2201248 TPA PPSL RoH Crinan Harbour Island (1)
Argyll and Bute Council · 9 December 2022
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 9 December 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 22/01248/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Mr Richard Stein Proposal: Erection of detached garden room ancillary to dwellinghouse Site Address: Eilean Da Mheinn Harbour Island Crinan Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8SW DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Erection of detached garden room ancillary to dwellinghouse (ii) Other specified operations None (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: i) Members consider the requirement for a pre-determination hearing; and ii) That Planning Permission be granted for the proposal subject to conditions and reasons appended below. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Environmental Health No objection – 29/08/2022 (D) HISTORY:
Page 2
17/01819/PP – Erection of two storey rear extension, replacement conservatory, alterations to dwellinghouse and installation of air source heat pump. Granted – 03.10.2017 21/02308/PP – Erection of detached garden room ancillary to dwellinghouse. Withdrawn – 01.06.2022. (E) PUBLICITY: Neighbour notification (expiry date: 15.09.2022) (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: A total of 111 representations were received for the application – 57 of which were in objection, 53 in support and a neutral comment. Details of the contributors and contents of representations are summarised below. Neutral comment received from: Fiona Higgins, Boathouse Crinan Lochgilphead Argyll and Bute PA31 8SW Support comment received from: All support comments were from received a representative. David and Elly Bittleston, Druim Aird, Crinan Grace Bergius, Craignish House, Ardfern Anna and Edward Hughes, 184 Seaford Road, London Cristophe and Jilly Lefebre, 2 Rowanside Terrace, Ardrossan Brendan and Doris Gerrard, Girtrig Cottage, Crinan Bennie, Prels, David and Malcolm Bridgeland, Drummond House, Crinan Andy and Kerrien Grant, Innisfree, Achnamara Chris Perring, Ruadh Sgeir, Crinan Cristine Tallon and Adrian Cole, Y Fan, Caerphilly Sue Hillman, Kilmory Ross, Tayvallich Iain and Kim Ritchie, Crinan House, Crinan David Sillar, Tigh na Neul, Crinan Janet Foster, Ashfield Farm, Achnamara William and Karen Sillar, Island Macaskin, Kilmartin Mike, Nina and Daphne Murray, Kilmahumaig, Crinan Josef Elias, Kilmahumaig, Crinan Jane Jay, 42 Kingsborough Gardens, Glasgow Conny Graf, Barnakill Farm, Cairnbaan Maitland Black, Cruachan Cottage, Kilmartin Mike and Monica Stewart, The School House, Cairnbaan Catherine MacLennan, 5 Achnamara Derek McKinnon, 8 Crinan Cottages, Crinan Sally Wilkin, 5 Slockavullin Victoria Winters and John Martin Hall, Barr, Minard, Inveraray Olivia Fitzgerald and Will Murray, Kilmahumaig, Crinan
Page 3
Max and Louise G Bittleston. 103 Landells Road, London Peter Smith and Louise C Bittleston,, 21a Sumatra Road, London David Wolfe and Amanda Illing, Wakelyns, Fressingfield Richard and Carol Sloan, Ardmore, Crinan Sarah Jane Pinkerton, Oliver Sumner and Andy Weston, 7 Crinan Cottages, Crinan Objection comments received from: Of the 57 objections, majority were received from two representatives (MKO Ireland and Crinan Harbour Community (CHC)) with 8 from individuals as detailed below. MKO Ltd Ireland representation J MacFarlane, No. 2 Harbour House Crinan Harbour Lochgilphead PA31 8SW M MacIntyre, Fuaran Crinan Harbour Lochgilphead PA31 8SW A and S Murdoch, Harbour Cottage Crinan Harbour Lochgilphead PA31 8SW K Campbell, Shore Cottage Crinan Harbour Lochgilphead PA31 D Robertson, 92 Fauldshead Road Renfrew PA4 0RU (Also on CHC below) L Docherty, Flat 1 19 Myrtle Place Glasgow G42 8UJ (Also on CHC below J Lehmann, Mheall, Kilmichael Glassary, Lochgilphead, PA31 8QJ Alexandra Rutland, 43 The Avenue London NW6 7NR (Also on CHC below) Robin Pigott, Craignish Castle Craignis Argyl PA31 8QS (Also on CHC below) Jesse Mandy, Craignish Castle Craignis Argyl PA31 8QS (Also on CHC below) Crinan Harbour Community (CHC) representation Frances Ryan The Cottage Crinan Argyll PA31 8SR Alasdair and Lauren Taylor, 2 Crinan Cottages, PA31 8SS Alexi and Savanna Murdoch, Harbour Cottage Crinan Harbour PA31 8SW Kristie Campbell, Shore Cottage Crinan Harbour PA31 Angus, Laura and Jamie Pigott, Dunvullaig, Craignish Argyll PA318QS Sarah Phizacklea, Duntaynish Tayvallich PA31 8PW Archie, Jock and Julia Spencer, The Dancing Fox, Lunga, Craobh Haven PA31 8UU Marina Lewin, 50 Staveley Rd London W4 3ES William and Bea Goudy, 1 The Anchorage, Ardfern, Argyll PA31 8QN Megan Barker, Moat House Skenfrith Abergavenny NP7 8UH Rosamund and Boyd McNab, Crinan Harbour PA31 8SW Sophie Barker, 53 Burlington Close, London W9 3LY Philip Murdoch and Eleonora Pinzi, Via Barellai 54, 55049 Viareggio, LU Italy Louise Boisot, Flat 13, 55-59 Grange Road, London, W5 5BU Linda Fitzsimmons, Garway Mill, HR2 8 RL Joseph Barker, 57 Ducket Rd, N13 6HY Katie Sinfield, 75 Tottenhall Rd, N13 6HY Richard Barker, Treferwydd Llagaffo, Ynys Mon, LL60 6LP Aidan Stephen, 45/2 East Claremont St, Edinburgh EH7 4HU Cat Berry, 128 E Trinity Road, Edinburgh, EH5 3PR
Page 4
Simon Cook, 6 Orchard Close, Skenfrith, NP78UH Jay Griffiths, Bwthyn Afallen Mount Lane, Llanidloes, SY18SEY Clem Sandison, 2 Clayton Terrace, Glasgow, G31 2JA Individual representations Hugh Kidd and Katherine Froggatt, 20 Hala Grive, Lancaster LA1 4PS Alison Kidd, Corlan Pencelli Brecon Powys LD3 7LX Ryan Ross and Ann Rasheva, Westering Crinan Arygll PA 31 8SW David and Frances Sedgwick, Tigh-a-Chinil, Badabrie, Fort William PH33 7LX Andrew Hugh, Birlinn Ltd West Newington House 10 Newington Road Edinburgh EH9 1QS (ii) Summary of issues raised: Summary of support comments: We the undersigned write to express our support for this application as proposal is for a small, single storey, single room building designed to provide ancillary facilities for the house on Harbour Island. [Comment: This point raised in support of the application is noted.] As visitors of the island will note, the topography and the proposed location away from the shore, within the long-established garden, will mean that the building will be virtually invisible, day or night, from anywhere off the island. It will have no measurable environmental impact. [Comment: This point raised in support of the application is noted.] To address objections to the original application, the applicants have amended the proposal as follows: o All dimensions of the building have been significantly reduced o The floor area has been reduced from over 30 sqm to 24 sqm o The spire and sleeping loft have been removed completely o The ridge height has been reduced from 6.5m to 3.7m o The kitchen/preparation area has been removed o The skylights have been deleted to reduce the already insignificant potential of light pollution [Comment: This point raised in support of the application is noted.] The only remaining ground of objection raised following the revised proposal relates to the interpretation of the planning policy. However, we support the expert view taken by officers that this ancillary building accords with the policies and therefore support approval of the application. [Comment: This point raised in support of the application is noted.]
Page 5
The applicants have done amazing work to restore the garden and the island. They have worked to clear rubbish from the beaches and garden which was overgrown and in a poor state for the plants that were trying to live there. Having visited the island, the proposed site for the garden room will be well suited – it is an established garden area on the same site as an existing ruins footing where it cannot be seen. [Comment: This point raised in support of the application is noted and verified during site visit. It is however worth noting that the footing as observed on site are not substantial to be given material weighting or consider for a redevelopment] Summary of neutral comment: Plan of South West beach shows a boat landing/slipway on the west side of the beach which does not appear to exist. The slipway is not shown on the OS map [Comment: This point is noted. However, during site visit, there were signs of the boat landing/slipway’s previous existence.] Summary of objection comments: Reference made relative to the application’s description as a ‘garden room’ being misleading as it appears to be a whole building with cooking and toilet facilities. [Comment: This point is noted and addressed in the main body of the report below. It is worth noting the revised proposal omitted the open plan kitchen area but does require the toilet/shower facility for Island workers to purposefully utilise the building.] Concerns raised regarding the proposal being located outside the existing curtilage as such significantly extending the curtilage of the main dwellinghouse. [Comment: This point is noted and address in the main body of the report below.] Concern raised regarding the proposed building not within the specific categories of development encouraged for the Very Sensitive Countryside zone as per Policy LDP DM 1. This policy is viewed as a reassurance to protect the continual scarcity of invaluable and fragile areas of natural, ancient and unspoilt environment in the country. [Comment: This point is noted and addressed in the main body of the report.] Reference was made to the Supplementary Guidance which states that the Council will resist any development in or affecting National Scenic Areas… unless it is adequately demonstrated that any significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been
Page 6
designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance – which we read to reflect that this application should be resisted. [Comment: This point is noted and has been addressed in the main body of the report below.] Concerns raised regarding potential light pollution from the development which would obstruct the dark skies and island’s natural beauty – contributor therefore appeals for a hearing to resolve this. [Comment: Due to the further reduced scale of the development and its concealed location, it is considered that light from the development at night will not be visible from any of the neighbouring properties on the harbour road overlooking the Loch. Matters regarding hearing is addressed in the main body of the report below.] Comment refers to the proposal not maximising the community benefits, not respecting the setting and character of the settlement, does not offer a wider range of housing choice and not offering sustainable economic growth. [Comment: In response to this comment, the proposal is not intended for a business or residential accommodation which would warrant such assessments.] The island is central to the area of outstanding scenic beauty and importance with the proposal representing a very substantial damage to the area. [Comment: This point is noted and the detailed report below addresses the development’s impact on the designated NSA.] The proposal is incompatible with the overarching designations of the site and if granted would set precedence across the area. [Comment: This has been addressed in the main body of the report below.] Contrary to the applicant’s claim in the design report, the previous owners of the island are said to have frequently use the Boat House Bay (which is feasible) to the South Western shore for arriving/departing the island. [Comment: This is noted.] Concerns raised regarding the intended delivery of materials being inaccurately described as no path currently exists on the new boat landing/slipway as shown on the site plan (ref: AR/281/A/03). [Comment: This point is noted. However, it can be confirmed, following a visit to the application site, that a path exists at the referenced the boathouse and through the garden ground to the main house as indicated on the site plan. There were also signs of the boat landing/slipway having been used previously.]
Page 7
The proposed plans does not indicate which paths are intended to be upgraded temporarily to allow the construction and reinstated afterwards. [Comment: This point is noted and clarity has been sought from the agent which confirms the temporary improvement works will be to the existing path which runs between the Boathouse and the application site.] Comment raised seeking clarity as to whether the proposed stove with flue is intended for wood burning or cooking. [Comment: This point is noted and clarity has been sought from the agent which confirms the stove would be for wood burning purposes only.] Further comment pertained to the stone-structure on site. It is noted that this element should not be given weighting as no historic records have been found to indicate there was a building at the location between 1865 to 1971 – though no further maps of a scale large enough to show te structure were published between 1899 and 1971. [Comment: This comment is noted. As per the report, no material weighting is given to this feature in that the ruins are not deemed substantial to allow for a redevelopment of the site.] Reference was made in relation to misinterpretation of Policy LDP DM 1 as per the Committee report for the previous application (21/02308/PP) which stated the policy is not intended to restrict acceptable extension of existing residential dwellings and their gardens within the very sensitive Countryside designation. [Comment: In view of this, officers remain of the view that though this policy seeks to protect the Very Sensitive Countryside zone against new developments, it has been interpreted correctly and the development assessed against it accurately and without compromise.] An appeal has been put forward for a hearing to be upheld prior to determination of the application to allow the contributors a chance to be heard. [Comment: This is noted and addressed in the main body of the report below.] A suggestion was made for the applicant to use the proper channel in bringing forth the proposal… by applying to the council for re-zoning the site in question from the Very Sensitive Countryside designation to a settlement zone to allow the proposed development to go ahead. [Comment: This comment is noted. However, it is noted that the designation is not proposed to change in the proposed LDP2.] The fully serviced building’s proposed site is significantly further away from the main dwelling house than is shown in the submitted drawing, thus, inaccurate and misleading therefore misleading to be classed as ancillary.
Page 8
[Comment: With regards to scale and location, it can be confirmed following a site visit that the proposed plans correspond with what is on site. The issue of proximity/curtilage and for which the arear is accepted for the development is addressed in the main body of the report below.] Note: Full details of all representations can be view on the Council’s website at www.argyll- bute.gov.uk (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A design or design/access statement: Yes Although recommended for approval by the planners, the original application (21/02308/PP) was withdrawn and replaced by this revised application in an attempt to address the substantial objections and reintroduce harmonious community relations in Crinan. The revised application addresses many of the concerns raised by objectors as follows: o All dimensions of the building have been reduced o Area of building reduced from 30+ sqm to 24 sqm o The spire removed completely o The ridge height reduced from 6.5m to 3.7m o The sleeping loft deleted o The kitchen/preparation area deleted o The skylights deleted The draft drawings for the revised proposal were circulated electronically to over one hundred local residents and other interested parties inviting comments and a site visit offered to anyone interested before the application re-submitted. However, only two responses were received, and one person visited the site at the time of submission on 14 June 2022. The indicated curtilage is by reference to the geological feature made up of the saddle containing the species garden glen located between two clear rock ridges. The purpose of the application building is to provide for guests and visitors to the island who may be working in the garden as a toilet/washing facility. The Applicants will also use the building as a quiet room, particularly for writing and as a creative space.
Page 9
The unique location of the garden room and very special nature of this hidden glen within the Island requires an equally unique and special design solution. The design here has evolved as a solution which compliments the nature of a very special area of land, using the existing foundation footprint. High quality locally sourced materials are to be used for the structure and external aesthetic. This material will have an immediate dialogue within the wooded garden specifically in terms of texture and colour. No trees will be affected in the construction of the garden room due to use of the existing foundation, which has itself been used of late for storage of gardening equipment and general detritus. The proposal intends use the existing pontoon access to the island. It will not alter existing access from the pontoon, the boathouse nor does it seek to create any new access. The proposal cannot be seen from Crinan Harbour to the south or from the house on the Island to the west. Any view toward the north east is substantially obscured by land contours (rocky ridge of some 25 metres in height) and existing trees (Scots Pines and other large conifers which provides further 20m high screen to the mainland) and shrub cover. The Applicants have already planted a substantial number of indigenous trees on the ridges bordering the glen with further planting intended. The keenest walker, along the Ardnoe peninsula path opposite the boathouse to the south may, during winter when the trees have no leaves, catch a glimpse of the garden room. But strategic planting and the nature of the materials and colours to be used in the construction will minimise this. The Applicant has ensured that the natural habitat will not be disturbed by virtue of its citing and the use of sustainable, locally sourced natural materials, and the design will contribute to, and indeed enhance the interest of an already special environment. The Site falls within the National Scenic Area and Very Sensitive Countryside Zone Designations. However, will have no impact on the NSA nor detract from the character of the Island. It will instead enhance the character of the island, habitat through form and function as well as experience of visitors to the island and garden. (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No
Page 10
(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ Adopted March 2015 LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 4 – Supporting the Sustainable Development of our Coastal Zone LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 10 – Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption Local Development Plan Schedules ‘Supplementary Guidance to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2015’ (Adopted March 2016) Natural Environment SG LDP ENV 6 – Impact on Trees / Woodland Landscape and Design SG LDP ENV 12 – Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs) Sustainable Siting and Design SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles Resources and Consumption SG LDP SERV 1 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants & Wastewater Systems SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / SuDS SG LDP SERV 6 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. Scottish Planning Policy Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan 2 (November 2019) – The unchallenged policies and proposals within pLDP2 may be afforded significant material weighting in the determination of planning applications at this time as the settled and
Page 11
unopposed view of the Council. Elements of the pLDP2 which have been identified as being subject to unresolved objections still require to be subject of Examination by a Scottish Government appointed Reporter and cannot be afforded significant material weighting at this time. The provisions of pLDP2 that may be afforded significant weighting in the determination of this application are listed below: Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No (M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (O) Requirement for a hearing: No. A total of 111 representations were received for the application – 57 of which were in objection, 53 in support and a neutral comment. It is worth noting that at the April PPSL meeting Members determined, contrary to officer’s recommendation, that the previous application (21/02308/PP) should be subject to a site visit and discretionary pre-determination hearing in light of the significant volume of public representation both in support and opposition to the development. Application ref. 21/02308/PP was however withdrawn prior to a hearing being convened. Whilst officers acknowledge that the proposal has stimulated a significant body of public interest from near and far and the previous consideration of PPSL in respect of the earlier withdrawn application, officers respectfully remain of the opinion that a pre-determination hearing will not add significant value to the planning process in this instance as the proposal relates to a modest householder development that has not been identified as likely to give rise to any significant adverse effects upon the receiving environment or the amenity of the locale. The land-use planning related issues raised by the proposal are not considered to be unduly complex and are addressed in detail within the report of handling. On this basis, and having regard to the approved guidelines for hearings, it is considered that a hearing would not add value to this assessment, nonetheless, having regard to the PPSL Committee’s earlier determination in April 2022 and the level of public representation received in respect of the amended proposal it would be appropriate in this instance that Members consider the requirement for a pre- determination hearing as part of their consideration of this application. (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations
Page 12
This application seeks for planning permission to construct a detached garden room ancillary to the main dwellinghouse on Eilean Da Mheinn, Harbour Island in Crinan. The application site is accessible via a short boat trip from the end of the C39 public road to Crinan. The application has been resubmitted following the withdrawal of the original application (21/02308/PP) which attracted over one hundred representations. During PPSL meeting on 20th April, 2022. That application was continued by PPSL to allow a pre-determination hearing and a site visit however the application was withdrawn prior to the hearing being convened. The current application presents an amended proposal that seeks to address the concerns raised by objectors to the original application. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP) the application site includes land within a Very Sensitive Countryside Zone where Policy LDP DM 1 only gives encouragement to specific categories of development on appropriate sites. These comprise: (i) Renewable energy related development (ii) Telecommunication related development. (iii) Development directly supporting agricultural, aquaculture, nature conservation or other established activity. (iv) small scale development related to outdoor sport and recreation. While the proposed building is not located immediately beside the existing dwellinghouse on the island it has been established that this part of the island is managed and utilised as part of the garden ground of the main dwellinghouse. The application has therefore been deemed a householder application for a domestic garden room ancillary to the main house. Though Policy LDP DM 1 sets out categorical development allowed within Very Sensitive Countryside Zones, it does not seek to restrict extension to established residential dwellings including erection of ancillary annex/outbuildings. The determining factors in the assessment of this application were to initially establish whether or not the site formed part of the existing garden ground of the main house. Further considerations pertained to the location, scale, massing, design, finishing materials of the proposal and its visual impact on the Island and the National Scenic Area (NSA) as a whole. In this case, it is accepted that the site forms part of the managed garden ground of the main house. The well concealed location, scale, massing, design and finishing materials are deemed acceptable in that it will not result in a materially detrimental impact on visual character of the Island nor the NSA where it is located. The application has attracted high volume of representations and is referred to Members to be determined as per the Council’s agreed scheme of delegation (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The nature of the proposal constitutes small scale householder development deemed acceptable and consistent with the requirement for the Settlement area. By virtue of its location, massing, design, materials and infrastructure the development will be in keeping with the character of its immediate surrounding and the wider
Page 13
National Scenic Area. It would not give rise to any detrimental residential or visual amenity concerns. The proposal, subject to the appended conditions, is deemed compliant with the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan policies LDP STRAT1, LDP DM1, LDP 3, LDP 9, LDP 10, and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 6, SG LDP ENV 12, SG LDP SERV 1, SG LDP SERV 2, SG LDP SERV 6, and SG LDP Sustainable. There are therefore no other planning material considerations which would justify refusal of this application for Planning Permission. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan Not applicable (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Tiwaah Antwi Date: 29/09/2022 Reviewing Officer: Peter Bain Date: 05.10.2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 14
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 22/01248/PP 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 14/06/2022, supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Proximity and Location Plan AR/287/A/01 25/08/2022 Site Plan with Curtilage (1:1250) AR/287/A/02 25/08/2022 Site Plan (1:250) AR/287/A/03 25/08/2022 Proposed Elevations AR/287/A/05 26/07/2022 Proposed Elevation, Sections and Plans AR/287/A/04 26/07/2022 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, the building hereby permitted shall be utilised solely as a structure ancillary to the occupation of the main dwelling and shall not be occupied independently thereof as a separate dwelling unit. Reason: To define the permission on the basis of the Planning Authority’s assessment of the use applied for. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the proposed path improvement to be carried out between the boathouse and the application site for the delivery of materials and construction of the garden room, hereby approved, shall be removed and the ground reinstated within three months following completion of the structure. Reason: To ensure the development integrates into its surroundings, in the interest of visual amenity.
Page 15
NOTE TO APPLICANT For the avoidance of doubt this permission only provides for the occupation of the ancillary building and the main dwelling by a single household and their non-paying guests. Specifically the occupation of the building independently from that of the main dwelling (e.g. as a separate fulltime residence or a holiday letting unit) shall require the benefit of a separate planning permission.
Page 16
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 22/01248/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT A. Settlement Strategy The application seeks planning permission to construct a detached garden room ancillary to the main dwellinghouse on Eilean Da Mheinn, Harbour Island in Crinan. The application site is accessible via a short boat trip from the end of the C39 public road to Crinan. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP) the application site includes land within a Very Sensitive Countryside Zone where Policy LDP DM 1 only gives encouragement to specific categories of development on appropriate sites. These comprise: (i) Renewable energy related development (ii) Telecommunication related development. (iii) Development directly supporting agricultural, aquaculture, nature conservation or other established activity. (iv) small scale development related to outdoor sport and recreation. Policy LDP 3 aims to protect, conserve and where possible enhance the built, human and natural environment. SG LDP ENV 6 elaborates on this policy and expects development in and around trees, groups of trees and areas of woodland do not have adverse impact on the trees by ensuring through the development management process that adequate provision is made for the preservation of and where appropriate the planting of new woodland/trees, including compensatory planting and management agreements. SG LDP ENV 12 also has a presumption against development that would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the area, or that would undermine the special qualities of the area. The application site falls within both a Semi-Natural Ancient Woodland and a NSA designation. Policy LDP 9 requires developers to produce and execute a high standard of appropriate design and to ensure that development is sited and designed so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located. The SG LDP Sustainable provides further detail to this policy seeking development layouts to be compatible with, and consolidate the existing settlement taking into account the relationship with neighbouring properties to ensure no adverse impact on visual and/or residential amenities. Additionally, the scale, design and building materials should complement the house and not dominate it, or detract from its amenity or the amenity of the surrounding area and properties. The total amount of building on the site should not exceed 33% of the site area. Detailed below is an assessment of the proposed development against the above referenced policies deemed relevant to the application. B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development Eilean Da Mheinn is a small private island which lies approx. 190 metres west of Crinan village in Loch Crinan. The Island’s topography is predominantly made up geological features of three rock formations lying almost parallel to each other with two valleys between them. The two glens are connected by a set of reconstructed metallic steps.
Page 17
The main house is centrally located on the Island in one of the glens contained by rock spurs while the proposed garden room will be sited centrally on the other and narrower glen currently maintained as a domestic garden ground with various plant species. This proposed location for the ancillary building is confined by the rock ridges on the north west and south east boundaries. To the north east (at sea) and south west from the high level grounds of the Core path C130/Ardnoe which lies some 273 metres south east, the proposal will be bounded by established matures trees. The proposed site includes land within a Very Sensitive Countryside Zone where Policy LDP DM 1 only gives encouragement to specific categories of development on appropriate sites. These comprise: (i) Renewable energy related development (ii) Telecommunication related development. (iii) Development directly supporting agricultural, aquaculture, nature conservation or other established activity. (iv) small scale development related to outdoor sport and recreation. The nature of the proposed development is small scale and therefore acceptable in that it is intended to be used in conjunction with the main dwellinghouse on the Island. It is worth noting that Policy LDP DM 1 is not intended to restrict acceptable extension of existing residential dwellings within the Very Sensitive Countryside designation – this includes erection of detached ancillary annex/outbuildings within their garden grounds. While undertaking a site visit and due to the nature of the island, it was noted that the proposed location for the garden room forms part of the managed domestic garden ground of the main dwellinghouse – therefore accepted as part of the main dwelling’s curtilage. Due to the constraint of available usable ground around the main dwellinghouse, it is considered that the proposed location for the garden room is appropriate though within the secondary glen. This part of the garden is accessible via a set of steps which connects the two glens yet separated by one of the geological formations which hinders views from both sides. It is considered that the proposed location is carefully chosen where it will be confined in the glen and on a brownfield site with evidence of ruins foundation (approx. 500mm above the ground). Based on the above, the Planning Authority is satisfied that the proposed development is within the curtilage of the main dwellinghouse and its intended domesticated use is acceptable and conforms to Policy LDP DM 1 without compromise. The revised proposal is a standard single storey rectangular structure measuring 6.5 metres in length, 3.7 metres wide and 3.7 metres high. The structure would have a pitched roof design with a part over hang roof on the East elevation. Externally, the character of unit is uniquely designed to reflect the character of the Island finished in locally sourced larch cladding and Douglas fir or cedar shingles. Internally, the layout consists of a toilet/shower facility and siting area with stove and associated flue. The supporting statement identifies that the purpose of the building is to provide guests and visitors to the island who may be working in the garden with a toilet/washing facility, the applicants also intend to utilise the building as a quiet room for writing and creative space. The building will replace makeshift facilities which are currently housed in a boat which is beached in the adjacent bay. The applicant has advised that regular visitors to the island include private guests, a gardener and the Woodland Trust. It is worth noting the existing path which runs between the Boathouse and the application site is propose to be improved as a temporary access for the delivery of building materials and the construction of the garden room. This is intended to be removed and the ground reinstated following completion. For the benefit of doubt, a condition has been appended to ensure the temporary access is removed.
Page 18
Due to the proposal’s restrained location in the glen, its reduced scale and unique design to complement the character of both the Island and the existing dwelling, it is considered acceptable as an ancillary domestic outbuilding. The proposal will not be materially detrimental to any visual or residential amenities already established and enjoyed by neighbours or the general public. The proposed location for the ancillary building is well confined by the rock ridges with hardly any glimpses from north east at sea and south west from the high level grounds of Ardnoe which lies some 273 metres south east of the proposed site. It is therefore not considered that the proposal would hinder any views and its finishing materials would naturally blend in the existing natural environment. It is therefore considered acceptable and compliant with policy LDP 9 and SG LDP Sustainable. C. Natural Environment The proposal is not located within any site designated for nature conservation purposes. The existing site is a brownfield location that is currently occupied by low stone walls of a former building; the surrounding land is currently being managed as a part of the extended garden ground of the sole dwelling on the island and there is sufficient evidence in the form of non-native tree species, management of ground vegetation and siting of disused cold frames to suggest that such activity has been ongoing for a substantial period of time and predates the current owners interest in the land. The proposal will not give rise to any significant adverse impact upon biodiversity and is consistent with LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 1. D. Landscape Impact The application site lies within the Knapdale National Scenic Area National Scenic Area wherein the provisions of policy LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 12 would seek to resist development that would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the area, or which would undermine the Special Qualities of the area. The Special Qualities of the Knapdale National Scenic Area are defined by Nature Scot as: Distinctive ridges and loch-filled trenches A landscape of skylines A clothing of oak woodland over ridges and hollows A profoundly evocative, ancient place Ever changing patterns of colour, sound and smell In the north, dramatic juxtaposition of ridges and volcanic plugs arising from the flat expanse of Moine Mhor bog Long slow journeys to the sea Dramatic views in the south The Crinan Canal Whilst Eilean da Mheinn is a key feature within the local landscape setting of Loch Crinan and Crinan Harbour it is not specifically mentioned or identified in the NSA description or list of its Special Qualities. The topography of the island however is somewhat a miniature representation of the wider the ridges and valleys that
Page 19
characterise the northern part of the NSA along with the general restriction of existing built development to more sheltered locations within valleys. The proposed development is a modest structure located within land currently managed as part of a domestic garden and will generally be screened from wider view by the surrounding landform and existing tree cover. Whilst it is accepted that the development may be partially visible from an elevated forest walk above Crinan Harbour it will not have a significant presence within the wider landscape setting, and where visible will not appear out of context in relation to existing built development either on the island or the wider locale. The development is backdropped by the settlements of Crinan Harbour and Crinan where built development, including dwellings of significant scale and mass are evident in much more prominent and elevated locations than the current proposal. The proposal is considered to be acceptable having regard to the provisions of LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 12. E. Infrastructure The proposal intends to rely on the existing public water supply and electricity on site. Surface water drainage will be taken into a soakaway and an existing pond, with any excess flowing to sea through established surface water drains. However, foul water will be taken in a proprietary composting unit with solid waste taken to garden and light fluid discharge to a soakaway. Policy LDP 10 supports all development proposals that seek to maximise our resources and reduce consumption and where they accord with other relevant policy requirements. In response to this, private waste water treatment is proposed with clean water to be discharged to a soakaway and therefore is in line with the requirements of SG LDP SERV 1, SG LDP ENV 6. SEPA’s Standing Advice has been considered in the assessment as the nature of the proposal falls below SEPA’s threshold for consultation. It is worth noting the Sound of Jura (including Loch Crinan) is not designated under EC Shellfish Directives 79/923/EEC or 91/492/EEC. Furthermore, the development has been assessed against the relevant unopposed Policy 58 of the proposed LPD 2 which does not reflect much changes to their currently adopted policies, it is therefore considered that the development also conforms to this policy. In conclusion, the proposed development has been assessed against all of the above potential constraints and designations and determined to raise no issues or concerns. It is consistent with relevant policies of the adopted LDP subject to the appended conditions.