Printed minutes

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.

Original council PDF · Download plain text

Page 1

MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE
held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY
MICROSOFT TEAMS on FRIDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2022 
Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) 
Councillor John Armour
Councillor Jan Brown
Councillor Graham Hardie
Councillor Fiona Howard 
Councillor Mark Irvine
Councillor Liz McCabe
Councillor Luna Martin
Councillor Peter Wallace 
Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance, Risk and Safety Manager
Peter Bain, Development Manager – Planning
Tiwaah Antwi, Planning Officer – Planning
Richard Stein, Applicant
David Bittleston, Supporter
Alexi Murdoch, Objector 
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey,
Daniel Hampsey, Willie Hume and Paul Kennedy. 
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 
There were no declarations of interest. 
3. MR RICHARD STEIN: ERECTION OF DETACHED GARDEN ROOM ANCILLARY
TO DWELLINGHOUSE: EILEAN DA MHEINN, HARBOUR ISLAND, CRINAN,
LOCHGILPHEAD (REF: 22/01248/PP) 
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting which was being held on a hybrid basis. 
For the purposes of the sederunt Iain Jackson, Clerk to the Committee today, read out the
names of the Members of the Committee and asked them to confirm their attendance. 
In advance of the meeting today interested parties confirmed they would make
presentations to the Committee.  Mr Jackson read out the names of those representatives
and asked them to confirm their attendance.  Mr Jackson also clarified that there were no
others in attendance today that wished to speak. 
The Chair, having explained the hearing procedure that would be followed, invited the
Planning Officer to present the case. 
PLANNING 
On behalf of the Head of Development and Economic Growth, Tiwaah Antwi, Planning
Officer, made the following presentation with the aid of power point slides. 
The application before Members today is for the construction of a detached garden room
ancillary to the main dwellinghouse on Eilean Da Mheinn, Harbour Island in Crinan. The
Island is accessible via a short boat trip from the end of Crinan harbour road.

Page 2

The application has attracted high volume of representations and was therefore referred to
Members to be determined as per the Council’s agreed scheme of delegation. 
Following the publication of the Report of Handling on 5 October 2022 and the initial
supplementary report on 19 October 2022, officers have received a late consultee
response from West of Scotland Archaeological Services and 8 further representations as
noted in the secondary Supplementary report with copies made publicly available online.
For the purpose of the record, I will just highlight a typographical error in the introduction
section to the supplementary report. It is confirmed that the number of late representations
should read as 8 and not one as stated. It is further confirmed that all the late
representations have been addressed in section 4. 
To provide a background information on this application, a similar proposal for a garden
room on this site was presented to members at the April PPSL prior to the Council
Elections. At the time, Members decided to have a site visit and hold a Hearing prior to
determination, however, the application was withdrawn prior to the Hearing date. This was
intended to address some of the concerns previously raised in objection to the proposal.
Similarly, during the October PPSL for the current and revised application, officers
considered that this is a straightforward householder application for an ancillary building
within an established extended garden area of a dwellinghouse and therefore remained of
the opinion that a pre-determination hearing would not add significant value to the
planning process. However, after careful deliberation, Members decided to have a site
visit on 29 November 2022 and hold a Hearing today prior to determination. 
Slide 3: 
Moving on with today’s presentation, officers seek to address two main key policy issues
associated with this application; the first being the way in which officers have applied
policy LDP DM 1 in the assessment of this application and the second being the
proposals’ impact on the National Scenic Area though objectors have lately expressed
agreement with officers on this. 
In the context of the adopted Local Development Plan and the proposals map, policy LDP
DM1 sets out the settlement strategy which indicates areas where development on
appropriate sites should or should not be encouraged/allowed. The Harbour Island in this
regard sits within a Very Sensitive Countryside Zone. 
The LDP defines the VSC zone as an area which comprises countryside and isolated
coast which has extremely limited capacity to successfully absorb development and as
such only limited categories of natural resource based development is supported in these
areas. 
The VSC therefore generally, relates to high peaks and remoter coastal areas – areas that
are generally devoid of human habitation for the main part and where human habitation is
not expected to be encouraged/required. Accordingly, this policy ordinarily does not allow
any new development in the VSC zone with the exception of specified few categories
noted on the next slide but is not intended to restrict acceptable proposals which seeks to
support established activity.

Page 3

Slide 4: 
Section F of policy LDP DM1 sets out the limited categories of development allowed within
the VSC zone restricting them to renewable energy, telecommunication, development
directly supporting agricultural, aquaculture, nature conservation or other established
activity and/or small scale development related to outdoor sport and recreation. 
In view of this, the main part of this policy to focus on is part (iii) of section F which refers
to development directly supporting agricultural, aquaculture, nature conservation or other
established activity – which forms the basis for officers’ assessment of the proposal before
members today. 
In practice LDP DM 1 F(iii) establishes that development which directly supports an
established activity, including activities and land uses outwith those specifically identified
elsewhere under section F, may be supported within the Very Sensitive Countryside zone,
subject of course to compliance with any other relevant policies in the LDP.   
In the case of this particular application, the established activity is the residential
occupation of the applicant’s dwellinghouse and their use of parts of the island for
purposes that are ancillary to the residential occupation of the property. 
Slide 5: 
This photo depicts the existing dwellinghouse and its immediate curtilage and managed
garden ground, the rising ground behind the house is part of the northern rock ridge area
which is less managed on the island compared to the two valleys. 
Slide 6: 
This is a similar photo taken from the northern ridge looking back at the house and shows
an area of lawn and some of the established paths which run through Harbour Island. The
path in the centre of the screen provides the link to the application site. 
Slide 7: 
The proposed garden room is located approximately 70m to the south east within a
sheltered valley which runs SW to NE and is enclosed by parallel rock ridges to the north
and south. The floor of the valley includes an established path route connecting the
dwellinghouse to a boathouse and slipway at the south of the island. Within this relatively
level and sheltered area there is evidence of longer established activity which relates
directly to the residential occupation of the dwellinghouse on the island with the presence
of framed bedding areas, relatively level grassy open areas, drainage channels, and a
number of well-established garden plants/non-native trees, in addition to the existing
boathouse and slipway. This photo shows part of the extended garden area including
areas of grassy open space, garden plants and a framed bedding area. 
Slide 8: 
Moving on to the submitted plans for the application before Members today, this is a
supplementary location plan which shows the site’s proximity and relation with Crinan
village.

Page 4

Crinan village itself is accessible by two main public roads C39 and U047. The latter
would appear to split the village in two parts with properties on Crinan harbour located to
its West. The Harbour Island lies some 190 metres NW of Crinan Harbour. 
Slide 9: 
The Island’s topography is predominantly made up geological formations and it is
important to understand these to fully grasp the natural features and usable spaces within
the island and hopefully the site visit was of some benefit to Members who were able to
attend. The main access to the site is located NE with the old access located SW next to
the boathouse. There are wild and natural woodland areas on the island which will be
retained as is. 
The three series of rock formations of the Island run SW to NE and lie almost parallel to
each other with two sheltered valleys between them. The first of the rock ridges is located
northward, the second splits the two valleys and the third is located southward overlooking
neighbouring residents of Crinan harbour. Essentially, from this site plan, it can be
concluded that the areas in blue are less managed rocky areas and shorelines and the
area demarcated red is the usable spaces within the Island. Though at the mid-point, the
second rock formation extends to the steps which access both valleys. 
The main house and its immediate curtilage as shown in previous photos is contained
within one of the sheltered valleys with the proposed garden room to be confined within
the second valley which is currently maintained and managed as an extended
domesticated garden ground. It was evident on site the extended domesticated garden
area predates the existing owners in that there are evidence of tropical, non-native plants,
footpath which previously run from the existing boathouse and slipway (both of which is
believed to have been established around the same time as the main dwellinghouse was
built on the Island if not longer). There are also raised beds, established pond in more
recent years and defined footpaths in the area connecting back to the main dwellinghouse
via a set of reconstructed metallic steps forming part of the defined footpaths which runs
through the Island. 
With this in mind, officers’ are confident that the secondary extended and domesticated
garden area has a distinctively different use from say the areas marked blue which is
mainly rocky and less managed. Based on the nature of the proposal, submitted
information and evidence gathered during site visit, Officers are satisfied that the
proposed garden room is to be located on land which forms part of the established activity
relating to the residential occupation of a dwellinghouse, and accordingly as development
which would support that established activity is considered to be consistent in principle
with the requirements of policy LDP DM 1 (F)(iii). 
The proposed site is precisely located (point to area) and will be confined by the rock
ridges (NW and SE) and established matured trees (NE and SW) as we will see in some
of the photos later on. 
Slide 10: 
This site plan focuses on the extended garden area including the proposed application
site, rock formation bounding the site to the front and rear and footpath to the boathouse
and slipway. Matured trees have been established in the area between the application site
and the boathouse thereby limiting the usable land in this area.

Page 5

This footpath is proposed to be improved for the delivery of material and during
construction after which it will be reinstated to its current state.
For the avoidance of doubt, a condition has been recommended to restrict the use of the
proposed garden room and to ensure the path is reverted to its current state post
construction.
Slide 11:
The proposed plans and elevations here are as revised following withdrawal of the initial
application presented to members at the April PPSL. The proposed development is
intended to be ancillary to the main house. Its use is limited to Island workers and as a
quiet room for the applicants and their visitors. The proposal measures 3.7 metres high,
6.5 metres in length and 3.7 metres wide – it is approx. 24 square metres and on the
footprint of an existing ruins foundation. The foundations of the ruins and the prospects of
a building historically existing in this position has not been considered as part of the
assessment due to its insignificant scale. Also, no historic evidence has been found for
the building that may have once stood on the site.
The proposed structure will have a shower facility for use by Island workers and siting
area with stove for heating and will be finished in natural larch cladding.
This is the west elevation showing an area of overhang roof, two sections of the proposed
development and the roof plan.
Slide 12:
This is shows the north, south and east elevations and their context with existing rock
ridges to the rear. The building will rely on the existing access and no new access is
proposed with the exception of proposed improvement to the footpath for the delivery of
materials and construction. Again, that will be reinstated upon completion.
Slide 13:
It is worth noting at this point the Harbour Island is also located within the National Scenic
Area (NSA) 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.
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 characterise the northern part of the
NSA along with the general restriction of existing built development to more sheltered
locations within valleys.
Based on the nature of the proposed development as assessed against the defined
qualities list here, Officers are confident that the proposal would not undermine any of
these qualities not have materially detrimental effect on the designated landscape and
therefore consider the proposal compliant with policy LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 12.
The next couple of slides will focus on photos of the application site as looking for key
views in and out.

Page 6

Slide 14:
This is taken from the beach closest to the core path leading to Ardnoe which lies approx.
273 metres from the site.
It shows the boathouse, geological formations and their ridges with this tree being a
crucial reference point to grasping the proposed site location.
This natural and unmanaged woodland area will remain intact and undisturbed although it
is identified that glimpse may be achieved through the trees.
Slide 15:
This photo is taken from the junction of the Crinan harbour and the public car park towards
the island. The boathouse is located here with this the proposal to be positioned to the
right where the tip of this reference tree which is crucial to the positioning of the
development. The proposed development will be hidden from view from this location.
Slide 16:
This photo is taken at sea towards the existing boat house and with reference to the
proposed ridge height, the proposal would not be visible from the Crinan harbour given the
distance from the harbour, rock ridge and established trees. The building will be hidden
behind this rock
Slide 17:
This photo is taken from a slightly different angle to the previous photo in the direction of
the core paths which lies some 273 metres south west of the proposed site which is
hidden behind this tree and from this angle it is thought that the proposed natural finish of
the development would weather overtime and blend in with the natural setting and
therefore would not be significantly detrimental to the visual amenity of the National
Scenic Area nor its qualities.
Slide 18:
Again, taken at sea, this photo is looking back in the direction of the Crinan harbour with
the recent extension to the main dwellinghouse just blended in the background with the
rock formation at this location.
The proposed development will be located to the right where it will be well set back from
the location of the main house. Given that the main house is one and half storey, the
proposal will not be visible from this angle
.
Slide 19:
This is the extension in closer view.

Page 7

Slide 20:
Within the extended garden ground, this photo is taken from where tropical, non-native
plant ponds and raised garden beds have been established with the application site
located roughly there.
Slide 21:
This photo is taken from the S rock ridge on the island closest to Crinan looking NE where
the main access and pontoon to the island is located. This also highlights parts of the
natural and unmanaged woodland area and which shows a much contrast from the more
managed areas
Slide 22:
From the same reference point looking NW and down to the application site which is
located between these two trees with a view of the main dwellinghouse in the background.
Slide 23:
This photo shows the site location from the direction of the boathouse with the existing
path running between the site and the first rock formation to the E.
Slide 24:
This shows rough footprint of the proposal and ruins - looking towards the SW towards to
core path.
Slide 25:
This is the same area photographed from a different angle and highlights the footprint of
the building and its entrance.
Slide 26:
This photo shows a 4 metre high reference pole on the site to depict the height of the
proposal though it is a 3.7 metres high building.
Slide 27:
At sea this photo is taken between the Island and the core path with the 4 metre high pole
help in place by an officer roughly at this point. This is zoomed in on the next slide for
clearer visibility.
Slide 28:
When zoomed in the pole can be seen roughly here.
Slide 29:
This final photo is taken from a pedestrian’s view on the core path where there may be
glimpse of the garden room.

Page 8

On this basis, it is concluded that 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 back dropped 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.
Based on the above, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions
appended in the body of the main report of handling.
Slide 30:
Thanks for chair. That is the end of my presentation
APPLICANT
Richard Stein gave the following presentation:
Introduction
Members – thank you for showing interest. Whatever disagreements, we all care
passionately for our wonderful local environment. Pleased you do too. We want to
maintain/enhance spectacular environment. This we have done/are doing so. Would do
nothing to harm very special place. Will explain why, in unique set of circumstances
granting permission won’t set precedent for development in Very Special Countryside
Areas. Not a test case!
Will cover
 History & nature of Eilean da Mheinn
 Garden room proposal – why we want it – and what it is – and isn’t
 Relevant Local Plan Policy
 Safeguards to moderate concerns
History, nature of the Island & Glen
Nature of island – Essentially wild rocky areas – covered in bracken/grass or trees. Area
2 connected distinct cultivated areas – one has house & other Glen dealing with here –
both intensively used and cultivated since at least since early 1990s. Previous owners –
Mr & Mrs Siddell 1992 – 2016 great gardeners – but in last 10 plus years due to age &
disability – garden round house & in glen fell into ruin.
Glen – When we arrived – glen massively run down & overgrown. Was jungle like – loads
of work to restore.
Rotten wooden stairs to the house, drainage ditches needing clearing, many broken cold
frames with glass, plant trays, fish boxes. Had been used as a vegetable garden (garden
near house reserved for ornamental flowers & shrubs). Fruit trees and bushes.
Rhododendrons, camellias & many other interesting shrubs. Number of exotic conifers &

Page 9

other trees. Large areas covered with Terram weed suppressing membrane. Rough
paths existed through from steps to boathouse (where previous owners used to arrive on
island). Rotten rails into sea to enable boats to be pulled up into boathouse. No intention
to restore! Access not good – dries at high tide. Ruined stone building in middle – slightly
smaller than proposed garden room.
Garden Room proposals why & what is proposed?
Why – Wanted small annex – for use by gardeners & friends – toilet, shower. Sometimes
to stay overnight. Also quiet/writing space. Chose location of ruin – centre of glen –
beautiful spot middle of garden.
What is proposed
Small timber building with toilet, shower and woodstove in a perfect location. Not
overlooked. Hidden among trees, rhododendrons, azaleas etc – specially designed
solution for woodland hideaway.
In light of house extension experience, very surprised at objections to original proposal.
Even though recommended for approval by your planners, withdrew, consulted, reapplied
to address objections – substantial changes made attempting to arrive at locally
harmonious solution to end local unpleasantness.
 All dimensions reduced;
 Area down from 30+ sqm to 24 sqm
 Spire & sleeping loft removed
 Ridge reduced from 6.5 to 3.7m
 Kitchen area deleted
 Skylights deleted
Not fully serviced. Intended to ancillary use – only for use with house. Barely visible –
and only glimpse in winter from footpath. Not from harbour at all. Locally sourced timber
construction. All access via existing pontoon. No trees affected in construction. No
impact on National Scenic Area. Won’t detract from the Island’s character.
Development Plan Policy
Revised proposal addressed almost all concerns – now only issue raised is Development
Plan policy LDP DM1.
What is LDP DM1? Policy to set out preferred areas for development in all areas across
Argyll and Bute.
DM1(F) sets out where development is encouraged in Very Sensitive Countryside areas
(VSC). These are areas of remote coastline & high hills. Very little development at all.
Existing residential property extremely rare. (F)(iii) is relevant here Development directly
supporting agricultural, aquaculture, nature conservation or other established activity.
No mention in policy of residential/householder development specifically – because is so
little of it in VSC areas. But here clear, our residential use of the land here is an
established activity – and a garden room in the garden glen would directly support our
residential use and enjoyment of the property.

Page 10

BUT all to be used with the main house – not separately!
Policy LDP DM1 would not permit a new independent residential unit. So no risk of
weakening policy. This is not a test case.
Other LDP policies are the way to prevent inappropriate ancillary developments in the
National Scenic Area. All satisfied here in view of your planners. Understand concern
which has been raised – but as planners confirm – unjustified. None of our supporters
would have endorsed our application otherwise. The objectors aren’t the only ones who
care passionately for our wonderful environment.
Safeguards
Concerns this will be a springboard for a separate residential unit on the island. We have
no wish, or intention to do that – or allow it to happen in future. Have offered a s75
planning agreement to absolutely rule that out – whoever owns the island in the future.
Archaeology – happy with watching brief condition.
Restoration of haul route after works – happy.
Happy to answer any question. Would invite you to grant permission as recommended by
your planning officers.
SUPPORTER
David Bittleston advised that he lived in Crinan and had been asked to speak today in
support of the application. He thanked the Committee for being Councillors and for the
public service they did. He said he knew how much effort and commitment it took as he
had been a Councillor for 23 years.
The advised that he had 3 things he wished to talk about today. The first was the large
amount of interest this garden room application had generated. The second was what the
community of Crinan thought about it, and the third was the work effort from the Applicant.
He said that when the Applicant put the application in he did not consult with anyone. The
reason being, when they first moved to Crinan they put in a much larger application and
no one at that time made any comments or objection to it. So they did not think anyone
would be interested in the garden room. He advised that it was a bit of a shock on the
final day of consultation on the application that a large body of objection was received. He
said that even though the application was recommended for approval and had many
supporters, the Applicant thought it would be right to withdraw this application to address
the concerns. He sent an open invitation to everyone objecting to come and visit the
island and look at the site and comment on the revised plans. The revised plans
significantly reduced the overall site and height of the garden room. Everyone writing in
support has visited the island. He said that only 2 objectors took up the offer to visit the
site.
With regard to the community of Crinan, he said there was a single objection signed by 28
people from the Crinan Harbour Community. He advised that only 5 of the people who
signed this objection lived in Crinan. He pointed out that 20 people from Crinan supported
the application and he said that there was 4 times the support for the application.

Page 11

He then advised that this was not an established garden. He said that the previous owners
were amazing and had filled the valley with amazing trees and plants. Sadly, due to ill
health, this could not be maintained in later years. When the Applicant arrived they did an
incredible amount of work to restore the garden.
In conclusion, he said that once the Applicant realised how strongly the objectors felt
about the original application, he withdrew this application and invited everyone to visit the
island. This application submitted now is a much smaller one. The majority of the
residents on Crinan were in support and, in particular, supported the work the Applicant
has done, and continues to do, to restore and improve the natural environment. He urged
the Committee to accept the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission.
OBJECTOR
Alexi Murdoch gave a presentation with the aid of power point slides. A summary of what
was said is detailed below:
Good morning Councillors. Thank you for being here today and thank you for the
opportunity to represent Objectors to the planning application before you.
Let me state at the outset that my submission to you here today has been put together in
close consultation with two qualified and highly experienced planning consultants. Both
chartered members of the RTPI.
Meabhann Crowe got her MSc in Urban and Regional Planning from Heriot Watt and was
Associate Director of Planning at Colliers in Edinburgh, worked in Scotland for about 14
years before recently moving to MKO in Ireland.
(I mention Meabhann’s Scottish qualifications as there seems to have been some
suggestion that, since now working from Ireland, she might not have the necessary
experience to speak with authority on this matter).
Steven Cameron is equally experienced and based in Helensburgh so highly familiar with
Argyll & Bute Adopted Policy.
Unfortunately, through a combination of factors neither Meabhann nor Steven could attend
today.
But please be rest assured, I know I don’t look the part, but I’m not just talking out of my
hat here! Much of what you’ll hear will be direct quotes and excerpts provided by them
including excerpts from submissions by Meabhann made to the Planning department on
behalf of objectors.
I hope you’ve had chance to read some of the objections.
I think this should dispel any notion that this is about people worrying about visual amenity
in Crinan specifically. None of the objectors complain about the views from Crinan,
nobody is taking about what we will see or what we will not see and whether it will spoil
the view.
This is all about a very important piece of Argyll and Bute Development Management
Policy LDP DM1 designed to protect and conserve highest quality landscape across Argyll

Page 12

and Bute. It replaced the Development Control Zone in the new LDP1 and in doing so,
Section F that we are dealing with, sought to bring clarity by introducing these categorical
restrictions which did not exist in the past. These restrictions as noted by the Planners, are
these 4 restrictions which are renewably energy related development; telecommunication
related development; development directly supporting agriculture, aquaculture, nature
conservation or other established activity; and small scale development related to outdoor
sport and recreation.
Today we have heard from the Planners that the criterion for approving this application in
the assessment of this Policy is that it accords with number (iii). This is the first time we
are hearing this today. There have been 2 reports of handling that have recommended
approval of this application and at no time, in none of the bodies of these reports is it
stated that this is the assessment that is being made. In fact, as I am reading it here after
listing the 4, it states, 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 dwelling house on
the island. The report continues to say – it is worth noting that policy LDP DM1 is not
intended to restrict acceptable extension of existing residential dwellings within the Very
Sensitive Countryside designation, this includes erection of detached, ancillary annex out
buildings.
Now, this is the problem that we have had all along. This is the problem that our
consultants have had. Everyone we have consulted with has said that this justification
does not exist in the Policy. I sympathise with anyone that has gone to see this, I
sympathise with the Applicant. I understand what it is they want to do. No one is
contesting the design, what it is intended for. The main problem is that this building is
actually prohibited by Policy, and if it is allowed to be put in, in an area that prohibits it,
because supposedly it is not intended to restrict extension of dwellings, even though this
is something almost 100m away, we end up in a situation where the Very Sensitive
Countryside Development Management Zone becomes pointless. And this is a key piece
of policy, I would say one of the most key pieces of policy. Development Management in
the LDP has been designed very carefully by Senior Planners to ensure that the
landscape of Argyll and Bute, which is probably Argyll and Bute’s most precious resource
- natural and sustainable resource, is protected now and for future generations.
We discussed with our clients consultants about whether or not this development fits into
any of these 4 categories and the consensus is, that while it is suggested here for the first
time today that it does fit into number (iii), that would not actually be correct. So we
contest that.
Slide 1 LDP MAP.
There are 2 main designations on the island. National Scenic Area and Very Sensitive
Countryside. This report focuses on the first and fails to completely, to correctly assess
the second. In fact it has been ignored. I am shocked to hear for the first time, after
months and months of our consultant trying to have contact with the Planners to get clarity
on this language about how the category is not intended to restrict the expansion of
dwellings, we hear today, well actually it accords with number (iii).
This is perhaps illustrated by Section (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

Page 13

immediate surrounding and the wider National Scenic Area. It would not give rise to any
detrimental residential or visual amenity concerns.
The second sentence is fine but the first sentence about the settlement area is not. If you
look at the map you will see the island is not in settlement.
Crinan is affected by an overarching national designation. The NSA and 3 development
management zones.
As you see the entire island falls in the VSC Zone.
This places very strict restriction on development in the form of allowing only 4 categories
of development.
This development does not accord with any of those (this is not contested).
So what we have in place of this is a justification for approval that completely hinges on an
argument that in turn relies on 3 ideas.
That the site is a Brownfield Site.
That it is a long established well managed garden.
That it forms part of domestic curtilage.
Ultimately none of these, even if accepted, actually work to make the development accord
with the Policy, but let’s look at them anyway.
Before we do that though it’s important to note planning history.
Planning History
From 2017 ROH EXCEPTION MADE AND TREE SCREENING EXCUSE
Notwithstanding the applicant’s Design Statement, the Local Planning Authority
has assessed, and remain firmly of the view that the proposed extension of a single
storey cottage by the addition of a two-storey design will have an insensitive
relationship with the existing dwellinghouse and as such is completely
unacceptable with regard to design related policy guidance.
However, on a very fine balance, and taken into account the resultant development
will be screened, or glimpsed in views from the mainland and sea, it is considered
that this (only just) adequately mitigates against unduly detrimental impact of the
design on the landscape character of the NSA to a level where the proposal can be
supported as an exception to Local Development Plan policy. Once again for
clarity, this should not be interpreted as an argument that otherwise similarly
unacceptable design can be approved within the highest quality landscape on the
basis that it can’t be seen by reason of, for example, temporary natural features
such as trees.
And yet this argument is being offered 5 years later in this report of handling.
D. Landscape Impact P19

Page 14

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.
So we have an exemption made 5 years ago where it is noted this justification should not
be used again and here we are 5 years later seeing it used in exactly the same way.
Mr Bain was the reviewing Officer on that Application so might remember.
Worth noting:
From 2017 Design Statement
The extension is proposed to the North West Elevation, betwixt a natural rock contour and
the Existing Dwelling.
This not only assists in the visual containment of the proposal, occupies the site of an
existing outbuilding and absorbs an existing extension, but tends away from all habitation
located to the South East and nearby mainland…
An Extension to any other face would negatively highlight island habitation;
- Toward the Harbour by additional light pollution.
- Toward Crinan peninsula and the oak woodland, increasing visibility and mass.
- Toward the Poltalloch peninsula (sea) by again increasing visibility from the hill
Dwelling behind the harbour and sailors. Again introducing light pollution to same.
All above would exacerbate the presence of habitation on the island within the national
scenic area.
Regarding Brownfield Site (Photos)
The “Ruins”
While Officers state in their report that the footing or outline of the unknown old stone
structure/byre etc cannot be considered as material to the assessment, they
nonetheless inexplicably go on to mention it repeatedly and go as far as to suggest that
this is a ‘brownfield site’. This is highly misleading.
In addressing comments:
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 – 1971 – though no further maps of a scale
large enough to show the 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.]
And in ROH1:

Page 15

[Comment: This point is noted. It is however worth noting that the footing as
observed on site are not substantial to be considered for a redevelopment.]
And YET the body of the report does NOT actually qualify this. Rather it seems to
suggest the opposite.
On p8 quoting the Design Statement
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.
In C. Natural Environment
The existing site is a brownfield location that is currently occupied by low stone
walls of a former building.
And B on p17
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. 500 mm
above the ground).
Steven Cameron said:
Brownfield and ‘ruin’ argument – the planning officer recognises that no weight can be
attached to any historical use. Any ‘structure’ or building that may have existed has long
been disused. The Planning concept of ‘abandonment’ is well established. Criteria to
consider ‘abandonment’ include the condition of the building and the period of non-use. In
this instance there is no building to re-use and the non-use period is evidently lengthy.
The site under no circumstances can be considered a brownfield site as any
historic use, if one existed, cannot be reinstated. The suggestion that the site is
brownfield is akin to suggesting that a Roman Camp could be re-established as a camp as
the site was previously used for that purpose.
Well Management Garden, Within Curtilage – site plan (pointing out Orchard and
species garden), drawing from 2019 Woodland; Glen with wood photo
Curtilage: 2019 drawing
Steven said
Curtilage – the previous planning application clearly shows the residential curtilage tightly
drawn around the existing house, the ground outside this is essentially countryside (in this
case ‘very sensitive countryside’). The current application site is described in the earlier
application as ‘dense woodland’ which would remain ‘unaffected and undisturbed’ by the
earlier development.
Any focus on or allusion to the development being within curtilage and being ancillary is
misleading. The application site is not residential curtilage, the development requires the
benefit of planning permission, the planning authority is progressing a planning
application.

Page 16

Curtilage – as with domestic garden ground extensions into the Green Belt, a similar
extension into VSC will require a ‘change of use’ planning permission.  Any application
would need to be assessed against the relevant Development Management Policies, in
this case VSC.  The previous planning application indicates the site is dense woodland,
not residential curtilage, therefore planning permission is required for the change of use as
well as any new building. 
Note Conditions and Reasons Relative to Application Ref. No. 17/01819/PP 
3. No development shall commence until the following details have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Planning Authority to ensure retention and management of the
existing woodland areas: 
(i) A woodland management plan for the applicants’ land ownership as shown
edged red and the remainder of the whole island as  shown on drawing
AR/241/01; and, 
(ii) Details of the existing trees within the vicinity of the existing building and proposed
extension are known, as shown on a plan, specifying those to be felled or trimmed. 
The development shall only progress in accordance with these duly authorised
landscape/land management measures and there shall be no other tree felling/tree
surgery works undertaken within these red/blue edged areas (for purposes of this
condition to comprise the whole island) in contradiction to the approved
details/woodland management specification unless approved in writing by the
Planning Authority prior to any works being implemented.  Any trees or plants
which within a period of ten years from the completion of the development die, for
whatever reason or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the next planting
season with others of the same size and species, unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the Planning Authority. 
Reason: To  ensure implementation of the satisfactory scheme of
landscaping and to protect the special landscape qualities of the National
Scenic Area (NSA). 
LDP DM 1 Section F) Very Sensitive Countryside 
B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 
P17
The proposed site includes land within a Very Sensitive Countryside Zone where Policy
DM1 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 DM1 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.

Page 17

And earlier on page 12 a similar statement:
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 DM1 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 claim is made that the Policy has been assessed and the development conforms;
Based on the above, the Planning Authority is satisfied that the proposed development
with within the curtilage of the main dwellinghouse and its intended domesticated use is
acceptable and confirms to Policy LDP DM1 without compromise.
Meabhann said:
1. The Officer claims the proposal is compliant with the adopted Development Plan and
specifically references Police LDP DM1. This policy is a development management
control policy and includes only 4 no. categories of development; the proposal does
not accord with any of these.
2. The Officer makes a link between the proposal being located on part of the island
deemed managed garden ground. While this in itself is highly questionable, the Officer
goes on to claim to assess the proposal against the 4 no. categories of development
set out in the Policy but has not in fact undertaken any such assessment. The Officer
states that the Policy “does not seek to restrict extension to established residential
dwellings including erection of ancillary annex/buildings.” This wording is not included
in the adopted Policy. The Policy is explicit. The Policy makes no reference
whatsoever to residential development. The Officer has not pointed to any adopted
Supplementary Guidance or interim guidance that explains this interpretation and
application of the policy. The assessment presented in the report of handling is
therefore completely flawed.
Impact of Proposal on the Very Sensitive Countryside
In the first instance it is most pertinent to consider the clear contravention with Policy that
exists. Planning policy LDP DM1 (F) is clear in that ‘only’ certain specific categories of
development ‘on appropriate sites’ will be entertained under that policy. The proposed
development fails to fall within any of the four categories set out under part (F) of the
Policy above. The proposed development is therefore not in accordance with Policy DM1
and as such, being within designated Very Sensitive Countryside, cannot be granted
planning permission. There is no provision in the Policy or elsewhere in the Development
Plan or Supplementary Guidance that provides for any other decision to be forthcoming.
RE-ZONING
In our objection letter we offered the following suggestion, and this suggestion still
stands today.

Page 18

Availability of proper channels for Development
We would like to suggest to the Applicant, however, that the proper channel by which to
bring forth this proposal for building development on the island exists and is actually quite
straightforward. This is for the Applicant to apply to the Council to have the land in
question re-zoned in the next LDP from Very Sensitive Countryside to within the
Settlement Zone.
This is a path available to everyone in Argyll and Bute.
Although we don’t believe such a re-zoning in this area would be appropriate (given its
sensitivity and being within an NSA, and the fact that it’s obviously always been zoned this
way for good reason) should the applicant be successful in including the island in the
Development Zone, an application of this type could then be brought forward in
compliance with Zoning Policy.
But while the island remains within Very Sensitive Countryside Zone, this development
would clearly be in breach of that Policy and as such must be refused.
It is worth noting that ROH response to this suggestion:
‘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.]
We are not sure what to make of this comment.
Either way, the suggestion still stands.
Steven Cameron said: On VSC
3. VSC – the existing house and its curtilage, as well as the application site, all sit within
the VSC designation. Similar to a farmhouse or dwelling sitting in the green belt, any
development proposals which require an express grant of planning permission must be
assessed against policy criteria. Within the green belt for example, this would consider
the development’s impact on the characteristics of green belt, within VSC, it must
accord with the VSC restrictions. A development is not automatically acceptable, nor
can it benefit from being in curtilage (which in this case it isn’t in any event) as the
wider impacts on the Development Management Zone must be taken into account.
Otherwise there is no point in having specific DMZs for different character areas.
4. The VSC Development Management Zone is explicit in what is acceptable in terms of
development. The proposed development does not fall within any of these classes of
development.

Page 19

NOTE. We have sought for months through our planning consultant for an answer from
Officers as to where the justification for this additional residential expansion criteria may
be found in Policy. The only answer we have received was this reference in the most
recent report.
Reference was made in relation to misinterpretation of Policy DM1 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.]
Essentially, in view of your question we remain of the same view…
It seems clear that there simply is no provision in adopted policy to substantiate this
statement.
The whole point of a categorically restrictive Development Management Zone is surely to
restrict development within that zone to only those categories actually listed in the Policy.
This is not, as in other areas, open to interpretation. This is not subjective. The policy is
objective by design. It would not work otherwise.
This from Steven Cameron and this is key:
This is important/VSC & Greenbelt – to emphasise the above points it is worth
noting that LDP DM1 part G in relation to development within the Green Belt also
sets out exemptions to the general presumption against any new development, this
includes part (v) which applies to “Demolition and replacement of buildings and
alterations or extensions of such buildings, including dwelling houses, subject to
no change of use occurring.” In other words, the Green Belt DM Zone explicitly
allows alterations and extension to buildings in the green belt, the VSC DM Zone
does not.
The Officer appears to make a subjective assumption that the policy did not intend
to restrict domestic or residential ancillary development. If the intention was to
allow ancillary residential development then the policy would be explicit in this
regard and this would have been included in the list of acceptable developments.
This from Argyll & Bute’s own MAIN ISSUES REPORT 2011 Comment on
Management Zones
This Main Issues Report (MIR) represents the first formal stage in producing a new Local
Development Plan (LDP).
Perhaps this better speaks to the intention of this policy:
Chapter 9
SETTLEMENT STRATEGY

Page 20

The main advantages of the use of this zone system is that it builds certainty into
the planning process…
Precedent
There remains real concern that should planning permission be granted this will erode the
weight of the above named policy and important designations across not just the island,
but wider Argyll & Bute. This is especially true of the application of Policy LDP DM1.
Should that transpire, it is inevitable that continued development of man-made structures
in VSC will occur. This development is clearly not in accordance with the policy provisions
of the Plan, and to grant planning permission is considered to be detrimental to the ability
of the Authority to enforce any future controls in similar locations. A refusal of this
planning application would ensure no precedent exists for development to be proposed in
VSC areas which do not conform to the Policy controls set out in the existing Plans and
Guidance.
Summary
To summarise,
The proposed building, although proposed as a ‘room’ is in fact a fully serviced building
which is far removed from the main house, and seeks to build in a geographically
separate, remote and largely undisturbed glen on the island within the highly restricted
Management Zone of Very Sensitive Countryside as well as within a nationally important
National Scenic Area
Most crucially, the building and the proposed plan fail to fall into any of the four strict
categories of the development management policy in place, outside of which no
development of any scale is allowed.
Consequently, this application is wholly and fundamentally incompatible and does not
comply with Argyll & Bute Planning Policy and must be refused.
Refusal Justification
A clear breach of Policy would exist should permission be granted for this development.
There is categorically no justification set out in the adopted Development Plan or
associated Supplementary Guidance (SG) for these statements from the Planning
Authority. There has been no interim technical note or similar provided by the Planning
Authority to detail out how the application of Policy LDP DM1 can be altered from that
clearly stated in the adopted Development Plan.
The policy wording is explicit, in that only four development categories exist where
development in this Zone would be deemed acceptable. As the proposal fails to fall
within any of the development categories set out in the Policy, it must be rejected.
At this point the Committee took a 5 minute comfort and resumed the hearing at 12.20 pm.
It was noted that Councillor Fiona Howard had left the hearing during the previous
presentations for personal reasons. She did not return to the hearing.

Page 21

MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Irvine advised that he had heard from Mr Murdoch today that there were 2 key
issues crucial to this - the definition of the area of curtilage, and the development
categories under which this application might fall. He sought clarification from Planning.
Mr Bain referred to the definition of curtilage and said the objectors were correct in respect
of identifying that there was an inconsistency in the identification of curtilage between the
2017 application and the current submission. He advised that the 2017 application was
for an extension to the existing dwellinghouse and the curtilage within the plans submitted
were defined by the Applicant’s Agent at that time. The focus of the assessment in that
matter was looking at the acceptability of extending the property. In that case the main
focus was that this was a very large extension to a very small property. The current
application shows a larger curtilage which the Applicant has claimed within the supporting
information was used for functions that were ancillary to the dwelling house. This was an
issue that Officers queried at the outset of this application, certainly at validation stage, as
to why the curtilage had been shown differently. Mr Bain advised that it was the discretion
of the Applicant to the define plans and that Officers have, in undertaking a site visit, and
assessing the information provided by the Applicant, sought to establish that the claimed
area of additional garden ground was genuinely something that had in the past been used
for that purpose. He advised that this was something which certainly the Members who
had been on site would have had a chance to look at and get a feel for themselves how
the land was used and whether that was something that had occurred very recently or
something which, as Officers have taken the view from looking at that part of the
application site, had a bit more depth to it in terms of the length of time which that activity
has occurred. In terms of the second issue, Mr Bain said the application site was located
within very sensitive countryside. The objectors have raised an issue which was worth
clarifying and was a matter which was dealt with in supplementary report number 2. He
advised that it essentially came down to a misinterpretation of what Officers were
intending to say. In hindsight, he said, the wording of Officers in the original report of
handling could have been clearer in terms of establishing exactly where the proposal sat
within the context of policy LDP DM 1 (F). Essentially the report of handling talked about
an established activity. It talked about very sensitive countryside not being intended to
restrict the extension of an established residential dwelling and that was essentially the
same as looking at F(iii) which supported development directly related in supporting an
established activity on the land.
Councillor Irvine referred to the benefit of visiting the site a few weeks ago and having the
chance to walk around, and said that it would appear that between the 2017 application
and this application that some clearing of the application site was more recent. He asked
Planning Officers if it was their opinion that the established activity was historically
established activity which had gone on for years or if it was more recent and fell
somewhere between 2017 and now. Mr Bain advised that his view of it and his
experience of the island, having been on it and visited it, was in relation to the current
application as he had not visited it in 2017. The view taken was that there was sufficient
indication that there was historic use of that area as an ancillary area to the residential
occupation of the dwelling house. Information that had been provided by the Applicant
confirmed that the level of use of that area had varied over time. From an Officer
perspective, he said they had not sought to take the view that it would be an unlawful
activity or would be an unlawful extension of the curtilage.
Councillor Hardie asked Planning Officers to comment on what Mr Murdoch had said
about setting a precedent if this application was granted. Mr Bain said that he would
disagree with that view. He advised that provided Members were satisfied that the land in

Page 22

which the building was to be located was part of the established activity, he would suggest
the proposal was well aligned with policy LDP DM1 (F)(iii).
Councillor Green, in terms of considering the current application, asked what the Planning
Officer view was on whether setting a precedent was a material consideration. Mr Bain
said that setting a precedent in planning terms was usually quite difficult. He advised that
ordinarily you would be concerned about precedent where you were looking to justify a
departure from development plan policy because you would be looking to accept
circumstances where you were setting the plan aside and you would ordinarily be looking
to set a very high bar for that to be assured that there were material circumstances to
planning that were not readily replicated. So accepting something that was not planned
for but relative justification for doing so. He said that they did not think that was the case
in this instance. As stated in the Officer presentation, he said they felt that this proposal
was aligned with the Local Development Plan. On that basis, he said they would highlight
that each application was required to be assessed on its own merits. He said it would be
difficult to use this case as an example that would look to undermine the intentions of LDP
DM 1 or the protection of the very sensitive countryside.
At this point it was noted that Councillor Luna Martin wished to speak. The Chair sought
and received clarification from Councillor Martin that she had joined the meeting sometime
after the hearing had started. The Governance, Risk and Safety Manager, confirmed to
Councillor Martin that as she had not been present from the start of the hearing she would
be unable to take part in determination of this application and would not be permitted to
ask any questions.
Councillor Brown said that she had two questions, one for Planning Officers and one for
the Applicant. She referred to the proposal fitting in with policy LDP DM1 (F)(iii), and
asked if it would also fit with policy LDP DM1 (F)(iv). She pointed out (F)(iv )was for a
small scale development relating to sport and recreation. She commented that this would
be an ancillary garden room to be used for reading and writing and asked if that would
come under recreation. Mr Bain advised that in terms of the provisions of LDP
DM1(F)(iv), this was intended to relate to public facilities or facilities with a wider public
benefit than a private garden area.
Councillor Brown sought and received clarification from Mr Stein that the garden room
may be used for people to stay overnight if they required extra space for their guests if
they were part of a group of people staying at the house and that there would be a sofa
bed there for that purpose. He said they would not be having meals or living there, it
would just be a place to sleep. He said they would always be part of what happened in
the house and that there was no intention to use it separately for people who were not part
of a grouping in the house. He confirmed that the building would be big enough to
accommodate someone on a sofa bed. He said it would not be a regular or permanent
thing.
Councillor Irvine referred to comments made by the Objectors about rezoning and sought
clarification on the issue of zoning and rezoning from Planning. Mr Bain said that his
interpretation of this was in reference to the Local Development Plan process whereby
when a Plan was renewed, which up till now was every 5 years, and moving forward
would be every 10 years. Part of that process involved the Council preparing a Plan and
going out to consultation on its proposals which would include its settlement strategy and
any zoning of land. He said there was an opportunity through that consultation process
for any party to ask the Council to rezone land either to promote development or protect it
from further development. He said it was not an automatic process - it would feed into the

Page 23

consultation process and may be subject to counter objection from other parties. If it was
a matter of contention it would be an issue for Scottish Ministers to resolve at examination.
He said it was possible but it was a process that came around infrequently and was not
something that could be readily achieved in a short timescale.
Councillor Armour referred to the Objector saying that there was dense woodland in the
2017 application and commented that having the good fortune to have visited the island, it
did not look like a dense woodland. He asked if the area had materially changed since
2017. Mr Bain said it was difficult to say as he and Ms Antwi were only familiar with the
island in its current form. He noted from the 2017 application that there was an indication
that there may have been more trees at that location. He said that as far as he was aware
the Woodland Management Plan submitted at that time in relation to the extension of the
house focussed on the woodland area around the building. He said he was not aware if
they had any details of the tree cover at that time and how that might have changed.
Councillor Armour asked Mr Stein when any clearance of woodland was made. Mr Stein
said that looking from the steps towards the boat house the bit that was dense woodland
was up on the ridge. On the other side there was a block of dense woodland by the steps
and otherwise in the glen itself it was thicket. He said there was not ever in the glen
dense woodland. He said there were a number of trees that needed pruning as they were
unhealthy and there were a few removed. He advised that towards the boat house where
there was more tree cover, SSE were concerned about their overhead power line and they
came and felled a number of trees in that area between the boat house and the centre of
the glen. He said they wanted to clear a 10m belt and they removed a number of trees
from that area. Otherwise, he advised that there had been no removal of dense woodland
just a thinning out of some trees as they were so over grown they were growing into each
other.
Councillor Armour asked if there had been any attempt to find out what the building ruin
was. He said he thought it did look like it could have been some sort of living structure.
He asked if there had been any work done to find out what this could have been. Mr Bain
said no and that from their end the report noted the presence of the footprint of this ruin. It
indicated that the site had some form of previous development but Planning were not sure
what it was. He said that part of the reason for not investigating that further was because
the presence of a previous development was not a fundamental matter in looking to justify
approval of this development. Had the case been made that it was a redevelopment, then
the provenance of the ruin, its scale, its function, would all have been relevant factors in
looking at the assessment of this case. He said it was something that was there and that
had relevance to some degree, but it was not considered to be a fundamental factor in
assessing the acceptability or otherwise of this development. He referred to the late
comment received from West of Scotland Archaeology (WOSA). He said that they had
not cleared up the mystery of that structure either. He said they had commented on more
wider issues of archaeology in the area.
Councillor Armour asked if he was correct to say that WOSA would like to look at this site
before any works started. Mr Bain said that they had expressed that within the wider
locality of the Dunadd and Kilmartin glen area, there was a high concentration of
archaeological finds within previously settled areas, and on that basis the WOSA had
advised that it would be appropriate to condition a watching brief for any ground breaking
work associated with this development but they had not identified any specific sensitivity
or interest in the structure that was on the site.

Page 24

Councillor Irvine referred to the issue of curtilage being a crucial argument here. He
commented that on site they had seen a small pond, some previously established bedding
areas and the route through to the old boat house and slip way. He asked if that would
have been historically defined as curtilage, those areas that would have previously been in
use as part of the day to day activities. He asked Planning, if going to use a boat house,
for example, would constitute part of the curtilage of any given property. Mr Bain said that
taking access through an area itself would not necessarily define it as curtilage, but it may
indicate other activity. Generally when you have a route that was well used that may give
rise to other activity over time along that route. He said the specific circumstances of the
properties that it linked would need to be looked at and the function that was being
undertaken within that area. He advised of the specific circumstances of this island - it
was in single ownership with a dwellinghouse centrally on the island, it had an obvious,
immediate curtilage which was quite intensively managed and used for cultivation,
domestic outbuildings, seating areas, and grassed areas well maintained compared to the
remainder of the island. He advised that having been on the island, he viewed the valley
or glen to the south of that to be a secondary area, not managed to the same extent as
the immediate curtilage. There was a different characteristic to that but it still felt domestic
and used for purposes ancillary to the residential enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Having
walked the remainder of the island, once you stepped up on to the ridges either side of the
house or to the southern side of the valley you had a much more rugged landscape
characterised by rock outcrops, by bracken and by tree cover not managed in the same
way as the domestic area of the island. He advised that there was a decision in this that
was going to come back to the Members. Ultimately it was whether the Members were
convinced that the application site formed part of that curtilage area or area of established
activity that related to the residential occupation of part of the island. As Officers, he said
that they had been there and observed the ground conditions. Taking it back to the
question about tree cover, he said that the times that he had been on the island he did not
see any evidence of any recent ground disturbance or any indication that there had been
any extensive fellings. He advised that he appreciated that the condition of the land at the
moment was improved from the position it was when the Applicant first took ownership of
the island. Whether that constituted a change of use or just meant bringing the historic
garden back into use, as Officers have taken the view, he said it was for Members to take
a view on.
SUMMING UP
Planning
Peter Bain summed up as follows:
Overview & Section 25 of the T&CP (Scotland) Act 1997:
During the course of today Members have heard a range of issues both in support of and
opposition to the development. In reaching a decision today, Members are reminded of
the requirement placed upon decision makers by Section 25 of the Town and Country
Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that they are required to determine all planning applications
in accordance with the provisions of the adopted development plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise.

Page 25

Policy Overview 
The proposal is for a modest building with a footprint of 24sqm and a ridge height of 3.7m
located in a sheltered and well screened site within an extended garden area associated
with the sole dwellinghouse on the island. 
The proposed use of the building as a garden room that would be utilised solely for
purposes ancillary to the main dwelling located approximately 70m to the North West.
Accordingly, this is a householder development which, given its secluded location, will not
have any direct impact upon the privacy or residential amenity of any neighbouring
property, nor does it give rise to any concern in respect of access or infrastructure
requirements. 
The fact that a planning application for a householder development has proven to be so
controversial in attracting 131 representations is perhaps the most unusual aspect of this
case however it does remain the opinion of officers that, notwithstanding the concerns
raised by third parties, the matters at hand are in fact relatively straightforward with the
issues of settlement strategy and the impact of the proposal upon landscape being
identified as the two fundamental policy matters that Members will require to reach a clear
position on before making their own decision on whether or not to grant planning
permission. 
Settlement Strategy: 
The first issue that members will require to address in reaching a determination on this
matter is to decide whether or not the proposed development is aligned with the
settlement strategy as set out in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.
There are seven development management zones defined in the Local Development Plan
which seek to inform the content of policies in the plan, particularly with regard to the form,
location and scale of new development. The Development Management Zones help
support the LDP’s settlement strategy by guiding larger scales of development primarily to
larger key settlements and safeguarding or more sensitive and vulnerable areas from
inappropriate scales of development. 
Policy LDP DM 1 establishes the acceptable scales of development in each of the zones
with the boundaries of all the settlements and countryside zones mapped in the Local
Development Plan proposal maps. 
In this instance, it is confirmed that the application site is located within the Very Sensitive
Countryside which is a development management zone that generally comprises
predominantly remoter and elevated areas of countryside, and isolated coast which have
extremely limited capacity to successfully absorb development and within which only
limited categories of development is supported. 
The provisions of Policy LDP DM 1 (F) (iii) do however clearly identify that within Very
Sensitive Countryside support can be afforded to development which directly supports an
“established activity” that falls outwith the other defined categories of development that
might be supported. The other defined categories are development related to renewable
energy, telecommunications, agriculture, aquaculture, or small scale outdoor sports and
recreation. 
Officers have advised that within the context of policy LDP DM 1, the existence of the
applicant’s dwellinghouse should be acknowledged as an “established activity” with such

Page 26

consideration reasonably being extended also to other land which forms a function that is
ancillary to the residential occupation and enjoyment of that property. Officers are
however clear in their view that there is a marked distinction between areas of the island
that form part of that “established activity” and areas that do not form part of the
established residential activity. The ‘domesticated’ areas essentially comprise the lower
lying sheltered areas in the middle of the island and include the dwellinghouse itself, its
immediate curtilage with flower beds, lawns, and domestic outbuildings, and contained
valley to the south which is less intensively managed but is nonetheless distinctively
different in its appearance and character to the outlying areas of the island to the north
and south which are more rugged in nature. 
It is noted that the objectors have raised issue with the conflict between the curtilage
defined in the Applicant’s 2017 application to extend the dwellinghouse.  In this respect I
would highlight to Members that the extent of the curtilage was not a key factor in
consideration of the earlier application.  The key issue for Officers in dealing with the
application to extend the house was the acceptability of adding a 2 storey extension to a
single storey property.  Members who are familiar with other elements of the plan’s
sustainability design policy will note that ordinarily that policy is looking for extensions to
property to be subservient in nature.  The 2017 application extended an argument as to
why in that particular circumstance, and given the sensitivities of the case, a larger form of
extension might be accommodated.  That certainly is the focus of that assessment and the
arguments and the safeguards that provided.  But what that permission doesn’t do, that
wasn’t a permission for a new dwellinghouse.  So that permission was not looking to
establish the boundaries of any land that might have a change in use from another non-
domestic purpose to residential.  It was simply accepting the facts that the Applicant put in
front of us at that time in terms of the way they defined their boundary.  Looking at the
current application, I would contend that from the information available there is additional
land that is used, has been used, historically to support the function of the dwellinghouse
on that island.  That is the conclusion the Officers have reached in assessing the facts put
before them in this application and in their own observations in visiting the site. 
In considering whether the current proposal benefits from the support afforded by policy
LDP DM 1 (F) (iii) members will require to arrive at view on whether the land to be
developed falls forms part of the area of “established activity”. The contained nature,
undulating topography and land cover have made it challenging to provide members with
photographs that accurately depict the experience of visiting the island, however it is
hoped that, in addition to the information presented today that those members of PPSL
who were able to attend the site visit last week will be in a position to assist their fellow
Councillors in reaching a view on way or the other in this respect. 
Consideration of this aspect of the proposal is clear – if Members agree that the
development is within an area of “established activity” associated with the existing
dwellinghouse and that the proposed development directly supports that function then
they should also logically reach the view that the application is, in principle at least,
consistent with the settlement strategy set out in policy LDP DM 1. 
It is further noted that whilst the circumstances of the site are open to a degree of
interpretation given the absence of any clear boundary demarcation between curtilage or
other garden ground and other ‘non-domestic’ land within the same ownership the
implications of Members decision on the circumstances of this particular application site
would not be expected to set a precedent or undermine the application of policy LDP DM
1 elsewhere as objectors contend.

Page 27

Landscape Impact: 
The second significant issue for members to determine is to establish whether they
consider that the development would or would not have a significant adverse impact upon
the Knapdale National Scenic Area. Whilst the acceptability of the scale, siting and design
of the proposed building are matters also considered to be relevant, officers assessment
of these matters against policy LDP 9 and SG LDP Sustainable Design identifies that the
proposed garden room and its intended function are appropriately sited and designed
having regard to its relationship to the associated dwelling and its immediate setting. The
provisions of LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 12 however require consideration of the impact of
the development upon the wider setting, including the landscape character and
appearance of the NSA. 
Whilst Eilean Da Mhienn is recognised as being a key feature within the local setting of
Loch Crinan and Crinan Harbour it is not specifically mentioned or identified in Nature
Scotland’s Citation for the NSA designation or its list of Special Qualities.
Whilst the development is of modest scale and sited in a manner that will prevent it from
being viewed prominently it is recognised that the development will still be visible from
some locations offering views of the island, including the elevated footpath above Crinan
Harbour. However it is also appropriate to recognise that whilst the island is sparsely
populated it is a location where man-made development is already evident due to the
previous establishment of the dwellinghouse and the boathouse. The proposed garden
room would be set between these two existing structures and would not introduce built
development into a location which is otherwise devoid of development, neither would the
proposed scale and design of the building appear out of place in relation to existing built
development. 
Where the development is open to view it will be seen in the context of the existing
buildings on the island and against a wider backdrop which includes existing built
development at Crinan Harbour, and elevated properties in Crinan. Whilst officers are
satisfied that the proposed development would not have a significant impact upon the
integrity of the NSA or the special qualities for which it is designated and accordingly is
consistent with Policy LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 12 this is again ultimately a matter upon
which Members will require to reach their own view in determining the application. 
Conclusion: 
In summary, the case before Members has been assessed by officers who have reached
a view informed by both internal and external consultees that the siting, scale, design,
finishes, amenity, access and servicing arrangements associated with the proposed
development are considered to be sufficiently aligned with the relevant provisions of the
Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and it is accordingly recommended that the
application should be granted planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons
appended to Supplementary Report No. 2. 
Applicant 
Mr Stein invited the Committee to follow the advice of their expert and impartial Planning
Officers.

Page 28

Objector
Mr Murdoch advised that despite the intention by Planners here today that this
development fitted within F section iii, he would say that if you read section iii carefully it
stated ‘Development directly supporting agricultural, aquaculture, nature conservation or
other established activity.’ If that other established activity was completely removed from
the previous categories, it could be defined as anything. He said that surely if extensions
to dwellings were listed in the Greenbelt as something that was specifically allowed, that
would be listed as well in very sensitive countryside. To use established activity and to
claim that could be garden or anything, he said, was highly misleading. Giving some
evidence to this, he pointed out that in the upcoming LDP2, which he advised was about
to be adopted, the zoning did not change. He said there were some changes to the
countryside zonings. The countryside changed from presumption against development
primarily to presumption in favour of certain developments. So the countryside zone did
change but the very sensitive countryside zone did not change. He advised that the
nomenclature changed to remote countryside, but in terms of the categories that were
allowed, this remained the same. He said there was, however, a subtle change in the
language and that was, along with agriculture and so on, changed to specify countryside
activity. He suggested that this was a clarification of the language to avoid exactly the
kind of situation faced today - that established activity could be co-opted and be used to
mean anything.
He advised that he would argue that if you allowed established activity to mean just
anything, it sort of made moot the point of having these categories. Furthermore he said
that if we were to accept that this was a garden, and it was long established, even though
5 years ago it clearly wasn’t, that it had been rediscovered and it had been reclaimed, this
did not automatically mean that because we have established there was a garden there,
that this building that was proposed, which was a new structure, had anything to do with
gardening activity. He said they were not talking about putting up a large greenhouse, this
was a small guest house. He advised that he did not see how that had anything do to with
established activity. He said that if established activity was supposed to mean,
established activity to do with the house, again that could mean anything – he could put
up a cinema, or put up a bar.
He advised that he knew these rural development management zones were peculiar to
many people, and maybe to some Members too. He said that for these areas out in the
countryside and very sensitive countryside in the special landscape across Argyll and
Bute, this was a key tool that the Council had and had adopted in order to protect this
landscape. He said that from a subjective point of view, a visit to the site might lead you
to conclude that in terms of assessing and in terms of the visual amenity, it might be a
small thing, and it might not matter, you might only glimpse it a little.
He advised that it should be noted that in terms of the excuse of tree screening, it was
specifically suggested in the 2017 report of handling that this excuse should not be used
again for obvious reasons. He said that trees came down, they got felled, they got sick.
He commented on the whole idea of using tree screening for a second time to essentially
make an exception in this same site, in a National Scenic Area, in very sensitive
countryside. The idea that this would not create a precedent, he said he strongly
disagreed with that. He said this would absolutely create a precedent in that by allowing
this interpretation of established activity to just mean anything we want, that meant that
tomorrow, if this went through, anyone who had land in their ownership and was in very
sensitive countryside and that maybe wasn’t in their curtilage yesterday, could fall into
their curtilage tomorrow because they started gardening it, and then by calling it their

Page 29

garden, it became domestic curtilage, and then, once it had become domestic curtilage,
apparently that just meant a building could go up. He said that to him that was the
definition of precedent and it was going to become impossible for the authority to control
development of this sort in the very sensitive countryside development management zone
designation.
He said that was what objectors had a problem with. It wasn’t even specifically about this
one development, this was about what this represented to wider Argyll and Bute. He said
it was the reason people across Argyll and Bute were worried, it was the reason why
people from even further afield who came to Scotland, who recognised the value Scotland
had - these dwindling, remote and wild landscapes. He said that encroachment into these
areas had to be strongly resisted. He said the Scottish Government said so and the Local
Development Plan said so. He advised that this was the remit the authority needed to
uphold its own policy and that was what they were arguing for here today. He asked the
Committee to uphold policy in the public interest and refuse this application.
The Chair received confirmation from all parties present that they had received a fair
hearing.
The Chair ruled and the Committee agreed, to adjourn for lunch at 1.07 pm. The
Committee reconvened at 2 pm. Councillor Luna Martin did not return to the meeting.
DEBATE
Councillor Hardie thanked everyone for their presentations. He advised that having read
the paperwork and heard from everyone today, he was satisfied that to grant this
application would be a decision made in accordance with the Local Development Plan so
he was content to grant the application. He advised that he was also satisfied that by
granting the application no precedent would be made or set.
Councillor McCabe said that she took a different view. She advised that she felt that if this
application was granted it would set a precedent as Mr Murdoch had stated, people could
commence gardening, the curtilage could be extended and they could apply to build. She
said the development was 100 yards away from the house. She said she did not think the
application should be granted.
Councillor Armour thanked everyone for their presentations as they had been really
helpful. He said that it had also been helpful to visit the site and commented that he could
certainly see from the plans from 2017 where it said dense woodland, he could see why,
as it looked like that from the many pictures seen. He advised that on site it did not. He
advised that it looked like it had been a garden and was trying to be brought up to a
standard it looked like it had been previously. He said that it was obvious that the main
way of getting to the island was from the boat house at the south end of the island which
you would need to come through the glen. He said that it looked to him that a dwelling
had previously been there. He said that the thing that had swung this for him was visiting
the site and seeing what was there, and that he was minded, like Councillor Hardie to
support the application.
Councillor Irvine advised that like Councillor Armour, he had benefited from visiting the
site and being able to put the application area into context, helped him with the discussion
about curtilages. He commented that this was a crucial factor, the fact that this would be
extended to the area where the application site was. He said it was only separated by the
fact of the rock formation. He said he had noted that Mr Stein had reinstated new steps

Page 30

down into that area and that it was clear that previously, historically, it was used as part of
the ongoing activities around the house. He advised that he could see clearly from the
site visit that some of that had lapsed, and that some of the ground was not in the best of
condition, showing that its use had lapsed, but, he said that he found himself inclined to
see this as part of the curtilage. He advised that he found it uncomfortable that the
Committee, along with Officers too, were having to make an interpretation of LDP DM 1
and that this was not as clear as perhaps it could have been. He advised that if he has
come to the conclusion that this was fair curtilage, then he also had to come to the
conclusion that the application site was part of ongoing activities that had previously
existed and that existed now. He confirmed that he was minded to support the Officer’s
recommendation to approve the application.
Councillor Brown said that she had listened to both sides and commented that looking at
the pictures and being on site put it right into context. She said she could see where the
existing garden curtilage was and she could see where the extended curtilage was and
that it had been in use. She pointed out that the old pictures presented by Mr Murdoch,
showed that the biggest thing you could see then was the existing house. She
commented that it did not look to her like there was any massive dense woodland. She
said you could see the valley, you could see both sides of the rock and you could see
where you would come from the house all the way down to where the wee boat house
was. She advised that, whilst taking into consideration LDP DM 1 (F)(iii), she thought the
Planners had made the case for her and that she was minded to support the application.
Councillor Green said he was grateful that some Members had been able to attend the
site visit as he had been unable to go. He advised that he had taken the opportunity of
looking at the site from Crinan Harbour when he happened to be in the area. He advised
that having listened to all the arguments today and seen the presentations, he was
minded to go with the Planner’s recommendation. He said he thought the development
was relatively small scale and unobtrusive. He said he did not have any problems with it
and setting the precedent had been covered as well.
Councillor McCabe confirmed that she remained of a different mind. She advised that
when she saw the pictures from 2017 that the Applicant had put in, there was an
inconsistency between 2017 and now of what was on the plans.
Councillor Wallace said that he too had listened to all the arguments carefully. He advised
that while he had sympathy for what the objectors were trying to do to protect the
landscape, he said that he did think he came down on the side that he did think, having
visited the site, that there was a clear difference in the landscape between the house site
and the valley and then the rest of the island. He said he was minded to support the
Officer’s recommendation.
DECISION
The Committee agreed by a majority to grant planning permission subject to the following
conditions and reasons, as detailed in supplementary report number 2:
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

Page 31

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.
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.
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.
4. No development or ground breaking works shall commence until a method statement
for an archaeological watching brief has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Planning Authority in consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.
The method statement shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and shall
provide for the recording, recovery and reporting of items of interest or finds within the
application site.
The name of the archaeological organisation retained by the developer shall be given
to the Planning Authority and to the West of Scotland Archaeology Service in writing
not less than 14 days before development commences.

Page 32

Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly
approved details with the suitably qualified person being afforded access at all
reasonable times during ground disturbance works. 
Reason: In order to protect archaeological resources. 
(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 5 October
2022, supplementary report number 1 dated 18 October 2022 and supplementary report
number 2 dated 8 December 2022, submitted)