2400553PPM - Montfode Oil Storage Depot, Ardrossan
North Ayrshire Council · 28 January 2026
Back to Planning Committee — 28 January 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 28th January 2026 Planning Committee Locality Three Towns Reference 24/00553/PPM Application Registered 29th July 2024 Decision Due 29th November 2024 Ward North Coast Recommendation Refused __________________________________________________________________ Location Montfode Oil Storage Depot Ardrossan North Ayrshire Applicant Bothwell Land & Development Ltd Proposal Erection of 160 holiday chalets with facilities hub including access, landscaping, open space and associated works ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Description Permission is sought for the creation of a holiday park comprising 160 holiday chalets with facilities hub, access, landscaping, open space and associated works. The proposed site is the former Montfode Oil Storage Depot. It is vacant and is understood to have been unused for over 30 years. The application site is some 11.25ha in area, including access from the A78. The actual holiday park itself would be in an area of some 10.1ha siting north-west and west of Montfode Farm and east of the Largs to Kilwinning railway line. An access road approx. 1.35m in length would be formed from the existing access road to Montfode Farm, it would form a loop, with a spur on the western side, with chalets sited either side. A visitor's office and chalet described as a show home would be sited at the entrance. The facilities hub, open space and recreation facilities would be sited within the middle of the road loop, as would the SUDs pond. Landscaping would be created throughout.
Page 2
The chalets would be some 12.2m by 3.7m and 3.2m in height. They would be sat on their own decks, some 0.5m in height, and have a hot tub and parking space. Each chalet would have 2 bedrooms, a bathroom and a lounge/kitchen area. The facilities hub would have ground floor area of some 1758sqm. It would be two storeys in height. Given the topography of the proposed location, it would be some 11.8m to the ridge at its highest point and 9m to the eaves. The building would contain a restaurant, swimming pool, play area and gym/beauty therapy suite. The application falls within the category of "major" development, in terms of The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. A pre-application consultation (PAC) was required. A PAC notice was received 4th May 2023 (ref: 23/00327/PREAPM). The application was also determined by the applicant to be a proposal requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment. The EIA indicates that the site is a moderate risk in terms of contamination. This is due to the former use as an oil depot with potential contamination from chemicals associated with the storage and infrastructure. A Phase 2 intrusive ground investigation is recommended prior to any development. Phase 2 Intrusive Ground Investigation This sets out recommendations for construction activities. It acknowledges the likelihood of unsuspected contamination and recommends a watching brief, remediation strategy, material management plan and pile testing. The following documents have also been submitted in support of the application: Design and Access Statement This states that the number of chalets has been reduced through public consultation. The layout has been designed to maximise views and make the most of topography. The proposal is considered to accord with the relevant development plan policies. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA)/Biodiversity Report The PEA states that the site is mainly improved and marshy grassland. The site is considered suitable for badgers and nesting birds. Pre-construction surveys are recommended. The Biodiversity Report was subsequently submitted and claims the site contains grassland, heathland, peatland and coastal habitats. The Report mentions two badger setts and says the development should be planned to avoid disturbing the setts but gives no further details. The veracity of the Biodiversity Report has been questioned by commentators on the application. It is noted the Biodiversity Repot makes several references to East Ayrshire. Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment This states the site has a negligible or less risk of flooding. Surface water would be drained through a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS). Private wastewater treatment system is proposed which would discharge into the Montfode Burn. This would be regulated by SEPA. Following requests for further information, subsequent additional reports were
Page 3
submitted. These initially proposed that the drain would exit the south-east corner of the site
and cross the adjacent field to the burn. This would be through the Montfode Castle
Scheduled Monument. The proposal was subsequently changed to indicate that an existing
drain on the eastern side of the site, exiting to the burn north of Montfode Farm, would be
utilised for surface water. Wastewater would be treated and exit to the burn approx. 75m
north of Montfode Farm.
Transport Assessment/Road Safety Audit
The Assessment acknowledges that the majority of trips from such facilities are by private
car. However, the predicted traffic generation at peak times in extremely low. The proposed
new access junction has been designed to meet standards for 70kph or 44mph. The traffic
can be accommodated in both the local and trunk road network. It is noted the Transport
Assessment refers to 228 chalets. The Audit was submitted following request for further
information from Transport Scotland and is stated to cover the requested information.
Cultural Heritage Assessment
Submitted following request for further information. This states that the development has
significant opportunities to enhance the cultural heritage of Ardrossan. It states that the
development is committed to preserving the features of Montfode Castle. Further
information was provided at the request of Historic Environment Scotland. This additional
information considers that impact on the setting of the nearby scheduled monuments could
be mitigated.
Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report
The PAC report outlines the public consultation undertaken prior to submission of the
application. Public exhibitions were held in Ardrossan and West Kilbride and the West
Kilbride Community Council were notified as the site falls within their area. 21 people
attended these events. Concerns were raised in terms of impact on the traffic and the A78
and the access underneath the railway bridge on the existing access to Montfode Farm.
Questions were also raised about the way the development would operate. It was explained
that the facility would operate on a season basis to be determined through the planning
process. Holiday homes would be rented out with the facilities hub open to everyone.
The site has been subject to two previous applications for 228 chalets with facilities. Those
applications (ref: 21/01226/PPM and 23/00219/PPM) were both withdrawn. This was
because the required pre-application procedures had not been followed, and in the case of
the latter application, because the applicant had identified the proposal as EIA
development, but the required EIA procedures had not been carried out.
The site is within the Countryside, as identified within the Adopted 2019 North Ayrshire
Council Local Development Plan ("the LDP"). The nearest residential properties are at
Montfode Farm the buildings of which are between approx. 40m and 150m from the site.
Properties at Low Boydston Farm are some 360m to the north and properties at Crawford
Lodge are some 200m to the west. There are two scheduled monuments near the site -
Montfode Castle, some 40m from the proposed access, and Boydston Braes motte some
320m to the north.Page 4
The relevant development plan polices are Strategic Policy 1: The Countryside Objective, Strategic Policy 2, Policy 6, Policy 12, Policy 15, Policy 23, Policy 27 and Policy 31 of the LDP and Policy 1, Policy 3, Policy 7, Policy 9, Policy 14, Policy 18, Policy 22 and Policy 30 of NPF4. The West Kilbride Local Place Plan was registered on the 24th January 2024 and is a material consideration for this development. 2. Consultations and Representations The application was advertised in the local newspaper and neighbour notification was carried out. Seven objections were received which can be summarised as follows: 1. The access road from the A78 to the site is inadequate. It is too narrow for vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists. Emergency vehicles will struggle to get under the railway bridge on the access road if required. The access under the railway bridge is too low and narrow and it is not clear why a 3rd application is being made when Network Rail object. Response: Network Rail has been consulted. The applicant is entitled to apply, as is a statutory consultee entitled to object to the proposal. The concerns regarding access, including for 2. The A78 is very busy, and the junction is too close to the Montfode Roundabout for the increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The site lacks easily accessible public transport. It is not safe to cross the A78 at this point as a pedestrian. If the facilities on site are open to all the impact on the junction will be even greater. Response: The concerns about the access are noted. The access road is considered to be inadequate and is considered more fully below. Transport Scotland, as Trunk Roads Authority, has been consulted. Their comments are below. 3. The site would have a negative visual impact on the area. This would be exacerbated at night by light pollution. The reduction in chalets from previous is welcome but it is noted that some documents still relate to the larger amount. Concern that further chalets would be added in the future. There will be no sense of place as it is caravan park which could be built anywhere. The facilities building is over-scaled with little relationship to the environment. It would not be compatible with the surrounding area. Response: The visual impact of the proposal is considered further below. If permission is granted it would be for 160 chalets. Any additional chalets would require further planning permission if they amounted to development. 4. There would not be a significant economic impact with only seasonal low wage jobs likely to be created. Disturbance in terms of required roads works is likely to outweigh any benefits. Response: The likely economic impact is considered below. It is acknowledged that road works on the A78 may impact on the wider area, but it is considered that in the long term the proposal would likely have a net positive economic impact in terms of jobs and local spend.
Page 5
5. Wildlife would be adversely impacted by the development. The submitted Biodiversity Report makes no sense ecologically and appears to have been prepared using AI or similar. Species are incorrectly identified in the document and photographs appear to have been lifted from other websites. The site has regenerated with grass and scrub habitats, and it cannot be considered brownfield land which cannot return to a natural state without intervention. Response: Potential wildlife impacts are considered below. It is agreed the site is brownfield land which has returned to a natural state without intervention. The concerns regarding the Biodiversity Report are noted and the comments from Scottish Badgers and the consultation responses from the Scottish Wildlife Trust and NatureScot are set out below. 6. The land is toxic, and disturbance will lead to pollution of the local environment. Movement of land could also pose risk to the adjacent railway line. There is a risk of ground erosion, and the reports must be scrutinised by the Council's Contaminated Land Officer. Further investigation is required. Response: NAC Environmental Health, including the Contaminated Land Officer, has been consulted in terms of potential contamination, and their response is set out below. Network Rail has also been consulted given proximity to the railway and their response is also set out below. 7. Flood risk issues have not been adequately addressed. No clear proposal for servicing the site, including sewage. The single access to/from the site is not suitable in the event of flood. The Montfode Burn is at risk of flooding. The proposed drains, both the existing drain for surface water and the proposed wastewater, go through land owned by others. Response: The site is not identified as being at risk from flooding by SEPA. NAC Flooding has been consulted, and they consider in principle the site could be appropriately managed. They do have concerns regarding the maintenance of the required drain outwith the site. It is noted that the route of the drains is within land not part of the application site. 8. The proposal would not create any new homes. There are two large caravan parks in the area and no need for another. There are more suitable sites. The proposal does not accord with the development plan. Response: The proposal is for holiday accommodation and must be assessed as such. The presence of other such accommodation is not a material consideration, and the application must be assessed in terms of the specific site. Compliance with the development plan is set out below. Three representations where received which can be summarised as follows: 1. Scottish Badgers note the Biodiversity Report mentions two badger setts. However, it falls short of setting out what must be done by law in respect of discovered badger setts. Outline mitigation must be provided and assessed through the planning application process. Response: Noted. The potential impact on protected species is considered below. 2. The NHS state there would be five GP practices which could be impacted by new patients from the development. They would be required to register new patients from the site.
Page 6
Response: The proposal is for holiday accommodation, the occupation of which would be seasonal and could be controlled by planning condition if permission is granted. It is not clear how such accommodation would cause an increase in registration with local GP practices. 3. The RSPB request that swift bricks be integrated into the development. Response: The chalets themselves would not be suitable for swift bricks. However, there would appear scope within the development for such bricks or equivalent bird boxes. If permission is granted a condition could require such as part of any biodiversity enhancement measures. The following consultation responses were received. Transport Scotland - suggest conditions if permission is granted. This would require the formation of a ghost island priority junction on the A78 prior to occupation of the development. This should include a pedestrian/cycle crossing. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) must be submitted and approved prior to any commencement of development. Response: Noted. If permission is granted, such conditions could be added to any permission. NAC Active Travel and Transportation (Roads) - State Transport Scotland to be consulted on access and junction from A78. Recommend that the potential for a pedestrian crossing point be considered. Noted that the existing access road from the A78 would remain private and that the intervisible passing spaces could be provided. Response: Noted. Transport Scotland's comments are above. It is noted that the access road from the A78 is private and therefore outwith the responsibility of the road authorities. However, the suitability of the private access road is considered below in the context of the development plan policies. NAC Flooding - Consider that the principle of the proposed drainage system would be acceptable in flood risk terms. However, consider that maintenance of a system that discharged to a private drain could be difficult. Following this response, the applicant provided further information which suggested the use of an existing land drain exiting the eastern side of the site. NAC Flooding stated that if such a connection was utilised a planning condition should be imposed which required confirmation that maintenance servitudes had been secured. Response: Noted. The proposed drainage scheme may be acceptable in Flooding terms. It is noted that the use of an existing asset is proposed. It is also noted that the permission of any landowner would be required to utilise drainage pipes outwith the site. Scottish Water - No objections. Give advice on next steps. Response: Noted.
Page 7
Historic Environment Scotland (HES) - Initially objected to the proposal due to direct physical impacts (the initially proposed drain through the site) on the Montfode Castle Scheduled Monument. HES also initially objected as they did consider there was enough information to assess full impact on that monument and the Boydston Braes motte Scheduled Monument. A revised Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment was produced. Having reviewed the updated information HES consider there will still be adverse impacts on the settings of the scheduled monuments. However, these would not be severe enough for HES to object. The non-objection should not be taken as support for the proposal. Response: Noted. The applicant provided the additional information and removed the drain from the area of the Montfode Castle scheduled monument following HES's initial objections. The impact on the scheduled monuments is considered further below. West of Scotland Archaeology Service - There is potential for archaeological interest within the site and as such if permission is granted a condition should be imposed relating to a scheme of investigation. HES should be consulted in respect of potential impacts on the scheduled monuments. Response: Noted. NAC Environmental Health - No objections. Prior to any development a desk study to assess likely contamination must be carried out and remediation proposals submitted. All documents to be verified by a suitable qualified consultant, to the satisfaction of the Council. After the proposed cut and fill operations a supplementary site investigation will be required, again with remediation proposals. Re-use of any site won material and/or imported material must be assessed and sampled to the satisfaction of the Council prior to use. A post work remediation plan must be submitted to verify all works. The applicant must demonstrate that additional traffic movement will not have a detrimental effect on local air quality. The proposed sewage treatment plant must be designed and installed to relevant British Standards and be operational prior to any occupation of the site. Response: Noted. Such conditions could be attached to any permission, if granted. NatureScot (NS) - Unlikely to give rise to any significant effects on a protected site. However, the survey methodology for protected species does not seem to follow NS's advice and therefore they are unable to comment if any licenses are necessary or would be forthcoming. It is also noted that the need for EIA was determined by the applicant alone. NS has had no opportunity to advise on the range of natural heritage interests that should have been scoped into the EIA, nor on the methods for assessing them. Any significant effect, or otherwise, on protected interests of national or international importance cannot be confirmed. This is especially the case in relation to protected species. NS feel it is important to bring to the Council's attention that the relevant reports seem to be very poor in general. It could be challenging to assess both biodiversity impacts and proposed enhancements. Response: Noted, in particular NS's consideration of the quality of information provided and the methodology of any surveys which may have been carried out. Scottish Badgers concern regarding that particular protected species is also note.
Page 8
Scottish Wildlife Trust - The Biodiversity Report implies the Trust has been involved in the planning of the project. They wish to make clear the Trust has not been involved or collaborated in any way. Response: Noted. Network Rail - Object. The proposal poses an unacceptable risk to the safety and operation of the railway. The access is through Underbridge 193/006. It has a headroom of 3.05m and a narrow single carriage road. The applicant has not taken the headroom fully into account in the submitted documentation. Network Rail set out a list of additional information they require in order to fully assess potential impacts. The information has not been provided. Network Rail also note that there is public right of way through the underbridge. It was constructed to allow access for general agriculture i.e. Montfode Farm. The developer would have to gain access rights from Network Rail. Response - Noted. The information sought by Network Rail has not been provided. It is further noted that should the Council be minded to grant permission, the matter must be referred to Scottish Ministers given the objection. Access rights would be a private legal matter but are also noted. The applicant has stated that they are in discussions with Network Rail over access. Network Rail has confirmed to the Council that it maintains its objection. West Kilbride Community Council (WKCC) - Development must have the infrastructure to support it. They consider the development is of a scale that requires infrastructure. The site is an old depot with many buildings still remaining. The site is also subject to settlement and cut and fill will mean the buildings will require significant foundations. Drainage is very important as the part of railway embankment washed away a few years ago. The drainage pipe appears to run through Montfode Castle. The proximity of the access onto the A78 to the Montfode Roundabout is an accident waiting to happen. Any hold ups on the A78 would have a significant impact on traffic flow. The access under the railway should not be used as an access as it barely suffices as a farm access with no access for pedestrians/cyclists and emergency vehicles. Any impact on the railway could impact on significant development at Hunterston. If permission is granted occupation should be restricted. Response: Noted. The comments raised by WKCC have been raised by the public/other consultees and addressed above. 3. Analysis Strategic Policy 1: The Countryside Objective of the LDP states that in principle support will be given to certain proposals outwith settlements including tourism and leisure uses where they would promote economic activity and sustainable development. Policy 6: Supporting Sustainable Tourism of the LDP states that support will be given in principle to development of chalet and similar sites. Policy 30: Tourism of NPF4 states that proposals for tourism will take into account the contribution to the local economy, compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of nature
Page 9
and scale, impacts on communities, opportunities for sustainable travel, accessibility measures to minimise carbon emissions and opportunities to access the natural environment. The proposal is for a tourism use including chalet accommodation within the countryside. The public comments regarding the quality of jobs created is noted. However, it is likely that the development would have a net economic benefit in terms of jobs and also spend in the local area by visitors to the accommodation. The proposal therefore accords with Policy 6 of the LDP. It accords with Strategic Policy 1 of the LDP and Policy 30 of NPF in terms of promoting economic activity and contribution to the local economy. The promotion of sustainable development, as per Strategic Policy 1, and the other factors required in Policy 30 are considered below. Strategic Policy 2: Placemaking of the LDP sets out the six qualities of a successful place. The relevant qualities in respect of this development are considered to be 'distinctive,' 'easy to move around and beyond,' and 'safe and pleasant.' Policy 14 of NPF4 is essentially a reiteration of the six qualities, with the relevant qualities being 'distinctive,' 'connected,' and 'pleasant.' Policy 27: Sustainable Transport and Active Travel of the LDP states that support will be given to proposals that appropriately mitigate adverse impacts of significant traffic generation, road safety and air quality. Proposal should take a design led approach to integrate sustainable travel in order of priority from pedestrians, to cycling, to public transport and then private transport. Policy 18: Infrastructure first, of NPF4 states that development proposals will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that provision is made to address the impacts on infrastructure. The proposed site is accessed from an existing junction with the A78, on its eastern side, and then along an existing private access road some 325m in length. The existing private access road passes under the railway line at a distance of about 270m from the junction with the A78. The access road is approx. 4.8m wide and narrows to approx. 3.3m at the railway. There is an active travel path on the western side of the A78, opposite the junction, which links Ardrossan and West Kilbride. The A78 is a bus route, although the nearest bus stop is on Eglinton Road, Ardrossan, at McMillan Drive, approx. 240m to the south of the junction. Transport Scotland was consulted and offer no objection subject to conditions requiring specific upgrades to the junction including a pedestrian/cycle crossing. NAC Environmental Health have suggested a condition requiring an air quality impact assessment in respect of vehicle movements. It is considered that subject to such conditions the impact on vehicles, the trunk road and the wider road network would be acceptable. Network Rail was also consulted and object to the development. They consider that there is not enough information for them to consider the impact on the access underneath the railway (Underbridge 193/006.) The access is narrow and has a low headroom. This is the only access to the site proposed by the application. It would be shared by vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists/active travel. Concerns regarding the suitability of the access for emergency vehicles are noted and it is not clear how construction vehicles, including
Page 10
delivery of chalets, would approach the site. Network Rail's assertion of rights of access is also noted. The applicant has provided a plan which suggests that the access road could be 3m wide with a 1m footpath. They also state that a limit of 3m would be put on vehicle height to prevent vehicles striking the railway bridge. This would allow for smaller emergency and refuse vehicles to pass under one at a time. This means that fire engines would not be able to approach the site, as these typically have a height in excess of 3m. North Ayrshire's refuse collection lorries would also not be able to approach the site, although it is noted that commercial refuse collection operations could be employed. It may be possible to upgrade the access road outwith the railway underpass. However, there does not appear to be any scope to upgrade the small underpass. The applicant has put forward no alternative proposals, and it is not considered that it is suitable to be shared by active travel users with vehicles. A 1m footpath would require users to pass in single file and may require users to walk in the road particularly with push chairs, luggage etc. The proposed access is considered to be inadequate in terms of servicing, in that it only one vehicle can pass along it at, particularly under the railway, at any time. it is not considered acceptable to have a site with potential for approx. 640 people (based on 4 occupants per chalet) not be accessible to fire engines. Given all the above, the proposal is contrary to Policy 18 of NPF4. The access under the railway would not prioritise the needs of active travel over private vehicles. If it were possible to amend the access, it may be to the detriment of users of public transport (i.e. requiring temporary closure of the railway to carry out works). The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 27 of the LDP, and the 'easy to move around and beyond,' and 'connected,' qualities of the Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and Policy 14 of NPF4 respectively. Policy 12: Scheduled Monuments of the LDP states that where there is potential for a proposed development to have an adverse effect on a scheduled monument or the integrity of its setting, permission should only be granted where there are exceptional circumstances. Policy 7: Historic assets and places of NPF4 states that development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets will be accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset. Development proposals affecting scheduled monuments will only be supported where direct impact on the monument is avoided; significant impact on the integrity of the setting are avoided; or exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the impact. The additional assessment of the impact on historic features provided by the applicant, acknowledges that there would be impact on the setting of the Montfode Castle and Boydstone Brae scheduled monuments. However, it is considered that the proposed landscaping would mitigate those impacts. HES were consulted and whilst no longer object, following further information and removal of direct works to a scheduled monument, they consider that the proposals will adversely impact the settings of nearby scheduled monuments. The landscaping plan submitted with the application shows screen planting on the northern boundary of the site and in particular the north-western corner. Given Boydstone Brae's
Page 11
position some 320m to the north-west and across the railway line, it is agreed that the impact on its setting could be mitigated. The access to the site would be some 50m from the Montfode Castle scheduled monument. The entrance portion of the site is an area some 200m in length and proposed to contain a visitor office, a chalet described a 'show home,' and 15 chalets. The south-eastern boundary of the site is some 190m from the scheduled monument. It also some 30m above the scheduled monument and would be intervisible with it. It is proposed to site 8 chalets on this boundary. Whilst planting is proposed for these areas, this is not screening planting and is designed to allow the chalets views outwith the site. It is considered that the impact on the setting of the Montfode Castle scheduled monument would not be mitigated and HES's position that it will adversely affect the setting of that monument is agreed. No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the proposed impacts. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 12 of the LDP and Policy 7 of NPF4. Policy 15: Landscape and Seascape of the LDP states that support will be given to proposals which protect or enhance landscape character. Proposals should consider impacts on landscape features including patterns of woodlands, fields, the coast, transport routes and historic features of interest. The site rises from approx. 30mAOD at the junction with the access road to approx. 64mAOD in the centre of the site. The western boundary of the main part of the site a steep wooded slope rising from approx. 35mAOD at the railway line to 60mAOD at the boundary of the site. Chalet accommodation would be placed along the western edge to provide views to sea with a viewing platform at the highest point. The site is some 88m from the above ground remains of Montfode Castle. The proposed development would have the appearance as may be expected from such a proposed use. The hub building would be rather utilitarian in appearance. Many of the building, including a large number of chalets would be visible from outwith the site. Landscaping is proposed to screen the development in certain views although this would be such that views from the chalets would still be possible. Conditions could be imposed to require the carrying out of the proposed landscaping, although it is likely that such planting would take some time to have effect. Even with time for planting to mature, outwith the more heavily planted areas at the corners, it appears unlikely that the proposed planting to have a significant mitigating effect on the visual appearance. The proposed development would likely be visible above the railway and the wooded slope in views from the core path, the beach some 350m to the west and in longer views from the sea. The proposed viewing platform appears to be a landscaped area, and it is not clear if any raised area would be created. If permission were granted details of this area could be required by permission. As set out above, it is considered there would likely be an adverse impact on historic landscape features i.e. Monfode Castle. Subject to conditions the proposal could accord with Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and Policy 14 of NPF4 in terms of 'distinctive.' However, it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on landscape character and on historic landscape features and as such is contrary to Policy 15 of the LDP.
Page 12
Policy 23: Flood Risk Management of the LDP states that development proposals should provide sustainable urban drainage systems including appropriate long-term maintenance arrangements. Policy 22: Flood risk and water management of NPF4 states that development proposal will manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems. NAC Flooding has been consulted and consider that the principle of the proposed drainage system would be acceptable in flood risk terms, including utilising an existing drainage connection to the east. They consider that a planning condition should be imposed which required confirmation that maintenance servitudes had been secured. The Flooding response is noted and a condition seeking confirmation of such servitudes could be imposed. Subject to such a condition the proposal could accord with Policy 23 of the LDP. Policy 1: Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 says that when considering all development proposal significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 3: Biodiversity of NPF4 states that development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity. Proposals for major or EIA development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity so they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention. Such proposals will demonstrate that the proposal is based on an understanding of the existing characteristics. Policy 9: Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings of NPF4 states that development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings will be supported. In determining whether the reuse is sustainable, the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account. The site was a former oil storage depot which has been disused and has returned to a natural state without intervention. Noted are concerns regarding the quality of the information relating to biodiversity on the site, including those made by Scottish Badgers, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and NatureScot. NatureScot in particular express concerns over the methodology of assessments and the information presented. They can not confirm any significant effect, or otherwise, on protected interests. Given the information provided it is not considered that the proposal has demonstrated an understanding of the biodiversity characteristics of the site, nor that the development would conserve, restore and enhance the site. Without such an understanding it is not considered that the proposal would help mitigate the nature crises. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 1, Policy 3 and Policy 9 of NPF4. Policy 31: Future Proofing for Heat Networks of the LDP starts that proposals for major development shall provide demonstrable evidence that district heating or other forms of renewable generation storage have been explored but are not feasible. The proposal is for a chalet holiday park. It is not considered that such a proposal would readily lend itself to a district heat network given the type of development proposed and its location remote from any significant existing heat generating uses. The proposal is considered to accord with Policy 31 of the LDP.
Page 13
As previously stated, the proposal accords with Strategic Policy 1 of the LDP and Policy 30 of NPF in terms of promoting economic activity and contribution to the local economy. The proposal is also likely to be acceptable in terms of impacts on communities. However, given the above it is not considered that the proposal accords with Strategic Policy 1 of the LDP in terms of sustainable development. It is also not considered that it accords with Policy 30 of NPF4 in terms of compatibility with the surrounding area, opportunities for sustainable travel, accessibility measures to minimise carbon emissions and opportunities to access the natural environment. The proposal is therefore contrary to Strategic Policy 1 of the LDP and Policy 30 of NPF. The West Kilbride Local Place Plan identifies tourism assets in the area and suggests improvements to parking and access in certain areas. It is silent on this specific site and type of development. It is not considered that the proposal is contrary to the Local Place Plan. It is not considered that there are any other material considerations, the application is contrary to the development plan and should therefore be refused. 4. Full Recommendation Refused Reason 1. The proposal would have inadequate access which does not prioritise the need of active travel over private vehicles. It would not provide appropriate access to the wider area or sustainable active travel links, and use of the access could be to the detriment of users of public transport. The site would not be adequately accessible to emergency vehicles. The proposal is contrary to Policy 18 of NPF4, Policy 27 of the LDP, and the 'easy to move around and beyond,' and 'connected,' qualities of the Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP and Policy 14 of NPF4 respectively. Reason 2. The setting of the Montfode Castle scheduled monument would be significantly adversely affected by the introduction of the development both in relatively close proximity and as an intrusive presence on the higher ground to the north and west. No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the proposed impacts. The proposal is contrary to Policy 12 of the LDP and Policy 7 of NPF4. Reason 3. The proposal would have an adverse impact on local landscape character and on the on historic landscape features namely Montfode Castle. The proposal is contrary to Policy 15 of the LDP. Reason 4. The proposal has not demonstrated an understanding of the biodiversity characteristics of the site, nor that the development would conserve, restore and enhance the site. The proposal is contrary to Policy 1, Policy 3 and Policy 9 of NPF4. Reason 5. For the reason given above the proposal is not considered to constitute sustainable development. It is not compatible with the surrounding area, does not provide appropriate opportunities for sustainable travel, accessibility measures to minimise carbon emissions
Page 14
and opportunities to access the natural environment. The proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 1 of the LDP and Policy 30 of NPF4. Allan Finlayson Chief Planning Officer For further information please contact Mr Iain Davies on 01294 324320.