Agenda Document Pack - Planning Committee - 28/01/2026
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, Cunninghame House, Irvine KA12 8EE Planning Committee A Meeting of the Planning Committee of North Ayrshire Council will be held in the Council Chambers, Ground Floor, Cunninghame House, Irvine, KA12 8EE on Wednesday, 28 January 2026 at 14:00 to consider the undernoted business. Meeting Arrangements - Hybrid Meetings This meeting will be held on a predominantly physical basis but with provision, by prior notification, for remote attendance by Elected Members in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003. Where possible, the meeting will be live-streamed and available to view at https://north-ayrshire.public- i.tv/core/portal/home. 1 Declarations of Interest Members are requested to give notice of any declarations of interest in respect of items of business on the Agenda. 2 Minutes The accuracy of the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2025 will be confirmed and the Minutes signed in accordance with Paragraph 7 (1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (copy enclosed). 3 25/00508/PP : Clauchlands House, Clauchlands Road, Lamlash Section 42 application to remove agricultural occupancy restriction under condition 1 of dwelling house granted under planning permission 01/00666/PP (copy enclosed). 4 25/00445/PP : Unit 4 Douglas Centre, Alma Road, Brodick, KA27 8AJ Removal of occupancy condition on upper flat applied under previous planning permission 10/00449/PP and change of use of ground floor retail unit to form additional residential flat (copy enclosed). 1
Page 2
North Ayrshire Council, Cunninghame House, Irvine KA12 8EE 5 24/00553/PPM : Montfode Oil Storage Depot, Ardrossan Seeking permission for the erection of 160 holiday chalets with facilities hub including access, landscaping, open space and associated works (copy enclosed). 6 Urgent Items Any other items which the Chair considers to be urgent. Webcasting Please note: this meeting may be filmed/recorded/live-streamed to the Council's internet site and available to view at https://north-ayrshire.public- i.tv/core/portal/home, where it will be capable of repeated viewing. At the start of the meeting, the Provost/Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed/recorded/live-streamed. You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 2018. Data collected during the webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy, including, but not limited to, for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available via the Council’s internet site. Generally, the press and public will not be filmed. However, by entering the Council Chambers and using the press or public seating area, you acknowledge that you may be filmed and that any information pertaining to you contained in the video and oral recording of the meeting will be used for webcasting or training purposes and for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available to the public. In making this use of your information the Council is processing data which is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest. If you have any queries regarding this and, in particular, if you believe that use and/or storage of any particular information would cause, or be likely to cause, substantial damage or distress to any individual, please contact dataprotectionofficer@north-ayrshire.gov.uk 2
Page 3
North Ayrshire Council, Cunninghame House, Irvine KA12 8EE Planning Committee Sederunt Robert Foster (Chair) Cameron Inglis (Vice-Chair) Scott Davidson Stewart Ferguson Margaret Johnson Amanda Kerr Davina McTiernan Jim Montgomerie Ian Murdoch Ronnie Stalker Chair: Apologies: Attending: 3
Page 4
4
Page 5
Planning Committee 29 October 2025 At a Meeting of the Planning Committee of North Ayrshire Council at 2.00 p.m. involving a combination of participation by remote electronic means and physical attendance within the Council Chambers, Irvine. Present (Physical Participation) Robert Foster, Cameron Inglis, Scott Davidson, Stewart Ferguson, and Ronnie Stalker. Present (Remote Participation) Amanda Kerr, Margaret Johnson, Davina McTiernan, and Jim Montgomerie. In Attendance A. Finlayson, Chief Planning Officer; and J. Glacken, Planning Officer (Planning) (Communities and Housing); R. Lynch, Senior Manager; C. Leslie, Solicitor (Legal); S. Wilson, Committee Services Officer; and C. Cheung, Digital, Media & Marketing Analyst (Communications) (Democratic Services) (Corporate Services). Chair Councillor Foster in the Chair. Apologies Ian Murdoch. 1. Declarations of Interest In terms of Standing Order 11 and Section 5 of the Code of Conduct for Councillors, Councillor Kerr declared an interest in agenda item 4 – Grouping of Trees Located at the Former Seafield School, Eglinton Road, Ardrossan, as a Trustee and Treasurer of the Ardrossan Community Sports Hub based within Seafield School. 2. Minutes The Minutes of the Meeting held on 27 August 2025 were confirmed and signed in accordance with Paragraph 7 (1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 3. Garnock Valley Local Place Plan Submitted a report by the Executive Director (Communities and Housing) advising Members on the preparation and submission of a Local Place Plan attached at Appendix 1 to the report by the Garnock Valley Local Place Plan Working Group. Officers responded to Members’ questions and the Committee (a) agreed to the registration of the Local Place Plan for Garnock Valley submitted by the Garnock Valley Working Group, and (b) noted the requirement to take account of the plan in the preparation of North Ayrshire’s third Local Development Plan (LDP3). Agenda Item 2 5
Page 6
4. Grouping of Trees Located at The Former Seafield School, Eglinton Road, Ardrossan Submitted a report by the Chief Planning Officer advising of the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for a group of trees located at the former Seafield School, Eglinton Road, Ardrossan. The Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was attached at Appendix 1 to the report. Councillor Kerr, having declared an interest, took no part in the deliberation of this item. Officers responded to Members’ questions and the Committee agreed the modified Tree Preservation Order (TPO) under Section 160 1997 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in the interests of protecting public amenity. 5. 25/00399/PP : Wardlaw Wood Windfarm, Dalry Submitted a report by the Chief Planning Officer under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 seeking permission to amend condition 1 of planning permission N/02/00906/PP to extend the operational life of Dalry Community Wind Farm until October 2038. Councillor Foster, Chair, advised that the applicant had withdrawn this application from consideration. 6. Planning appeal: CCG Homes, Nethermains, Kilwinning Submitted a report by the Chief Planning Officer advising on the decision taken by Scottish Ministers following an appeal by CCG Homes against the refusal of North Ayrshire Council to grant planning permission for 113 dwellinghouses on land at Nethermains, Kilwinning. Officers responded to Members’ questions and the Committee agreed to note the decision of Scottish Ministers. 7. Urgent Items There were no urgent items. The meeting ended at 2.30 p.m. The full meeting proceedings can be viewed at https://north-ayrshire.public-i.tv/core/portal/home 6
Page 7
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL Planning Committee Locality Isle of Arran Reference 25/00508/PP Application Registered 4th November 2025 Decision Due 4th January 2026 Ward Arran Recommendation Approved with no Conditions __________________________________________________________________ Location Clauchlands House Clauchlands Road Lamlash Brodick Isle Of Arran North Ayrshire KA27 8LH Applicant Mrs Nan Reid Proposal Section 42 application to remove agricultural occupancy restriction under condition 1 of dwelling house granted under planning permission 01/00666/PP ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Description An application has been made to remove an agricultural occupancy restriction on a house which was granted by the Planning Committee under planning permission 01/00666/PP in 2002. Condition 1 was applied "that the occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 277 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 or in forestry, or a dependant of such a person residing with him or her, or a widow or widower of such a person." The house appears to have been occupied in accordance with the condition since then and this application has now been made to remove the occupancy restriction because of a change in personal and business circumstances. Agenda Item 3 7
Page 8
Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, applies to
applications for planning permission for the development of land without complying with
conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. It allows that the
planning authority shall consider only the question of the conditions subject to which
planning permission should be granted, and if they decide that planning permission should
be granted subject to conditions differing from those subject to which the previous
permission was granted, or that it should be granted unconditionally, they shall grant
planning permission accordingly.
Checks have been carried out with Legal Services to confirm that no corresponding legal
agreements (e.g. Section 75) were entered into at the time and that only the planning
condition itself is therefore now at question.
Clauchlands Farm is sited 1km northeast of the settlement of Lamlash. The detached one
and a half storey house is sited approximately 115 metres southeast of the main grouping of
farmyard buildings. It was built by Stuart Reid, the current farmer, when he took over
operation of the farm business from his father in the early 2000's.
The three-bedroom single storey building is of simple rectangular plan form with a footprint
of some 153m2 and is of traditional design and finishes featuring pitched dormers to the
front roof slope. It shares the main farm access road which leads from Clauchlands Road at
the south and is otherwise bounded by agricultural land within the farm.
The applicants are the current farmer and his wife who have applied for discharge of the
condition on the following grounds:
- Changes in the business. When permission was granted to build Clauchlands
House, the main part of the business was as a dairy farm supplier to the Torrylinn Creamery.
Since the Creamery closed in 2019, the dairy business has reduced, much of the herd has
been sold and staff made redundant due to the reduced workload.
- Due to the imminent retiral of the applicants from the farm business, the future is
uncertain and if the condition were removed, then its occupation by the current owners
could continue occupation even were they no longer involved in the operation of the farm.
- The applicants do not consider that there would be any amenity issues arising from
the removal of the occupancy restriction. All of the three houses on the farm are currently
owned by the family.
The application site is located within the countryside, as identified in the adopted North
Ayrshire Local Development Plan ("the LDP") and is unaffected by any site-specific policies
or proposals therein. The relevant policies in the LDP to houses in the countryside are
Strategic Policy 1: the Countryside Objective and Strategic Policy 2: Placemaking.
A similar agricultural occupancy was previously removed from Clauchlands Cottage No.3 in
2019 (19/00573/ALO) immediately following the closure of the Torrylinn Creamery for
similar reasons as farm staff were initially released from employment. Removal of a similar
occupancy tie in a Section 75 legal agreement on the house built by the original farmer, Alex
Reid and c.195m west of this approval was also previously approved by the planning
committee in March 2024.
8Page 9
2. Consultations and Representations There was no statutory requirement for neighbour notification or other publicity given the remoteness of the location and the surrounding land all being in the ownership of the applicants. The application was displayed on the Council's online planning portal. No public comments or objections have been received, and no consultations were required. 3. Analysis Essentially, the proposal is to allow permanent occupation of a house already in-situ given changes in circumstances and that it is no longer required by employees of the farm. Removal of the condition would allow occupation by family members not involved in the business and would also potentially allow the property to be sold or let on the open market if it were no longer connected to agricultural operations at the farm. These aspects of the proposal require to be considered in terms of Strategic Policy 1: the Countryside Objective and Strategic Policy 2: Placemaking in the adopted Local Development Plan. Strategic Policy 1 accepts new development in the countryside which is ancillary to existing rural uses and the house was initially justified and approved in these terms as being intended to support the existing farm operation. The policy does not specifically address a change in circumstances such as is requested here. In terms of the requested removal of the occupancy condition, the following points are considered to be material: (i) Since it was initially built over 20 years ago, the house has been occupied in association with the rural business against which it was justified. (ii) The agricultural unit continues to operate at this time but there have been significant developments in the dairy business outwith the applicants' control, ie. the loss of the previous main client, Arran Creamery. The applicants have since erected holiday let chalets as a diversification of the business (19/00019/PP) and so have continuing interest at the farm outwith primary agriculture. (iii) Since the time of the original approval, Scottish Government advice, in a 2011 letter from the Chief Planner to local authorities, indicates that little weight should now be afforded to the use of occupancy conditions for housing in the countryside. Instead, the planning considerations should focus on siting, design, environmental impacts, access etc. Requests to remove such occupancy restrictions should normally take into consideration: the time passed since the original restriction was imposed; the change in circumstances given as justification; consideration of any risks associated with removal of the restriction; difficulties caused by retention of the restriction, e.g. mortgage borrowing; and that the house is suitably sited and designed and provides a reasonable level of residential amenity. The house was granted in 2002 and was justified against the needs of the business at that time. The intervening changes to the farm business, outwith the applicants' control, are noted and it is accepted that circumstances have significantly changed in the years since 9
Page 10
the original condition was applied. It is therefore accepted that the house has been occupied in line with the agreement for a sufficiently long period following the imposition of the occupancy restriction and the condition has served its original purpose. Previous discussions with the applicant and the previous similar applications (19/00573/ALO) and 24/00114/ALO) outline the significant impact on the farm business of the closure of its main client, Arran Creamery, the circumstances of the farm business have changed, as has national planning policy and guidance or rural housing. The house is no longer required for occupation by farm workers, and it is therefore considered that the future of the existing farm unit would not be directly affected by the removal of the restriction. Taking all of the above into account, the proposal therefore accords with Strategic Policy 1. In terms of siting and amenity, the house provides a good level of residential amenity and outlook which would be unchanged by the requested removal of the occupancy restriction. It does not impact on the privacy or residential amenity of the other properties at the farm, which are 50 metres to the northeast and 190 metres to the northwest respectively. The house could be accessed independently of the working farm if required and the siting is therefore acceptable on its merits. Again, it is noted that Scottish Governments Chief Planner's advice on the desirability of avoiding occupancy restrictions, other than to guard against identified impacts on road safety, amenity etc. is a material planning consideration. For the reasons listed, the proposal also therefore complies with Strategic Policy 2: Placemaking in the LDP. The application has also been assessed against the approved National Planning Framework 4 and it has been determined that the proposal does not raise any significant strategic planning issues which conflict with the foregoing assessment. Taking all of these factors into consideration, it is considered that there is no longer a requirement to retain the occupancy restriction. It is therefore recommended that the occupancy restriction condition be removed. There is no accompanying legal agreement, as was sometimes entered into in similar cases and so no further actions by North Ayrshire Council would be required. The other planning conditions applied to 01/00666/PP related to drainage arrangements and finishing materials and were addressed at the time of construction and there is therefore no requirement to apply any conditions on this decision. 4. Full Recommendation Approved with no Conditions Allan Finlayson Chief Planning Officer For further information please contact Mr Neil McAteer Planning Officer on 07990 410884. 10
Page 11
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 28th January 2026 Planning Committee Locality Isle of Arran Reference 25/00445/PP Application Registered 1st October 2025 Decision Due 1st December 2025 Ward Arran Recommendation Approved with no Conditions __________________________________________________________________ Location Unit 4 Douglas Centre Alma Road Brodick Isle Of Arran North Ayrshire KA27 8AJ Applicant Mr Graeme Andrew Proposal Removal of occupancy condition on upper flat applied under previous planning permission 10/00449/PP and change of use of ground floor retail unit to form additional residential flat ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Description Planning permission is sought to change the use of a ground floor commercial unit to form a residential flat and to remove a previous planning condition which restricted the occupation of an existing managers flat above the unit to allow its future sale or letting on the open market. The proposal relates to a ground floor unit with an attic flat above in the Douglas Centre which adjoins the northwest of the Douglas Hotel, located at the eastern end of Shore Road, Brodick. Unit 4 is adjoined by Unit 5 to the south which is used as staff accommodation by the Hotel and by the office of the Arran Banner newspaper to the north. Other uses within the Douglas Centre row include an opticians, a solicitors office and the office of a cleaning company. The premises are also adjoined by the raised terrace seating area of the hotel to the east and by the Co-op supermarket to the rear (west) across the intervening Alma Road. Agenda Item 4 11
Page 12
Planning permission 10/00449/PP was previously granted in 2010 for the Change of use of
an attic storage area to form managers accommodation. Condition 1 of that permission
stated that the residential accommodation was to be occupied solely as staff
accommodation in association with Unit 4 Douglas Centre and was not to be sold or let
separately.
The proposal now is to internally convert the ground floor shop to form a two bedroom flat
and to remove the previous planning condition to also allow the upper flat to be sold or let
independently without any connection to the business use of the ground floor.
The ground floor entrance on the east elevation would be amended to isolate the existing
combined stairway entrance to the shop and the upper level. Access to the new ground
floor flat would be via an existing sliding door on the front elevation.
There would be no significant exterior alteration of the building other than installation of two
new rooflights on the front roof slope and one on the rear, and alterations to the rear (west)
fenestration to block up a window, widen another and install a new 775mm by 820mm
ground floor window.
A supporting statement was submitted with the application which indicated that the
applicant has operated a small appliance repair business (Arran Domestic Service Centre)
from the premises since 1991 but is now to retire and wishes to convert both floors to small
apartments, for which he considers there is an ever growing demand on the island.
The statement details other businesses within Brodick which would continue to provide
similar services. It also states that the commercial unit suffers from a lack of passing trade
given its location and that the mix of neighbouring units (newspaper office, optician,
cleaning company, solicitors) do not attract any significant footfall to the area. The
Statement concludes that whilst the unit was not formally marketed, the applicant had made
it well known within the community that he intended to retire and cease trading and was
open to offers for the business as a going concern but received no interest.
The application site is within the settlement boundary of Brodick, as identified in the Adopted
North Ayrshire Council Local Development Plan ("the LDP"). As the proposal is for
residential use within the village, the Towns and Villages Objective of Strategic Policy 1 is
relevant as is Strategic Policy 2: Placemaking. Policy 8: Business Development on Arran
and Cumbrae also has some relevance to the proposal.
In terms of the planning history of unit 4, planning permission 10/00449/PP was granted
subject to conditions in 2010 for Change of Use of attic storage unit to form managers
accommodation following the earlier refusal of 10/00140/PP for Change of use of storage
unit to form dwellingflat.
For the other units in the row: the adjoining Unit 5 to the south had planning permission
01/97/0263 granted in 1997 for a change of use of a first floor storage area over a dental
surgery to a residential flat, subject to a condition limiting the occupation to persons
employed by the dental surgery or their dependants. In 2016, 16/00498/PP was granted for
the change of use of the ground floor dental surgery to a delicatessen and hot food
takeaway and 16/00497/PP was granted without conditions for the subdivision to form a
self-contained flat on the first floor. Most recently, in 2019 planning permission
12Page 13
19/00658/PP was granted for the change of use of the delicatessen to form additional hotel accommodation for the Douglas Hotel. Unit 3 was changed from retail to office use under 04/01284/PP and appears to have been occupied by the Arran Banner since then. Unit 2 was changed from Class 1 Retail to Class 2 Office use under 15/00764/PP in 2015 and appears to have been occupied as a solicitors office since then. There is no record of planning applications for Unit 1. 2. Consultations and Representations The statutory neighbour notification procedures were undertaken and one public objection was received from Arran Civic Trust. OBJECTION: The Douglas Centre was originally designed and built for commercial/office use. Small commercial units of this size are still unusual in Brodick and should be retained as such. If domestic accommodation were allowed in Unit 4 that would set a precedent for the whole of the Douglas Centre to become domestic dwellings. RESPONSE: It is noted that residential accommodation has been previously approved in the upper levels of several of the units but the only residential occupation granted for the ground floor units thus far has been for staff and/or guest accommodation for the Douglas Hotel in Unit 5. However, it is further noted that no precedent would be set by any planning determination of this application as any future proposals would require to be assessed on their own merits against the development plan and any other material considerations at the time. This proposal is assessed against the Development Plan in the following Analysis. CONSULTATIONS ARRAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL: Objects. The proposal cannot be supported due to the needs of the local area. The original build was for small retail units, something still lacking in the Brodick area. This proposal would convert both levels of this unit to residential and would not benefit future business opportunities in the area. There is no commitment to affordable housing or future service provision. There would be an issue with parking. RESPONSE: Noted. The proposal is assessed against the relevant criteria of the Development Plan in the following Analysis. Active Travel and Transport was consulted on potential impacts on parking and the public road network and the response follows. ACTIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORT: No objection. As this is a town centre re-development no dedicated parking is required but on-street public parking, currently unrestricted, is available nearby. RESPONSE: Noted 3. Analysis The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act requires that planning applications be determined with regard to the development plan and any other material considerations. The 13
Page 14
development plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the North Ayrshire Local Development Plan (LDP), adopted in November 2019. NPF 4 does not contain any policies restricting the loss of commercial units which are not deemed viable by the owners. Whilst Brodick does not have a specifically identified Town Centre, it is considered that Policy 27 of NPF4 (Town Centre Living) is relevant. This policy requires proposals for residential use of ground floor premises in town centres to (i) retain an attractive and appropriate frontage; (ii) not adversely affect the vitality and viability of a shopping area or the wider centre; and (iii) not result in undesirable concentration of uses or 'dead frontages'. For (i) the proposal here would essentially retain the same frontage without signage and the patio door front entrance is considered to be appropriate for a flat of this scale, particularly in this unobtrusive corner location. With regards to (ii), given the previous history and changes of use of the various units in the centre, as detailed above, the row is now primarily characterised by professional offices (newspaper, opticians) and hotel accommodation and is not primarily a shopping area. Whilst the large Co-op supermarket is to the west, the row is essentially some 150-200 metres from the independent retail premises on Shore Road which commences with the Little Roack café and Arran Active clothing store and is then punctuated by guest houses and residential properties before a row of small shops for the Book and Card Centre and beyond. The Douglas Centre is therefore over 380 metres away from the main concentration of retail shops in Brodick village and the loss of this small repair shop would not have a significant adverse effect on the viability of the main shopping area. For (iii), residential uses are acceptable in principle in town centres and there would be no concentration of undesirable uses. The Towns and Villages Objective of Strategic Policy 1 (T&VO) of the LDP identifies the mixed function of our towns and villages which are where most of our homes, jobs, community facilities, shops and services are located and identifies that residential development will accord with the development plan in principle. Whilst the T&VO identifies that a 'town centre first' principle will be applied to directing any major new investment it does not contain any policy criteria regarding the potential loss of any commercial premises which are not deemed viable by the owners. Policy 8: Business Development on Arran and Cumbrae similarly addresses factors in guiding potential new business developments to appropriate locations to bring positive impacts on the vitality, vibrancy and visibility of the island but is silent on the potential loss of existing units. Given the policy considerations above, the residential use of the unit would accord with the policies and there would be no significant adverse effects on the overall retail offer of the village centre. The proposal therefore complies with the relevant policies. Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP addresses design and amenity issues. There would be minimal changes to the external appearance of the building here and it would therefore remain appropriate to the overall visual amenity of the wider area. Whilst the proposed 14
Page 15
resulting properties would both be small flats, they would provide a reasonable level of amenity to future occupants and would be located within easy reach of the shore and amenities of the village centre. The outdoor seating terrace of the Hotel would be immediately to the front but it is considered that would only present a reasonable level of noise or disturbance to occupants, given that its operation would remain within the control of the Licensing Authority in any case. There would be no expected significant adverse effects on the expected residential amenity of any other properties. The proposal also there accords with Strategic Policy 2. Given the foregoing, the proposals accords with the relevant provisions of the development plan. The ground floor unit can therefore be changed to a residential flat and accordingly, there is no longer any requirement for the planning condition linking the flat above to the lower commercial use. Planning condition 1 of 10/00449/PP has therefore served its purpose and can be removed. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted both for the proposed change of use and the removal of a condition of 10/00449/PP. There are no other material considerations not addressed above and no requirement to apply any planning conditions. 4. Full Recommendation Approved with no Conditions Allan Finlayson Chief Planning Officer For further information please contact Mr Neil McAteer Planning Officer on 07990 410884. 15
Page 16
16
Page 17
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. Agenda Item 5 17
Page 18
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 18
Page 19
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.
19Page 20
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. 20
Page 21
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. 21
Page 22
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. 22
Page 23
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. 23
Page 24
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 24
Page 25
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 25
Page 26
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 26
Page 27
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. 27
Page 28
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. 28
Page 29
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 29
Page 30
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. 30