicant, including their stated intention to hold a public event in June 2015 (although the event was held on 26 March 2015). The objectors misunderstand the purpose of the Committee report, which is to inform members about information contained within a Proposal of Application Notice and to allow members to identify any provisional views/relevant issues about the proposed development. The report does not comment on whether the proposal is contrary to the development plan - a matter for assessment during

consideration of the formal application once submitted. Member's views on the proposal were made known to the applicant: Appendix 2, Document 1 is the applicant's response to the views/issues raised by members. ACCESS TO THE SUPPORTING PLANNING STATEMENT

After seeing the advertisement in the Northern Scot (21 August 2015), the document was not available to view online until very late on that date, it could not be accessed despite the other documents being accessible, and once accessible it took over 20 minutes to open, which is not acceptable. There was a recent instance whereby no planning documents could be viewed for a period of time, so whilst appreciating that there may have been problems with the online planning system, the full entitlement of time to view and comment on the new documents was curtailed.

Comment (PO): The remarks about documents not being accessible upon the date of publication of the advertisement are not correct. All documents including the Planning Statement were accessible online on the day before publication, and verified as such from an external source (by the planning case officer) on both 20 and 21 August with no difficulty experienced in viewing the details. The documents are less than recommended file size standards to facilitate display. The Council cannot comment on the objectors’ computer settings and download speeds. SCREENING OPINION

Cannot understand why a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not required for this major application, particularly with the new EU Directive 2014/52/EU adopted by UK and Scottish Governments, which demonstrate that the current requirements/assessments are not adequate for such applications.

A relatively limited environmental assessment has been submitted but is full of inaccuracies and misleading information. We question this document and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) for not raising any issues or questions on it at all, despite this huge loss of undeveloped rural land and the significant effect on wildlife, including protected species, in this location.

This application represents the largest greenfield development of farmland and sensitive rural landscape for many decades in Moray (notwithstanding the cumulative effect with the previously approved developments underway) yet the regulations are interpreted such that no EIA was required at all, which seems completely at odds with the aims of the legislation.

The Planning Service has stuck firmly to this view in respect of all of the major development applications related to this distillery over the last 8 years. This decision seems even more perverse now, particularly in view of the EU's revised advice and directions, and SNH's own guidance.

Developments involving storage of chemical products require an EIA in every case. This is not being applied to the storage of alcohol within the warehouses, not to mention any chemical storage related to the proposed laboratory, and to quote the guidance "....the fact that a particular type of development is not listed specifically within one of the categories of projects in the Directive does not imply that it is exempt." It goes on to say that the categories of projects should be read in a way that favours application of the Directive rather than avoiding its effects.

The guidance indicates that the issue of the cumulative effect of surrounding and associated developments should also be taken into account when assessing the environmental effects. The Opinion should have taken all of the developments related to this distillery together in coming to a decision on whether EIA is required, and not avoid the intention of the Directive by looking at this development in

isolation. This could also have included the cumulative effects of the associated incinerator development which is directly and physically linked to the distillery.

There is no mention of the proximity to Overton House and the potential significant adverse and permanent environmental impacts on our property. The statement that the proposal "...is likely to be seen as an extension to the existing adjoining cooperage facility..." is completely untrue. There is no such building within the distillery because the approved cooperage was never built. The Council's legal opinion on this matter is welcomed as we believe that this screening opinion was not competently determined.

Comment (PO): The EU Directive as quoted does not come into force until 2017 and the Scottish Government has yet to decide how the Directive will be implemented. Regardless of whether the proposal is a major application, involves a huge loss of greenfield rural land, protected species/habitats are present or a development is located in proximity to a specific property, EIA procedures are required where significant environmental effects are likely to occur. Having regard to the current EIA Regulations (2011), including descriptions of development (which are not exhaustive) and applicable thresholds and criteria, together with consideration of both the character and location of the development and its potential impact characteristics, the Council adopted a Screening Opinion that confirmed that no EIA procedures are required. The Opinion considered both the individual impact of the proposal and cumulative effects of the development in association with other developments, including an "erratum" added later to the Opinion to confirm that the reference to "existing cooperage" refers to the whole development approved under application 07/02128/FUL (which could still be built if this current development were not to progress). The Opinion concluded that the proposal was not immediately obvious as a Schedule 1 or 2 development (where EIA is mandatory or discretionary respectively). However, to reflect EIA requirements (as encouraged by the current, let alone by future, regulations), a precautionary approach was adopted by taking a wider interpretation of the proposal as being, at best, a Schedule 2 development and consideration was given to both individual and cumulative effects. The biomass plant (not an incinerator), new distillery and existing warehouse developments were themselves not subject to EIA requirements. SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT

This major development is huge and totally out of scale in this hitherto peaceful, unspoiled, undeveloped and highly important ecologically sensitive landscape and rural environment.

Put into perspective, the floor space for this application alone is well over twice the total floor space of all of the Council's industrial premises in the whole of Moray, and those are rightly sited in or near larger population area usually well away from housing.

Comment (PO): Irrespective of actual scale or scale of the proposal, and even without EIA requirements, the impact of the proposal has been assessed. Rather than undeveloped, the development site has been disturbed as part of the adjoining warehouse development, for example in terms of alterations to ground levels and provision of bunding and planting. Contrary to the objectors’ views, and based on investigation, the applicant regards the ecological value of the site as low. SNH has not disputed this assessment and they also conclude that any ecological sensitivity will not be adversely affected. The site is not specifically designated in terms of scenic or other quality. National and local plan policy generally support rural business, in some cases relocation of traditional

business may not be feasible, and loss of (agricultural) land can be considered where directly linked to rural business LOCATION

The proposed development including the cooperage, office & research facilities is immediately right in front of Overton House. It will completely destroy uninterrupted and unique views across open farmland to Ben Rinnes. The environmental effects on our lives and home cannot possibly be mitigated.

The applicant states that this location is the best operational option for its business without stating any alternative options actually considered. There is no reference to any new jobs being created from this huge development but aware that at least one job has recently been lost from the existing distillery due to the current developments already underway.

There is no cooperage in the Macallan site currently: this would be relocated from another site in Rothes and similarly the offices and research facilities are being relocated although there are no clear details of this in the application.

There are absolutely no over-riding reasons for disregarding this massive loss of until-recently operational farmland and the destruction of such a huge area of this important rural landscape, particularly purely on spurious economic development grounds. Whilst appreciating that economic development is a priority of the Council that cannot be at any cost.

Comment (PO): Planning permission exists for a cooperage on the application site. Loss of view is not a material planning consideration. Together with a locational justification for rural development advocated within national and local policy, including Policy ED7, the applicant's Planning Statement sets out the justification for the development where economic and employment benefits of business are regarded as a material consideration in support of the proposal. The proposals afford the ability to concentrate increased distillery production and storage capacity (and support facilities) at a single location associated with an established whisky producer. The supporting information does not indicate employment numbers arising from the development. The objectors’ property is neither the nearest property nor "right in front" of the development but rather, it is off-set and located to the north west of the development although it does have a direct view across the western edge of the site. Direct views between the property and the development are/will be, at least in part, masked or obstructed by the existing and proposed earth embankment (or bund) and planting arrangements around the northern, western (and southern) boundary. The nearest building within the site is the smaller cask store where, at approx. 80m distant to the south east, and 6m tall and having a finished floor level approx. 6m below the high point of the bund (before planting) it would not be visible. In more south easterly views towards the site, the upper parts of some but not all buildings (in particular the warehouses) would be visible where seen to project above the height of the proposed earth bund but in time they would be masked by the proposed planting arrangements. Looking "right in front" of their property is the road (at the same finished level as that for the support buildings) with the proposed hedgerow boundary around the site (at approx. 40m distant), the top of the embankment (at approx. 70m distant, about 6m above road level (but 10m lower than the top of the embankment which extends southwards along the western boundary), the western end the Engineers Workshop (at approx. 120m distant, 5.5m tall) and the north facing (gable) end of the westernmost warehouse (at 190m

distant, 14.5m tall). The proposals would disrupt the views or outlook towards the more distant hills well beyond the site. If a more oblique south-easterly view/outlook is adopted from the objectors' property then, as noted above, further parts of the development may become evident although direct views are obstructed by the existing and proposed boundary embankment and planting arrangements. DESIGN/VISUAL IMPACT

As admitted by Macallan's UK Engineering Manager, the warehouses are basic, unattractive, functional industrial storage units and they do not comply with the appropriate high design standard required under ED8 (of 2008 Local Plan).

Although a member of the Committee that approved the previous warehouses here, Councillor McConachie stated at the March 2015 Committee meeting that he "wasn't proud of that decision" due to their unsympathetic appearance in terms of materials and colours etc. The applicant appears to have ignored these concerns, and plans a large number of identical warehouses in an even more visually prominent location.

At the public event the applicant's answer was that part of the development would be hidden from Overton House by a huge new earth mound and planting right in front of Overton House, along with the beautiful views. The full visual impact of these huge tall ugly industrial buildings will be visible right in front of Overton House including its first floor windows and views of a huge pile of earth and tops of buildings from ground floor windows.

The details and plans appear to have effectively "airbrushed" out any clear reference to Overton House and two neighbouring houses located right next to this development.

Any mention of the massive adverse visual impact of this development on Overton House is hidden deep inside the lengthy supporting documentation [the Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)], presumably an attempt to bamboozle Members into forgetting that residents and homes will be irreconcilably affected by this development.

Comment (PO): Although not appearing on every drawing, the presence and proximity of the development to more than one property to the north west of the site, including that occupied by the objectors, has not been forgotten about whether from site inspection and by reference to it in supporting documents (Appendix 2). For example, the LVIA acknowledges that from the elevated ground and property to the north and west (although the objectors' property and two adjacent house are less elevated than others), the upper sections (including roofs) of buildings in particular the warehouses will be evident and although their impact will not be completely mitigated, the earth bunds and planting will reduce the visual impact on residential amenity. Loss of view is not a material planning consideration. The supporting documents acknowledge the functional design and appearance of the warehouses. For rural business development, current (and former) policy does not stipulate "high standard" but requires "strict control" over design and layout matters. The proposed warehouse design including external appearance, materials and colours is the same as that previously accepted/approved for the adjoining warehouses. From the March 2015 Committee's comments, the issue raised was about alternative finishes in particular metal cladding using green or grey instead of brown. Whilst the drawings continue the same finishes as previously approved (and are regarded as fit for purpose) the LVIA recommends darker tone colours to assist the integration of the development in the landscape. This would be most appropriate for buildings on the upper development platform formed within the site.

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ASSESSMENT

The LVIA devotes much detail to views from the Spey and other areas well away from the applications site before making any reference to Overton House, despite it being the closest and most directly affected property. It acknowledges that Overton House is the most sensitive visual receptor of the development and the major and significant visual impact on from the development. However this totally misrepresents and under-states the actual and devastating scale of this impact on Overton House despite admitting this to be major and significant.

The cumulative visual impact from the current warehouse extension and the incinerator developments have also been completely dismissed and misrepresented in this application, all very clearly visible from inside and outside Overton House. The current application creates a further cumulative adverse visual impact to us.

In the LVIA (page 38, 10.10 & 10.12) the section relating to Overton House is completely (and intentionally) misleading.

The viewpoint is taken at ground level from the western boundary of Overton House, furthest away from Overton House looking east almost obliquely away from the site. Overton House including its living rooms and main first floor bedrooms face directly and square onto site, this being their predominant aspect. The representative viewpoint should have been taken square onto the application site from directly in front of our house.

Overton House is 2 storey yet nowhere is it appreciated that with the construction of a massive earth bund right in front of Overton House will blot out all views and probably much light to the downstairs rooms. There would be uninterrupted views over the development from the bedrooms which will consequently be overlooked from the development, including the intrusive and extensive lighting facing the property.

Overton House has already suffered the views of the contractor's compound with 2-storey portacabins and floodlighting shining straight into bedroom and living room windows both night and day at times over the last two years during the construction of the warehouses. The bedrooms have experienced reflective glare from the existing warehouses on many occasions. The bunding, repeatedly referred to as adequate mitigation by the applicant, would be completely useless in relation to our house despite the repeated assertion that this enormous bund will mitigate the visual effects of the development - complete rubbish!!!!

The concept is wholly flawed due to the inaccuracies and untruths in the submitted LVIA, with particular reference to Overton House.

Very wary of the local planning authority's local track record when you clearly see the visual impact of the incinerator development over a considerable distance when coming east from Archiestown, despite assurances that it would be unobtrusive and adequately screened. The newer distillery warehouses are also extremely prominent even from Aberlour, where again there were assurances that these would be unobtrusive, despite being constructed right at the top of the hill on this prominent skyline.

Comment (PO): The nearest (existing) warehouse is approx. 370m distant from Overton House. The LVIA examines the impact of the proposal from a variety of locations both close to the development (including Overton House) and from further afield. From locations close to the site it acknowledges that from Overton House and the higher ground to the north and west, the views afforded of the development (if not mitigated) would be moderate and/or major adverse, and having acknowledged that the impact of the warehouses cannot be fully mitigated, the proposed mitigation measures are designed to

reduce the impact on visual amenity. The cumulative impact of the development in relation to other development is considered but irrespective of whether other developments are seen in the same view, the LVIA concludes that no significant adverse effects occur owing to intervening distance, topography and vegetation factors. Irrespective of whether a viewpoint should be oblique or square on to a property, the viewpoint illustrates the view from the chosen location towards the development and in this case it reflects views of both residential and road users. The view from "right in front" of the objectors’ property is described above. Loss of view is not a material consideration and taking account of orientation, separation distances, differences in levels and heights and the proposed arrangements no significant loss of light is considered to occur. It is debateable whether the support buildings "overlook" the objectors' property. In terms of their orientation, none face directly towards the property and being set at a level below the top of embankment, the outlook and views from any opening window and door openings, or from the circulation space around the buildings towards the property are obstructed by the planted earth bund. The upper sections of any walls within the new warehouses (at 190m (min) distant) may face towards the objectors' property but do not contain any openings which overlook that property. The basis of an assessment that the proposed lighting effects will be intrusive and extensive is perhaps speculative, and is made without the benefit of any lighting details being presented. Written intentions for low level lighting between buildings rather than around the exterior of the site suggests a lesser impact. At the time of considering both the biomass plant and the existing warehouses, it was accepted for the biomass plant that elements of the development would remain visible (and that that impact would progressively reduce with maturity of the surrounding woodland, etc.). Similarly for the warehouses, and whilst parts would be visible, the proposed earth works and planting (with maturity) would provide a screen to minimise the impact. Neither development was regarded as having an unacceptable or significant environmental (landscape, visual or other) impact. OPERATIONAL STAGE

The applicant states that existing views over open farmland and rural countryside, with uninterrupted views to Ben Rinnes, will be significantly altered. This is a massive understatement as the whole outlook from Overton House will be devastated without any realistic possibility of mitigation - regardless of the efforts of the applicant to bamboozle everyone to the contrary.

The LVIA does at least admit the real wholesale effect on Overton House and home environment but it offers absolutely no prospect of reducing any of the adverse impacts to a reasonable or acceptable level, the House and occupants being merely dismissed as collateral damage in this drive to permit all development by this applicant at any cost to our existing amenity and the destruction of such a massive area of farmland and scenic rural landscape.

Comment (PO): The LVIA acknowledges the change in landscape and outlook resulting from the development although mitigation is identified and included, for example attention to building colours, excavation to reduce on-site ground levels (thus lowering the finished floor level of all buildings onto two development "platforms") and the establishment and maturation of the embankments and planting arrangements, etc. By implementing these measures and acknowledging that parts of the development will remain visible the LVIA considers that the residual effects on the landscape and visual resource including residential amenity will be reduced.

CUMULATIVE VISUAL ASSESSMENT

Unfortunately, the LVIA (Section 10) relating to Overton House is completely untrue. Bedrooms in Overton House can clearly see the recent warehouses but also the incinerator chimney from rear windows and from the garden (even before it is operating when the emissions will make it even more noticeable). The applicant has not even thought to consider the actual outlook from Overton House over the existing surrounding major developments.

It is untrue to state that there is no cumulative effect from the committed developments. We demand that this statement is clearly corrected as a matter of fact before this application is determined.

Comment (PO): The LVIA has considered cumulative impact but reaches a different conclusion about the significance of impact from that interpreted by the objectors. The LVIA does not need to be corrected: it assesses cumulative impact but concludes that the development in association with other developments does not result in significant adverse cumulative effect. The LVIA explains that owing to factors such as intervening distance, landform (topography) and vegetation cover (including the latter maturing over time) assist in mitigating the effects of these developments where they appear in the same views. RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

At Section 13.1 - .10, the LVIA admits "major" adverse impacts on Overton House by this development, even disregarding the fact that the mitigation will be completely useless!

Comment (PO): The LVIA acknowledges that both without and with mitigation, the significance of the impact of the development on the identified property would be major with views of any buildings and bunding/planting arrangements resulting in both a change in the landscape and affecting existing views. The LVIA considers the mitigation measures including bunding and planting are intended to reduce the impact upon the surrounding area including visual amenity of neighbouring property. The objectors do not agree/accept that any mitigation will be effective. CONSTRUCTION STAGE

The references to the relatively high visual impact during the construction stage does not mention the fact that the scheme will be a 10 years construction project (minimum) as confirmed at the PAN exhibition!

Comment (PO): The submissions make no mention of the total length of the construction period, although the noise assessment information suggests establishing relationships with the local community where construction periods last beyond 6 months. The LVIA does acknowledge that during construction activity including earth moving operations will be noticeable and recommends early establishment of the new landform and planting to reduce the effects of the development. SUPPORTING PLANNING STATEMENT

At para 3.2, the warehousing materials and colours are stated to match those of the existing warehouses. Councillor McConachie's concerns appear to have been ignored with no confirmation received of whether the issues raised by members were provided to the applicant in accordance with the Planning Service's own procedure.

At para 3.3 there is no mention anywhere of what options were considered for the additional accommodation required. It is not sufficient to state that this site has been chosen without stating good overriding reasons why such a massive

development should be approved within this hitherto undeveloped rural farm and scenic landscape site.

The applicant acknowledges that the site is not identified for this development and the new local plan does not even include or zone this area as a potential development site, so presumably the local planning authority did not consider this site for commercial/industrial development, unlike a proposed zoning of land for the potential extension at Glen Grant Distillery, Rothes which was explicitly considered within the preparation of the local plan.

The simple operational convenience and economic benefits solely for the applicant are not themselves overriding reasons to have to locate this development here.

From para 3.4, there is no justification of the location of these additional facilities, particularly noisy and large traffic-generating activities proposed so close to Overton House. The access itself has grown massively since it was enlarged 2 years ago and will now provide vehicular access to the whole distillery site over the next few years due to the closure of the main access road. This has led to many instances of severe noise nuisance due to the increased vehicle traffic using the new access, including heavy lorries and construction traffic sometimes night and day.

From para 3.5, full details of surface water drainage should have been submitted as part of the application yet the planning officer seems happy to put these details to one side and deal with these as conditions to be addressed after the event, meaning there is no opportunity to see these details or have any right to scrutinise or comment on them. In view of the further responses from SEPA and the Flood Risk Management Service, the applicant has still not provided sufficient and requisite details of all of the drainage elements.

From the Flood Risk Team comments, no consideration appears to have been made in this application to ensure that properties off site (i.e. Overton House) is protected against flooding from the development and the wider site.

It cannot be acceptable for such a major development, not linked to public drainage services and within a site close to, and discharging into, the River Spey, that these details have still not been dealt with or submitted as part for the application prior to its determination.

From para 3.6, the bunding will provide no mitigation whatsoever visually or in any other way for Overton House.

Comment (PO): The objectors' remarks relate to the single (opening) section of the Planning Statement headed 'The Proposal'. Had the document been considered further before making comment the objectors would have noted that Document 1 (as appended to the Planning Statement) responds to members' comments (therefore it would have been evident that members' comments had been forwarded to the applicant for consideration), and that the applicant's reasons for the chosen site are set out in subsequent parts of the Planning Statement (which is an acknowledgement that the site is not specifically designated for the proposed use). The site is not designated as being a scenic landscape (as evident from the LVIA). The access off the B9102 road exists, having been up-graded as part of earlier developments at the site, and it is considered safe and suitable for increased use both as part of the new distillery proposal and for this current development. SEPA and Moray Flood Risk Management do not object to the proposal in terms of flood risk, whether to the development itself or to elsewhere but both recommend conditions to address outstanding surface water issues including the management of surface water during the construction period once a contractor has been appointed and working methods and practices are known. This will ensure that no unacceptable effects occur, for example to the River Spey.

PLANNING POLICY

In the local plan there is no specific positive policy context for this development in this location.

The applicant is very selective in picking and choosing extracts from both the Scottish Government policy guidance and the local plan. All of the policies are tempered by the overriding intent and duty to protect the natural environment and protected species etc. both of which are relevant to the site.

There is no information on what locations/options were considered to fully justify development on this site such as to over-ride all other policy issues.

The design and siting of these buildings are not appropriate. The applicant admits that the warehouses are not of a high visual quality or architectural merit and are purely designed as functional warehouses despite the normal requirements for buildings in such an extremely sensitive and prominent rural landscape setting. The direct response from discussions with the applicant was that they were ugly buildings due to the practical requirements of their use, but they were fine as they would have a big bund around them so we would not see them! We have dispelled the applicant's deceit in this respect.

The new distillery is already being developed without any approval for this further extension. Any notion that refusal of this further massive expansion would lead to consideration of relocation of the business, or loss of the current distillery investment on site is pure rubbish and bluster by the applicant simply to intimidate the local planning authority into accepting all of its demands.

No location options considered have ever been revealed by the applicant, despite EIA guidance that they should be. No overriding locational need has in fact clearly and sufficiently been demonstrated or proven.

Comment (PO): Matters regarding a locational justification for this development are set out in the Planning Statement and elsewhere in this report, including reference to the justification to policy ED7 which acknowledges that alternative locations for traditional and established rural business may not always be realistic. The requirements for considering alternative locations differ for planning and EIA purposes and in any event, the Council is required to determine the application based on the location of the application as defined. Whilst the proposal is part of a concentration of the distilling process (production and storage and support facilities) at a single location and planning policy supports business, the need to safeguard the environment is also required. Mitigation is proposed/required to reduce any environmental impacts that occur. LOSS OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND

The proposal assumes that the loss of such a large amount of usable farmland is justified for expansion of the distillery. It does not take account of the scale of land lost to farming use and that it is going to be concreted over and lost forever to the proposed industrial use.

We trust that the local planning authority actually undertakes its own checks on the soil types present.

Much of the land close to Overton House was in fact farmed until only the last 2 or 3 years and we have watched the harvesting etc. over several years beforehand. This proposal does not consider the cumulative loss of farmland not only for the expansion of the distillery over the last few years but also for the incinerator development. It is not acceptable to continue to consider the loss of the farmland for each new development separately in order to misrepresent the whole picture of just how much greenfield land is being concreted over.

The scale, building coverage, design and layout of the development is admitted to be heavily influenced by the use of the buildings but cannot reasonably be argued to be of high quality, or appropriate or compatible within the context of this prominent open landscape. It would lead to an extremely high proportion of building coverage across the whole of the applicant's estate with the commensurate loss of this prominent and important landscape, notwithstanding all of the adverse effect on the existing natural and built environments. The applicant states that it cannot design this development in accordance with the normal requirements and methodology for a major development in such a rural setting.

The development gives rise to a significant loss of valuable farmland which would more appropriately used for farming purposes for which there is a great demand and for which is was used until recently.

Comment (PO): The assessment of soil types to determine the quality of agricultural land is made with reference to a recognised data set. Were analysis undertaken, land quality would likely vary across the site but here the land has already been taken out of production and disturbed by the adjoining warehouse development including earth bunds and planting. Relative to the total resource available, the proposal would not sterilise significant workable agricultural land and since taken out of production, there is no evidence to demonstrate that such loss has been harmful to agricultural production. The objectors' remarks about the alternative use for the land are noted but regardless of whether this is an alternative use for the land, the Council is required to determine the proposal as submitted. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT in particular the Ecological Survey

The area is within or adjacent a designated Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), depending on how you view the fact that this is an extension of the distillery site which already includes part of the AGLV, and the visual impact on such a sensitive area will be very significant visually.

Of equal importance is the devastating effect on a very rich and diverse wildlife habitat, the site being home to a diverse ecosystem full of a variety of wildlife enjoyed and watched over many years and with many different types of birds and animals present on or around this site including deer, hares, several birds of prey, curlews, bats and badgers. Despite such evidence of wildlife present regularly within or around the application site, there are absolutely no details of the impact of the development on the local wildlife. This is absolutely criminal when assessing the loss of such a huge area of open land within this sensitive rural environment.

We have serious issues with the submitted Ecological Survey Report and its conclusions. The bio-diversity of the site, particularly the existing wildlife present, has been totally underestimated and indeed misrepresented. Although the report appears to have involved a single survey on 31 July 2015, much of the report refers to historic survey and desktop information. The thoroughness of a survey undertaken on one day only over such a large rural site is questioned, with the need to also assess all of the adjacent sites for signs of wildlife etc.

Living next to the site and having taken a great interest in the environment and the local wildlife we know from experience just how many species are present in and around this site including protected species such as bats, which we watch feeding around Overton House and across the site, and badgers as well as witnessing red squirrel, deer, hares and countless bird species in and around the site including skylarks, curlews and raptors. In addition to the more common species referred to, aware of otter activity in the vicinity but not lucky enough to witness this, although our neighbours have.

We refuse to accept that the loss of this land to development will not displace many of the activities of the plentiful local wildlife or not seriously impact upon them, as seems to be claimed.

Having already seen significant displacement of wildlife from the recent surrounding developments, how much more impact some of the local species can endure from further massive loss of land to industrial development?

SNH appears to accept the applicant's statements without any of its own checks or investigations, and probably without even visiting the site. In the circumstances, we do not believe that this is appropriate, particularly having already proved a number of factual inaccuracies and untruths within the application documents, and know from actually living here for many years that many of the assertions, particularly on wildlife, are simply not correct.

There should be some proper scrutiny of the information by the local planning authority and by SNH, who is responsible for protecting the natural environment and not just allowing large sensitive rural areas to be lost to industrial development and taking the word of the applicant without any question that it would not have any impact on the local environment.

Comment (PO): The site is not designated in terms of its scenic or landscape quality. Whereas the existing/proposed distillery to the south east of the site is located within an AGLV, this proposed development on upper slopes above the River Spey is located outwith the AGLV. As noted, the required/proposed mitigation measures including bunding and planting seek to reduce the landscape and visual effects of the development upon the surrounding area. In terms of ecology, the issue is not about whether or not species are present on the site or its vicinity but rather about whether the development is likely to have a significant adverse effect on such interests and whether any identified effects can be mitigated. The Ecological Survey confirms the low ecological value of the site (Appendix 2). SNH consider that although protected species may be present, no adverse impact occurs. They also advise that it is not unusual for surveys to be conducted on a single date (although some sites take longer) and it is both standard and good practice to include details of previous surveys and to undertake a desk based review. The report identifies that the site and wider area is home to a variety of species, some but not all are afforded protection, with signs of species being outwith the site and at sufficient distance to reasonably conclude that construction on site will not damage or destroy places of shelter or disturbance. Other species, if disturbed, may return if suitable habitats for foraging and shelter are provided. Whilst no development is without impact, SNH considers that the report indicates that serious impacts are avoided and whilst site visits are not always undertaken (as it is the applicant's role to undertake site investigation work) this can be supplemented by local knowledge. SNH also point out that where information is presented which is considered inaccurate or lacking in detail, they will request additional information which they has not been required in this case. TRANSPORTATION AND ROAD SAFETY

The application shows a significant amount of additional parking spaces for the development all sited close to Overton House, in addition to parking/manoeuvring for heavy goods vehicles yet there are no details of the additional traffic generation on or around the site and no Transport Assessment.

It is understood that the Highway Authority is concerned about the obstruction to site lines at the junction of the adjacent Elchies road due to the proposed huge earth mound around the site boundaries. It is assumed that further details will be requested in that respect, another example of the unacceptable lack of details

included within the application for such a major development and again unable to counter specific details which have not been made available for public scrutiny.

It is hoped that the appropriate details are actually demanded from and provided by the applicant before the application is determined. We cannot comment fully on this totally inadequate document which has been belatedly and grudgingly submitted by the applicant but which does not address any of the queries from the Transportation Service.

It is not acceptable for the applicant to keep referring to the Transport Statement [TS] approved for a separate development, which clearly does not relate to the current development proposal (and was not published). A TS has now been submitted albeit confirmed as totally unacceptable because it relates to a different application/development.

We trust that the requested information will be forthcoming and assume there will be an opportunity to scrutinise and comment on it.

We have specific concerns about the large car parking area proposed for the office building close to Overton House, the significant increase in heavy, staff and visitor traffic to and from the access near Overton House, and the considerable increase in vehicle movements within the development due to potential noise, fumes and other nuisances, during and after construction. It is the applicant's intention that this will be a 24/7 all year round operation, let alone the effects from the 10+ year development programme.

We have suffered considerable construction traffic noise nuisance from the recently completed warehouses, and also from the on-going incinerator development, without the Council willing or able to resolve our complaints about these noise nuisances on any previous occasion, even though these sites are significantly more distant that this application site.

Comment (PO): The TS as originally submitted referred to, but did not include, the TS for the distillery application: this was included within a revised TS for the current application. The Transportation Service has sought further information about traffic movements, in particular the scale of additional traffic not previously accounted for in the distillery application. The increased use of the existing B9102 access (as already modified as part of the earlier warehouse development) and other off-site road improvements were approved as part of the new distillery proposal, at which time there were no representations or objections from consultees and the public to the planned increased use of the access. A small but not significant increase in use of the access occurs from this development with no additional on- or off-site improvements required/proposed, and no significant adverse effects are predicted in terms of noise levels from any increased traffic associated with this proposal. The parking areas and access are located approx. 140m and 230m distant (min) from the objectors' property but separated from, and screened by. the existing and/or proposed raised landform and planting arrangements around the site boundary. NOISE, and LIGHT POLLUTION including effects on residential amenity

There will be an unacceptable noise impact on Overton House from this development both in construction and operation. These impacts cannot be mitigated to any acceptable degree, if at all, by any planning conditions that may be available.

There have been repeated complained about noise from the current warehouse developments which have no noise or hours of operation conditions attached, and to the adjacent incinerator development, with assurances given that it had the most stringent noise conditions that could be imposed. This has not prevented the frequently horrendous cumulative noise from three major developments already

underway concurrently. Indeed, having already suffered all night, very noisy, works from the previous new warehouse constructions, this will happen yet again with this new development but on an even larger scale without the Environmental Health Service being prepared or able to take any action to prevent the nightmare of noise construction and operations that have been endured for over three years.

Macallan has confirmed that the current application intends a further 10 years construction programme right in front of Overton House without hope of any protection or respite. Strangely, the timescale and phasing details of the proposed works are missing from the application, which is totally unacceptable for such a major development.

The new cooperage, the noisiest operation planned within the development, would be sited within a very short distance of our house.

Councillor McConachie referred to concerns over this element stating that he had worked in a cooperage and they are very noisy. However, these comments/ concerns appear to have been totally ignored, presumably also a reason why no NIA has been submitted as nothing could possibly justify the environmental effect of this operation next to housing and within such a quiet and peaceful rural area.

The applicant's assertions are complete rubbish. The serious adverse impacts of noise and light pollution from the development on Overton House cannot be reasonably or adequately mitigated.

Currently, apart from passing traffic and all of the noise from surrounding developments, there is extremely minimal background noise around Overton House. Indeed for the majority of the time this remains a very peaceful rural environment punctuated only by the noise of all of the wonderful wildlife that the applicant dismisses exists here.

It is totally misleading to represent the potential noise from the development as falling below daytime noise nuisance limits. The local planning authority is legally bound take into account the actual existing noise levels and not just accept the applicant's word that the noise will fall below nuisance limits which are not appropriate to such a peaceful rural setting. The applicant's assertions are refuted.

We have serious issues with this [Noise Impact Assessment (NIA)] document and cannot accept any assertion from the applicant that noise impact on our house will not be significantly adverse. The statement that noise would only occur during daytime hours is totally contrary to the application details which state that the site operation will be 24 hours, 7 days a week.

The survey and report totally misrepresent background noise levels, the survey being undertaken on one weekday daytime period only while several surrounding major developments were underway and also at a time when there is additional heavy construction traffic and noise in addition to this road acting as a route to avoid the roadworks in Aberlour. We totally refute the representation of the readings taken as the actual established background noise as experienced at Overton House. Planning advice is that the existing noise levels and likely change in noise levels are relevant in considering the development proposal.

The stated potential noise levels from the proposed cooperage are similarly unrepresentative, with readings taken at a so called similar facility, the North British Distillery at Muirhall, West Lothian, an urban site adjacent to the mainline railway and a national roadway. It is not within such a noise sensitive setting. It is not known how this facility compares to the proposed operation.

The noise levels for the cooperage are far in excess of the very low noise levels that we have always had here. No account has been taken of the external storage

or other proposed operations including heavy vehicles, traffic within and generated by the development etc. despite their proximity to Overton House.

Councillor McConachie's concerns over the noise generated from a cooperage operation are re-iterated. Any suggestion that the noise impact will be "acceptable" and that it can be mitigated for Overton House in any way at all is refuted.

Reliance on the noise limits cited is completed inappropriate. The Environmental Health Service explains that these levels and planning conditions cannot actually address the huge impact on such a quiet rural environment, as the very lowest noise levels that can be set are vastly higher than the actual background noise levels that have always been enjoyed here. There would be a dramatic permanent and uncontrollable rise in the background noise levels here which would totally destroy the home environment of Overton House and would certainly be injurious to health.

The acoustic criteria used in the assessment clearly do not relate to undeveloped rural settings but generally to new industrial noise introduced into an existing mixed industrial/residential setting. This completely overlooks the fact that there is no current industrial presence here.

As the area is so quiet and open all noise travels far here and can often hear the activities within the current distillery site which is some distance away including vehicle movements and loading/unloading at all times of the day and night. The noise from this development would be absolutely intolerable and completely without any hope of mitigation. We would endure even greater noise pollution from the development, both in construction and in operation.

None of the details take any account of the cumulative noise impact from all of the current major developments underway and that fact that the incinerator development is not yet operational. Account must be account taken for all of the additional noise generation from all surrounding current developments and not just this development in isolation.

It is hoped that the Environmental Health Service will not just take the applicant's statements at face value but will fully scrutinise these issues in view of our concerns and comments.

The development will have to be floodlit as with the other warehouses and with the offices, cooperage etc. right next to and in front of Overton House, the hitherto totally unlit site will be lit up "like a Christmas tree" shining right into bedrooms and living rooms of Overton House. This cannot possibly be mitigated by any condition on the design of lighting and will have a huge unacceptable effect on our home and lives.

Lighting concerns were voiced by Councillor McConachie but even these concerns appear to have been totally ignored. There is no mention of lighting details or any effort at mitigating the effects on Overton House.

It is totally unacceptable from our experience to see the lighting from the existing warehousing and the access road. The applicant admitted that the light pollution from the existing warehouse for nearby residents, despite all of the assurance given in the planning applications that there would be no impact on residents. Having witnessed personal assurances by the applicant to other residents that the existing lights would be turned off at night but then with no action taken to do so, we do not believe these repeated assurances by the applicant, or indeed from any planning conditions that could be imposed, let alone monitored/enforced.

This location has no lighting whatsoever and the almost "dark-skies" environment will be totally destroyed by this development. The applicant also omits to mention

all of the lighting for the office and laboratory buildings, not forgetting all of the vehicles, which will be close and clearly visible from our house.

Comment (PO): The applicant's respond to members' concerns about lighting by indicating that a lighting scheme will be submitted for review. This has yet to be submitted and a planning condition is recommended to address this, to include lighting arrangements for both construction and operation of the development. The "Christmas tree" assessment does not appear to take account of the intentions expressed within the supporting information about provision for low level lighting in interior spaces between buildings rather than around the exterior of the site. The scheme will also require to demonstrate that off-site lighting impacts are reduced to a level that is not unacceptable or significant in terms amenity or nuisance. The cooperage is approx. 140m distant (min) to the south east and as with the other buildings it is separated from the objectors' property by the existing/proposed raised landform and planting, with the finished floor level of the building approx. 7m below the top of the bund and with limited openings in the north and west elevations. The Environmental Health Manager has carefully considered the proposal, even requiring additional clarification of the submitted noise assessments which confirm that noise emissions from the cooperage would be greater than any other uses or activity on the site but levels would be with permissible limits. In these terms, the proposal would not result in unacceptable noise disturbance. The Environmental Health Manager has stipulated conditions to address noise impact arising from the construction and operation of the development including limiting the operation of the cooperage to day-time hours, etc. Whilst the objectors' perceptions and sensitivity to noise is evident from their submissions, the information submitted and assessed together with the conditions as recommended, show or require the development not to result in undue or significant adverse noise disturbance upon the amenity of the surrounding area. CONTAMINATED LAND

Whilst accepting that the Environmental Health Service would be able to advise on this issue, this development could itself cause contamination in its construction and operation.

Has the issue of whether any consideration has been given to the potential for "black growth" due to the storage of large quantities of whisky, as this can also cause widespread blackening/tarnishing of surrounding foliage and buildings?

Comment (PO): The issue of "growth" has been considered in the sense that it is a naturally occurring event and not a matter of public health significance, as advised by the Environmental Health Service. Whilst the Contaminated Land Service has not objected to the development, based on any known contaminative land use associated with the site, a Construction and Environmental Management Plan is required/proposed to identify and mitigate all potential pollution risks. This would include potential sources of contamination rising from fuel spills, etc. AIR QUALITY

Potential nuisance of fumes and dust from the construction and operation of the development, including construction and operational traffic and processes, and fumes from the whisky storage.

There is no mention of any of these impacts in the applications other than that they will be for a "temporary period" which in fact would be for at least 10 years of the development programme!

Comment (PO): No adverse effects on air quality are identified as arising from the development, including that arising from construction vehicle emissions. Following

consultation there are no objections to the development on these terms. Dust emissions can be addressed as part of the on-site arrangements to manage the site during construction, for example within required/proposed Construction and Environmental Management Plan. DRAINAGE

Concern about the site drainage arrangements during construction. During the construction of the newest warehouse, frequently kept awake by the noise of pumps being left on within the site overnight to try to pump out water from the buildings under construction. Despite complaints to the applicant and the Council, these incidents were repeated a number of times and now concerned that even greater nuisance will be experienced from a development right next to Overton House.

Comment (PO): A condition is recommended by both SEPA and Moray Flood Risk Management to address the arrangements for the disposal and management of surface water run-off from the site during the construction phase. The arrangements to manage the impact of all noise sources during construction, including drainage pumps where required, can be addressed as part of the required/pro