Case Study No. 5
Title
TARFHAUGH QUARRY, WEST LINTON, PEEBLESSHIRE
Proposed Sand and Gravel Quarry, excavating glacial deposits above ground.
Area/Scale
Extraction of 4.7 million tonnes over 28 years, from 11.8 ha of a 36 ha site.Date
1991 - 1995
Reason for Environmental Assessment
Schedule 2 Project, Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988 No. 1221).
Applicant
Wm E Christer (Gravel) Ltd and United Quarries Ltd.
Competent Authority
Borders Regional Council and Secretary of State (on Appeal)
Designations
None, distant view from edge of Regional Park
Key Natural Heritage Issues:
Landscape impact of removal of substantial part of a kame in a landscape where above ground glacial features are important. Visual impact in largely unspoilt rural area.
Environmental Assessment Handbook Cross References
See Sections B.3, C.1, C.2, C.3, D.3, D.6, D.7, D.8, E.3, E.9, E.10, F.2, F.4; Appendices 1 and 3
Strengths
The revised scheme, submitted in 1994 followed detailed discussions with SNH and others to seek an agreed method and scale of working and restoration. It avoided or reduced a number of other impacts particularly potential effects on the river and the village.
Weaknesses
The second ES, even with the benefit of detailed discussions failed to identify or evaluate in sufficient detail the key landscape characteristics and features of the area. Consequently, it failed to explain the real impacts on the landscape, failed to assess the landscape's capacity for accepting the development and failed to appreciate that it would be unlikely that an alternative scheme could provide a sensitive scale and method of working. The site was inherently unsuitable for the proposed use. The ES made the common and fatal error of concentrating on visual impacts from selected (sometimes rather inappropriately selected) viewpoints. Much was made of how little would be seen, although SNH's analysis clearly showed that this had been seriously underestimated in the ES. The Reporter at the PLI (see below) agreed with SNH that even long distance views of a quarry, in otherwise largely unspoilt countryside, could have a high impact on the enjoyment and perception of views, depending on context. The quarry did not have to be a large element in the view to have an adverse impact on its character.
SNH Involvement
The first application, by different applicants, was made in November 1991 and CCS (but not NCCS) objected to the application. The ES, requested by the Borders RC, was submitted in June 1992 and SNH confirmed its continued objection when commenting on the ES. The application was refused by Borders RC in March 1993. The second application was submitted in April 1994 with a new ES. SNH objected to the proposal on landscape and visual amenity grounds and expressed concerns about other aspects, including discharges to the river. SNH raised the profile of the importance of above ground geomorphological features in forming the distinctive character of an area and the setting of settlements in the landscape. SNH had had detailed discussions with the applicants' agents before submission of the second ES, but maintained that even the revised scheme would be unacceptable in landscape terms, specifically impacts on landform and inappropriate final restoration.
Outcome and Points to Note
Planning permission was refused by the Borders Regional Council, a decision in which the SNH objection was very influential. The applicants appealed against the refusal to the Secretary of State and a Public Local Inquiry was held. SNH appeared as a witness at the PLI, on behalf of Borders RC, and presented landscape evidence based on an assessment of the landscape and visual impacts in accordance with the best practice techniques in reference (22). The appeal was dismissed and planning permission refused, substantially, but not entirely, on landscape and visual impact grounds. The landscape and visual impact case for SNH and that presented on behalf of local objectors, which was wholly compatible with SNH's case, were accepted almost in their entirety by the Reporter at the PLI. This case demonstrates the importance of using published best practice techniques and presenting the landscape and visual impacts in a systematic clear and distinct way. It demonstrates that environmental impacts on the landscape and visual amenity of non designated areas can form the basis for refusing project consents. It demonstrates the good practice by SNH of continuing to participate in constructive discussions about a project whilst maintaining an overall objection on the grounds that the site is fundamentally inappropriate for the proposed use.