Page 1 of 12

Contents Page - Issue 29 - Minerals

1. Schedule 4

2. Representations

Scottish Natural Heritage (CLDP144d, CLDP144e)
The Coal Authority (CLDP031a, CLDP031b, CLDP031c, CLDP031d,
CLDP031e, CLDP031f, CLDP031g)
SEPA (CLDP142j, CLDP142k)
RSPB Scotland (CLDP159d, CLDP159e, CLDP159f, CLDP159g,
CLDP159h, CLDP159i)
sportscotland (CLDP083n)
Liz Albert (CLDP002)
Muckhart Community Council (CLDP174s)

3. Supporting Documents

CD001 Scottish Planning Policy (February 2010) (Paragraphs 231-
247) [attached]
CD003 Scottish Planning Policy (June 2014)
CD004 National Planning Framework (NPF) 2 (June 2009)
SD37 sportscotland (CLDP083n) - Covering Letter



























Page 2 of 12
Issue 29 Minerals
Development Plan
reference:
Table 4 - Hierarchy of Constraint
Areas for Opencast Coal extraction,
(Page 67)
Figure EP1 - Opencast Coal (Page
68)
Paragraph 6.23 (Page 66)
Paragraph 6.26 (Page 69)
Paragraph 6.27 (Page 69)
Policy EP10 - Minerals - General
Principles (Page 70)
EP11 - Opencast Coal Extraction
(Page 71)
EP13 - Coal Bed Methane (Page
72)
Reporter:
Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue
(including reference number):

Scottish Natural Heritage (CLDP144d, CLDP144e)
The Coal Authority (CLDP031a, CLDP031b, CLDP031c, CLDP031d,
CLDP031e, CLDP031f, CLDP031g)
SEPA (CLDP142j, CLDP142k)
RSPB Scotland (CLDP159d, CLDP159e, CLDP159f, CLDP159g, CLDP159h,
CLDP159i)
sportscotland (CLDP083n)
Liz Albert (CLDP002)
Muckhart Community Council (CLDP174s)

Provision of the development
plan to which the issue relates:

Planning Authoritys summary of the representation(s):

Scottish Natural Heritage (CLDP144d) suggest that in relation to Table 4 on
page 67, Geological Conservation Review sites are included as a High
Constraint area along with SSSIs to align with Policy EA5.

Scottish Natural Heritage (CLDP144e) request that figure EP1 is replaced
with a map that shows the boundaries of the different areas of constraint since
there is no means of identifying what the boundaries of the areas are from the
based on the labels.

The Coal Authority have made 8 representations in relation to the Minerals
section which can be summarised as follows;
1. (CLDP031a) support the objectives and content of Policy EP9 - Protection
of Mineral Resources.
2. (CLDP031b) support the content of Policy EP10 - Minerals, General
Principles, in terms of its objectives, its recognition of potential local
employment benefits and its commitment to high quality restoration.
3. (CLDP031c) object to the final sentence in Policy EP10 which states that
Page 3 of 12
extensions to the duration of a consent will not normally be approved. The
sentence is unnecessary since criterion 2 of the Policy assesses
cumulative impact issues and would not provide sufficient flexibility to
operators who may be affected by changes to economic factors. The
removal of the sentence would provide suitable flexibility to operators.
4. (CLDP031d) advise that Policy EP11 should be termed "Surface Coal
Mining" rather than "Opencast Coal Extraction" since the latter does not
cover the whole arena of surface coal extraction methods nor reflect the
terminology used in SPP (CD001) in paragraphs 239 to 247.
5. (CLDP031e) object to the wording and content of Policy EP11, Table 4 on
page 67 and Figure EP1 on page 68. The overall approach is based on a
negatively worded policy approach, has not identified Areas of Search as
set out in paragraph 240 of SPP (2010) (CD001), unnecessarily cross
refers to Policy EP10, may put off potential operators due to the negative
terminology, the plan is unclear as to what areas what fall within which
category of constraint, the Constraint areas in Table 4 would apply to any
minerals development, not just surface coal extraction and indeed to any
form of built development and overall the approach is too negative and
contrary to the objectives in paragraph 239 of SPP (CD001).
6. (CLDP031f) welcome in principle the objectives of Policy EP13 - Coal Bed
Methane and the text in paragraphs 6.25 and 6.26.
7. (CLDP031g) object to the wording of Policy EP13 unless the sections
which duplicate the wording in Policy EP10 are removed to leave only the
additional criteria set out in paragraphs 236-238 of SPP (CD001) related to
coal bed methane.

SEPA (CLDP142j) support the wording of Policy EP10 'Minerals - General
Principles' which includes the water environment as one of the criteria.

SEPA (CLDP142k) Support the provision of a policy in respect of coal bed
methane extraction in Policy EP13, but consider that consideration should be
given to extending the scope of the policy to other forms of unconventional
gas extraction. This would reflect the existence of other techniques such as
coal bed gasification and shale gas extraction and the potential under the
PEDL Licence 133. They highlight the current planning appeals by DART
Energy for coal bed methane extraction in Falkirk and Stirling Councils areas.

RSPB Scotland have made a number of representations relating to the
Minerals section which can be summarised as follows;
1. (CLDP159d) Paragraph 6.23 states that Longannet power station could be
a market for locally sourced coal in the future which is misleading. This
should be given little or no weight in planning decisions as the ultimate end
use of the coal cannot be reasonably controlled by the planning system.
Indeed, SPP (CD001) states "A contract between a surface coal mine
operator and any of the electricity generators is not a material
consideration in planning decisions, nor is the quality of coal".
2. (CLDP159e) Paragraph 6.26 should also acknowledged that there are also
many uncertainties around the potential environmental impact of Coal Bed
Methane (CBM). Indeed, fracking can also be used as part of the
extraction process with CBM and the highest levels of environmental
Page 4 of 12
assessment will be required.
3. (CLDP159f) Paragraph 6.27 discuses the restoration of mineral working.
There is an ongoing review into the regulation of the Scottish open cast
coal industry following the collapse of Scottish Coal/ATH in 2013 and the
failure of financial bonds to provide adequate funding for restoration of
sites. The review is looking at whether mechanisms other than bonds
should be used to secure restoration funds. The last sentence also states
that "A bond will normally be required..." This should be changed to read
"A bond or other suitable mechanism will be required". This wording
should accordingly be applied to Policy EP10. We would object to the
Local Development Plan if there was not an appropriate bond or other
suitable mechanism in place, which must be monitored with every proposal
because of the recent issues that have come to light, this cannot be
permitted to occur in the future.
4. (CLDP159g) In Policy EP10, the word "significant" should be taken out
from before "adverse impact" in part 1 as it is also referring to Natura and
other designated sites. The background to this representation is set out in
our comments on the HRA.
5. (CLDP159h) The wording of Policy EP11 is extremely concerning as it
seems to suggest that local and community benefits will outweigh any
environmental damage in decision making. If this is the case, further detail
must be given on the criteria on which local and community benefits will be
assessed and how much environmental damage is considered to be
acceptable.
6. (CLDP159i) Policy EP13 should include a requirement for consideration to
the carbon implications of any CBM development. As many of the policies
in the LDP aim to reduce the amount of carbon residents, developers and
businesses emit and indeed the vision statement outlines that the County
should be "moving towards a vibrant low-carbon economy, it seems only
appropriate that this form of development and indeed other mineral
policies should consider their impacts on Clackmannanshires carbon
objectives.

sportscotland (CLDP083n) have suggested the following changes;
1. that in terms of Policy EP10, a fourth criterion is added to part 1b of this
policy, as follows:
iv) Any sport or recreation interests. SPP (CD001) paragraph 231 states
that, Development plans and development management decisions should
aim to minimise significant negative impacts from minerals extraction on
the amenity of local communities, the natural heritage and historic
environment and other economic sectors important to the local
economy. sportscotland considers that sport and recreation interests
are encompassed by these considerations, and therefore requests, as
detailed, that an extra criterion should be added to the policy in order to
adequately reflect sport and recreation considerations.
2. reference should be made, either in the Policy (or perhaps more practically
in the Supplementary Guidance on Minerals that is to be prepared), to
encouraging the after use of extraction sites for environmental
improvement, rather than simply restoring land to its previous state. Sport
and recreation can form a particularly suitable and positive after use of
Page 5 of 12
former mineral extraction and potentially surface coal mining sites. Such
sites often have features (or the potential to develop them) such as cliffs,
gradients, water bodies and track networks, which are attractive for
sporting activities; such land can also be of lower nature conservation
value, allowing for easier integration of sport and recreation activities; and
mineral or surface mining sites can be in locations, or of a nature, where
noise from sport (e.g. motor sport) is more acceptable. SPP (CD001)
paragraph 235 states, Once mineral working has ceased, the land should
be reinstated at the earliest opportunity. Operators are encouraged to
consider after uses that result in environmental improvement rather than
simply restoring land to its previous state. Planning authorities should
encourage after uses which add to the cultural, recreational or
environmental assets of an area.

Liz Albert (CLDP002) has made 3 main representations relating to
unconventional gas extraction. These can be summarised as follows;
1. An exploration licence has been granted just downstream of the
Kincardine Bridge which could include Underground Coal Gasification
(UCG). While this is outwith the Council area it could have implications for
Clackmannanshire and a policy relating to this technique should be put in
place now, rather than have to be reactive later.
2. The polices should state that neighbouring planning authorities work
closely together as any extraction process could have impacts which cross
administrative boundaries e.g. the discharge of waste water into the River
Forth.
3. Given there is little or no local experience of any of the unconventional gas
extraction techniques, and given that coal beds tend to be closer to the
surface than shale oil beds, the unknowns and risks from the respective
techniques are high for all. If shale oil/gas extraction should have the
Precautionary Principle applied, then so should the other unconventional
gas extraction techniques. For example, it is well known that methane is
twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Any
incidental/accidental escapes of methane into the atmosphere from
exploration or extraction activities are therefore of great concern.

Muckhart Community Council (CLDP174s) note the scope of Policy EP13
and assume that this policy deals with the process commonly known as
fracking. The Community Council is concerned about the environmental
implications of this policy and we would like greater clarity about the way in
which environmental impacts would determine the Councils attitudes to
individual applications. Perhaps this will be available when the Supplementary
Guidance is published later this year.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Scottish Natural Heritage (CLDP144d) suggest that Geological
Conservation Review sites are included in the list of High Constraint Areas in
Table 4.

Scottish Natural Heritage (CLDP144e) request that Figure EP1 should show
Page 6 of 12
the boundaries of the different constraint areas. This point was also made by
The Coal Authority.

The Coal Authority have sought a number of modifications which are
summarised below;
1. The last sentence of Policy EP10 should be deleted.
2. The title of Policy EP11 should be changed to "Surface Coal Mining" and
any other reference to opencast coal extraction should also be reworded.
3. The Plan should explain why it has not included Areas of Search and is
instead using Areas of Constraint. There is no need to cross reference the
Policies with each other. The text should be more positive.
4. Table 4 should be removed in its entirety.
5. Figure EP1 should be removed in its entirety.
6. Paragraph 6.24 should be removed.
7. The text of Policy EP11 should be altered, including the removal of the
policy wording relating to the hierarchy of constraint areas, to read;
"Policy EP11 - Surface Coal Mining
The aim of this policy is to set out additional criteria in relation to surface
coal extraction.
Proposals for surface coal mining will be supported where the applicant
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Council that;
the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or will be made so by
planning conditions and/or agreements, or
the proposal provides local or community benefits which would
significantly outweigh the likely impacts of the extraction.
Proposals for surface coal mining will not normally be supported in the
following circumstances;
where the site boundary lies within 500 metres of any settlement
except where the criteria set out in SPP are met or,
where there would be a significant adverse impact on individual or
groups of houses or other sensitive establishments and these
effects cannot be satisfactorily mitigated.
Proposals should be completed and restored within 10 years."
8. The text of Policy EP13 should be altered to delete the first 3 criteria
contained in the Policy since these duplicate those in Policy EP10 and
should only refer to the specific criteria relating to coal bed methane set
out in SPP (2010) (CD001).

SEPA (CLDP142k) suggest that the Council give consideration to extending
the scope of Policy EP13 to include other forms of unconventional gas in
addition to coal bed methane.

RSPB Scotland have also made a number of suggested modifications
namely;
1. The text in paragraph 6.23 should be amended since the statement that
Longannet Power Station could provide a market for locally sourced coal is
misleading as this would not be a material planning consideration.
2. Paragraph 6.26 should recognise that there may be environmental
uncertainties regarding the extraction of coal bed methane.
3. The last sentence in paragraph 6.26 should be changed to read "A bond or
Page 7 of 12
other suitable mechanism will be required...". This wording should also be
applied to Policy EP10.
4. In Policy EP10, the word "significant" shall be deleted before the words
"adverse impact" in Part 1 of the policy.
5. In relation to Policy EP11, if local and community benefits can outweigh
any environmental damage associated with the development, further detail
should be provided on the criteria on which this will be assessed and how
much environmental damage is considered to be acceptable.
6. In relation to Policy EP13, an additional criteria should be added which
would require consideration of the carbon implications of the extraction of
coal bed methane in relation to the Plan's Vision of moving to a low carbon
economy.

sportscotland (CLDP083n) seek an amendment to Policy EP10 to include a
fourth criteria in Part 1 (b) which would state "iv) Any sport or recreation
interest". They also request that reference is made in Policy EP10 or in the
SG which would encourage consideration of other after uses of mineral sites
other than their original use such as sport and recreation uses.

Liz Albert (CLDP002) requests that a Policy in included on Underground Coal
Gasification and that the precautionary approach referred to in the text in
paragraph 6.26 should apply to all unconventional gas extraction
technologies. Finally, the policies should include a commitment to working
closely with neighbouring Councils to address the issues raised by proposals
such as gas extraction given the potential cross boundary impacts associated
with these types of development.

Muckhart Community Council (CLDP174s) state that Policy EP13 should
provide greater clarity about how the environmental impacts associated with
fracking would be judged by the Council or this could be included in the text or
forthcoming SG.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

In relation to the representation from Scottish Natural Heritage (CLDP144d),
it is considered that Geological Conservation Areas could be included as one
of the constraints in Table 4. It is also considered appropriate that this would
be classified as a High Constraint Area comparable with SSSIs. However, it is
considered that this would be best addressed during the preparation of the
Minerals Supplementary Guidance since it is intended to provide further
information on the methodology and application of the hierarchy of constraint
areas and information in Figure EP1 in response to the representations
received and the guidance in SPP (2010) (CD001). It would therefore be more
appropriate to make any changes following this more comprehensive review.
Consequently, it is not sought to add the Geological Conservation
Review sites in Table 4 at this time.

Scottish Natural Heritage (CLDP144e) While it is appreciated that that the
inclusion of boundary lines to define the areas in Figure EP1 could provide
further clarity, the purpose of the Figure is only intended to provide an
Page 8 of 12
indication of the potential sensitivity of areas to proposals for surface coal
extraction. Individual proposals would have to be carefully assessed to
consider the possible environmental impacts. This would also be the case if
the Figure had identified Areas of Search. It is intended to include further
information about the methodology used, the content of Table 4 and the
application of the hierarchy to individual proposals in the Minerals
Supplementary Guidance. Consideration will also be given to defining the
boundaries of the Constraint Areas in the SG. This should help provide more
clarity for stakeholders including the industry and communities.
Consequently, it is not sought to include boundaries in Figure EP1 at
this time.

The Coal Authority have sought a number of modifications which are
discussed below following the same numbering as in the section above;
1. The last sentence of Policy EP10 is intended to help safeguard the
amenity of communities and environmental quality of areas which may
be affected by a mineral extraction site in recognition of the particular
adverse impacts that can be associated with this type of development.
The method of working at sites usually includes progressive restoration
and this in turn is linked to the arrangements in place to secure the
effective restoration of the site. The Council believe that once started,
the development should be completed within the proposed timescale in
order to maintain a reasonable balance between the needs of the
industry and safeguarding communities and the environment. The text
includes the word "normally" which would allow exceptions to be made
where this would not result in any unacceptable environmental impacts.
Consequently, it is not sought to delete the final sentence of Policy
EP10.
2. This would reflect the terminology used in SPP, and may be changed
should the Reporter be minded.
3. It is intended to include further information regarding the methodology
used for the Hierarchy of Constraint Areas in the Minerals SG as
discussed in the response to Scottish Natural Heritage's representation
above. This would also provide guidance on how the Constraint Areas
would be applied to proposals and how they compare with the approach
contained in the SPP (2010) (CD001). It is considered that the cross
referencing of other relevant Polices is useful and necessary to ensure
the effective application of the policy. It is not agreed that the wording of
the Policy is unduly negative and sets out the context within which
proposals would be assessed in a manner which is considered to be
consistent with the guidance in SPP (2010) (CD001). For example,
paragraph 240 of the SPP (CD001) states that "there is a general
presumption against extraction outwith areas of search identified in the
development plan". While it may be considered that the use of the term
"constraint" is unnecessarily negative, by identifying low, medium and
high areas of constraint, the LDP is effectively identifying areas of
search where coal extraction may be more acceptable, as required by
paragraph 240 of the SPP (CD001). Although the SPP refers to "areas
of search" and "search areas", it does not stipulate that these terms
must be used in the LDP. Consequently, no changes are sought in
Page 9 of 12
response to the representation.
4. Table 4 sets out the criteria which have been applied to identify the
different constraint areas. The approach to surface coal mining has
emerged from the Council's experience in dealing with this type of
development and the guidance in the SPP (CD001). It is considered that
this type of mineral extraction has created particular issues and potential
impacts which justify the Council's approach. The criterion have been
used to create a framework to help identify the sensitivity of areas to
surface coal mining. This is not duplication with similarly worded criteria
in Plan policies since these criteria may apply to proposals in any type of
Constraint area. Further guidance about the methodology used and
application of the Table will also be provided within the Minerals SG. It
is not therefore sought to delete Table 4 in relation to this
representation.
5. It is not agreed that Figure EP1 should be removed since it provides a
spatial framework relating to the sensitivity of areas to surface coal
mining consistent with the guidance in SPP (2010) (CD001). It is not
therefore sought to delete Figure EP1 in relation to this
representation.
6/7. Further to the arguments put forward by the Council in Points in 3, 4 and
5 above, it is considered that the proposed wording of Policy EP11 is
acceptable and consistent with the advice set out in SPP (2010)
(CD001). The proposed revised wording would not differentiate between
proposals within low, medium or high constraint areas, and would
provide a presumption in favour of any proposals. This is not considered
to be acceptable, nor reflect the sensitivity of this type of development in
terms of finding a balance between the exploitation of the coal reserves
and safeguarding environmental and community interests. It is not
sought to change Policy EP11 in relation to this representation.
8. The Council considers that the criteria within the Policy, including the
cross reference with the 'Minerals - General Principles' Policy are
necessary and help provide clearer guidance to stakeholders on the
main factors which would have to be satisfactorily addressed to receive
the support of the Policy. While this approach does include some
repetition of criteria across polices, it is considered that this provided
clearer guidance on the factors which would need to be satisfactorily
addressed to satisfy the Policy requirements. The approach does not
result in a more restrictive or negative approach as that set out in the
SPP (2010) (CD001). Consequently, no change is sought to Policy
EP13 in relation to this representation.

The suggestion by SEPA about increasing the scope of Policy EP13 to
include other forms of unconventional gas in addition to coal bed methane has
been the subject of careful consideration and was an issue which was
considered at the policy preparation stage. It was concluded that the scope of
the Policy should be restricted to coal bed methane only at present for the
following reasons;
It is anticipated that the new SPP (CD003) will provide more detailed
guidance on other types of unconventional gas. Until this is published, it is
considered premature to publish detailed guidance on these other
Page 10 of 12
technologies, however if proposals came forward, these could be
considered against the criteria contained in Policy EP10.
At present there has only been commercial interest in extracting coal bed
methane within the area and a company has applied for permission to
extract CBM on a commercial basis within the boundaries of neighbouring
authorities. Test drilling has also been carried out in this area in the past.
While there may be potential to extract other gases within the PEDL
licence area, it is considered that further information would be required to
understand the potential impacts before policies should be formulated.
The findings of the current appeal relating to the extraction of coal bed
methane within Falkirk and Stirling Councils areas may also inform the
preparation of policy on unconventional gas.
The issue can be examined in more detail as part of the preparation of the
SG. This may allow further advice to be prepared on other types of
unconventional gas extraction.
Consequently, no change is sought to Policy EP13 in relation to this
representation.

RSPB Scotland have sought a number of modifications which are discussed
below following the same numbering as in the section above;
1. It is noted that paragraph 239 of SPP (2010) (CD001) states that Scottish
coal output is likely to continue to play a significant role in ensuring a
diverse and sustainable supply of energy at competitive prices and that
extraction is necessary and important in the national interest. This is also
reflected in NPF2 (CD004). The reference to the potential market to supply
Longannnet Power station was included to provide local context to this
national policy guidance which is a material planning consideration. The
reference in the SPP to the materiality of information about the existence
of a contract to supply coal to an electricity generator is not disputed but
this factor is considered to relate to a different issue i.e. that the contract
provided evidence that the development would be implemented within the
timescales proposed if permission is granted. The contribution of the coal
to meeting the base energy needs of the country is considered to be a
material consideration. The text also makes it clear that the Council will
make a decision based on the framework for sustainable extraction of coal.
Consequently, no change is sought to the wording of paragraph 6.23
in relation to this representation.
2. It is considered that the criteria contained in Policy EP13 provide a
sufficiently robust framework to asses the environmental impacts that
could be associated with the extraction of coal bed methane.
Consequently, no change is sought to the wording of paragraph 6.26
in relation to this representation
3. The suggested change in wording to the text would more closely reflect the
wording in Policy EP10 for the provision of a bond which states that
"Developers must provide an appropriate bond to ensure the full
implementation of the site restoration and aftercare scheme...". The
context and content of the Government's recent review of bonds in relation
to surface coal mining is also acknowledged and it is intended to provide
more detailed guidance on the arrangements for bonds in the SG. Should
the Reporter be minded, the suggested text, or similar, may be
Page 11 of 12
incorporated.
4. It is accepted that the existing wording may cause unnecessary confusion
with the tests to be applied to the potential impacts on Natura sites. It may
therefore be appropriate to change the wording of the first sentence of Part
1 to read "The proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact
on any of the following:" Should the Reporter be minded, the suggested
text, or similar, may be incorporated.
5. It is not considered that these tests should raise extreme concern since
they reflect the wording of the tests set out in paragraph 243 of SPP
(2010) (CD001). Furthermore, the Policy wording also makes it clear that
the criteria set out in Policy EP10 also have to be met before the test is
applied. Criterion 1 of Policy EP10 states that the development should not
have an unacceptable impact the natural and built environment including
areas designated for their nature conservation value. Therefore, the policy
does not endorse development at any cost to the environment. The SPP
(CD001) also provides guidance on what could comprise local or
community benefits. It is also intended to include advice on this in the SG.
Consequently, no change is sought to the wording of Policy EP11 in
relation to this representation.
6. The SPP (CD001) recognises that onshore gas extraction will have an
important role in achieving a diverse and sustainable supply of energy.
The aim is to maximise the potential of the reserves in an environmentally
acceptable manner. The SPP (CD001) does not require the assessment of
carbon implications and it is considered that the Policy accords with the
guidance in the SPP (CD001). Consequently, no change is sought to
the wording of Policy EP13 in relation to this representation.

It is not considered that an additional criteria for Policy EP10 proposed by
sportscotland (CLDP083n) would be justified or necessary to safeguard
sport and recreation interests in relation to mineral development as the
existing criteria would adequately safeguard these interests. The Reporter
may, however be minded to amend point c) to include the words "or visitor
attractions or recreational routes or areas" after the words "major transport
routes". The proposed change is not accepted but a minor change to the
existing point c) may address the issue raised in the representation.

The issue raised by Liz Albert (CLDP002), relating to increasing the scope of
the policy guidance on unconventional gas extraction to include other types of
unconventional gas in addition to Coal Bed Methane has been discussed in
the response to SEPA's representation above. It is also considered that the
criteria contained in Policy EP13 provide a sufficiently robust framework to
asses the environmental impacts that could be associated with the extraction
of coal bed methane and that a more precautionary approach is not required.
It is concluded that no change is sought to expand the scope of Policy
EP13 or include additional policies in relation to other types of
unconventional gas extraction in relation to this representation.

Although it is acknowledged that paragraph 237 of SPP (2010) (CD001)
states that where PEDL licences extend across local authority boundaries, the
planning authorities should work together to ensure a consistent approach to
Page 12 of 12
onshore gas and oil extraction, it is not considered necessary to include a
reference or commitment to this in the wording of relevant policies as
requested by Liz Albert. The neighbouring Council's have been consulted on
the Proposed Plan but no representations have been received. They would
also be consulted as part of the preparation of the Minerals SG. The mineral
policy preparation process has examined the relevant policy context in
neighbouring authorities and it is considered that the proposed polices would
be largely complementary to those. The proposed policies would require the
relevant assessment to take place irrespective of the location of the impacts,
including outwith the Council's area. Consequently, no change is sought to
the wording of the Policies in relation to this representation.

In terms of the comments from Muckhart Community Council (CLDP174s),
Policy EP13 does not deal with the extraction process known as 'fracking'
which is commonly associated with the extraction of gas from underground
reserves of shale. Further guidance will be provided in the Minerals SG on this
issue and the scope of the planning policy position. It is considered premature
to produce policy guidance on this technology given guidance on the issue is
expected to be included within the new SPP (CD004) to be published in the
summer of 2014. Consequently, no change is sought to Policy EP13 in
relation to this representation.

Reporters conclusions:

Reporters recommendations: