2102141 ROH Ardfin DW 09.03.2022 PB edit 31.08.22
Argyll and Bute Council · 15 November 2022
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 15 November 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 21/02141/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Ardfin Estate Ltd Proposal: Erection of buildings to facilitate residential staff accommodation with associated access and parking arrangements Site Address: Land North East Of Coastguard Station Craighouse Isle Of Jura Argyll And Bute. DECISION ROUTE Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Erection of staff residential blocks (class 7) and bin store to create seven double and 26 single rooms (33 units in total). Associated access and parking arrangements Associated landscaping Formation of remote footpath Erection of air source heat pump and housing (ii) Other specified operations Connection to Public Water Supply Connection to Public Sewer Offsite road Improvements to provide road widening, an adopted footpath, and adopted street lighting on the A846, (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons attached. However, in light of the significant body of third party representation members are however advised that it would be appropriate to hold a discretionary pre- determination hearing prior to reaching a determination. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Jura Community Council replied 08.02.2022. A number of points made which will be addressed in section F and precised below: Prefer residential Class 9 in the interests of long term sustainable residents; Precedent being set for this scale and density of development and its proximity to new builds;
Page 2
The development should have a separate access; A lack of footway and lighting will exacerbate the existing issues; Issues regarding stretching existing services for example road capacity and safety. Ferry services. Shop storage, water and sewage and other utilities, healthcare and emergency services; Any development should be in H3031 as designated in the LDP; Request an extension to the deadline to enable further consultation. Environmental Health replied 25.01.2022. Working hours information will be attached as a condition. Advice provide on licencing of HMOs which would not be applicable to the proposed Class 7 use. Health And Safety General replied 14.01.2022. The site does not lie within the zone of a major hazard. Flood Risk Assessor replied 04.02.2022. No objection with condition attached. Scottish Water replied 17.01.2022. No waste water infrastructure though connection to Craighouse public water supply is possible. Area Roads replied 03.02.2022, 06.09.22 and 14.09.22. Area Roads liaised with the applicants agents to reach an agreed solution which require conditional acceptance. No objection with conditions attached. Nature Scot replied 24.03.2022 that there will be no likely significant effect on the qualifying interests of Craighouse Ravine, Jura SSSI. A woodland condition to be applied. (D) HISTORY: None of the applicant’s recent proposals are for this site. 21/01565/PREAPP was supplied outlining the main policies and consultations and an appraisal of a proposal within the NSA and close to the nature sites with regard to current and developing policy. (E) PUBLICITY: Regulation 20 advert expired 17.02.2022 Neighbour notification expired 08.02.2022 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Objections from 24 individuals and the Isle of Jura Community Council: Gwen Boardman 4 Burnside Craighouse Isle Of Jura PA60 7XP 07.02.2022 Deborah Bryce Knockrome Isle Of Jura PA60 7XZ 08.02.2022 Pi Davidson Arturas Knockrome Isle Of Jura PA60 7XZ 11.02.2022 Mrs Alison Fleming 1 Burnside Craighouse Isle Of Jura 09.02.2022 K Gow Ardcraig Isle Fo Jura PA60 7XR 09.02.2022 Sheena Gow Ardcraig, Craighouse Isle Of Jura PA60 7XR 07.02.2022 Ms Elizabeth Harrington 5 Croft Park Craighouse Isle Of Jura 11.02.2022 Mrs Harriet Horne Ruantallian Tarbert Isle Of Jura Isle Of Jura 08.02.2022 Natalia Jejer Carraig Craighouse Isle Of Jura PA60 7XG 18.02.2022 Christine McCourt London N4 3AB 08.02.2022 Dr Lesley Morrison Tigh-an-fhigheadair Keils Jura PA60 7XG 08.02.2022 Louise Muir Gealach Lan Ballard Craighouse Isle Of Jura 01.02.2022
Page 3
John G F Perring Knockrome Old School Isle Of Jura PA60 7XZ 08.02.2022 Mr Jonathan Pye Ardfarnal Craighouse Isle Of Jura 08.02.2022 Mrs Roxanna Robb Bishop's Well Craighouse Isle Of 07.02.2022 Mr Sam Robb Bishops Well Kiels Jura PA60 7XP 07.02.2022 Craig Rozga Goirtean Dubh Croft Knockrome Isle Of Jura PA60 7XZ 08.02.2022 Denise Rozga Goirtean Dubh Croft Knockrome Isle Of Jura PA60 7XZ 08.02.2022 Ms Moira Stirling 10 Burnside Craighouse Isle Of Jura 13.02.2022 Mr Andrew Welch 1 Ardfin Cottages Craighouse Isle Of Jura Mrs Louise Welch 1 Ardfin Cottages Craighouse Isle Of Jura 07.02.2022 Iain Macdonald No Address Provided 04.02.2022 Yvonne Macdonald No Address Provided 07.02.2022 Gordon Muir No Address Provided 01.02.2022 The summary of objection are detailed below. Reasons for representations received and the responses where relevant. Proposal is contrary to LDP STRAT 1 as the 20% increase in population this represents is not sustainable on an island with a low population and limited infrastructure. Due to the increase in population this should have been a major application. Comment- This is not a householder application within the terms of the Scottish Planning systems Hierarchy of Development and does not reach the criteria of a major application. LDP STRAT 1 (a and c) are intended to support local communities and maximize the use of local infrastructure and services creating opportunities for further improvement. An increase in population is not deemed to be contrary to policy. The proposal is contrary to LDP 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and their supplementary guidance especially regarding affordable housing and business location and transport provision. Comment- The policy provisions noted will be addressed in the relevant sections of Appendix A. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. The density proposed in the cul de sac is inconsistent with that of the population nodes on the island. Comment- The site represents a habitable ground area of around 1.5 hectares and the proposal is for 33 units holding a maximum population of 40 gives a maximum density of around 27 people per hectare. This is a common level within settlements not just in Argyll and Bute but nation wide. The proposal made before neighbouring properties are occupied raises the question of the legality of the Neighbour Notification . A consultation with the communities should have been made. The timing of the submission may have been to minimise representations over the Xmas period and so avoid reasonable scrutiny. Comment- It is regrettable that there are no householders to notify on the developing plots. The timing of notification and publicity is relative to the time of
Page 4
submission/validation, it is noted that the Council currently accepts late representations and as such there has been no prejudice to the ability of interested parties to participate in the planning process arising from the Christmas holiday period. In this case officers intend to recommend to the council’s Planning Committee that this application is taken forward to a Hearing. The decision whether to hold a Hearing will be the solely that of the committee. No other sites are shown as being examined from the accompanying supporting statements. In a climate emergency, this facility should be located closer to the intended workplace to minimise new journeys. The estate own unused buildings on the island which should have been addressed in the design/access statement outlining why these have not been considered. Comment - Under policy LDP DM1 (b) for Key Rural Settlements encouragement is given for sustainable development on appropriate sites. Sites within the settlement boundary are deemed to be appropriate for most forms of accommodations proposals. Does not support exiting communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services. Does not look to strengthen communities or link with existing services and organisations but may have an adverse impact on them. Community council, local development trust, school, NHS, etc. do not appear to have been consulted pre app. An influx of younger residents may require specialist medical provision not currently available on the island. Are police services adequate to deal with the alteration to the island’s demographics. The sustainable employment case has not been made with no evidence to show any future permanence of the roles or those who will fill them. The island relies on permanent residents volunteering to provide services. The itinerant nature of the proposals workforce may mean stretching services without a commitment to volunteer their own services. Comment- These concerns have all been noted and in most cases are not material to the planning process. There increase of the working population may be looked on as a drain or stretching of services, or the benefits of an active workforce with disposable income which may support existing services. This proposal may hamper the development of social housing within the settlement boundary in future unless the design is adaptable for repurposing. As per Community Action Plan new housing should be affordable and for permanent residents. The Class 7 use is not appropriate with the CAP. There is no downstream housing provision for any workers to settle on the island. Temporary residents are unlikely to invest in the island and its sustainable future. Comment- Although a useful guidance document the Community Action Plan (CAP) is not a material consideration with regard to this proposal. The update in 2022 includes proposed actions regarding: Road conditions/passing places Transport services in general Health and care services including dentistry
Page 5
There is a further site within the settlement being brought forward for consideration for affordable housing. Policy regarding Class 7 use is tested against policy in Appendix A Section A. The roads infrastructure is currently inadequate as agreed by the councils roads department. The proposal intrinsically encourages motor vehicle use between Craighouse and the Ardfin estate. The road is inadequate for current levels of use and requires upgrading as part of this application. The level of car parking provision is too high and will result in traffic flows at unusual times with their attendant noise and light pollution. The footways, cycling and wheeling provision at the site and to and from Craighouse and the estate are inadequate for this level of development. All hours vehicle movements represent a danger to new neighbours their children and pets. Comment- The council’s roads department have conditioned their approval on formation of a footpath from the shared entrance to 1 Woodside and to include streetlighting. The parking, including accessible is in line with government guidelines. The estate has indicated that a mini bus will be provided and the shift pattern is unlikely to create a mini rush hour. It is noted in the report that loss of amenity due to vehicle noise/light has been considered. The proposal does not maximise sustainable design with regards to waste and minimising the carbon footprint. The water supply is inadequate to cater for this proposed level of occupation and indeed the island has already experienced recent drought at current population levels. Comment- Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced and the correct procedures must be followed to gain approval for connection. The potential for noise and loss of amenity to the new housing with what is a university halls like development must be addressed. Similarly the limited public social buildings in Craighouse. Comment- These aspects are examined in Appendix A. The proposal should have been made for allocated housing sites or on existing vacant and derelict land. PDA (H3031) is for local housing not for seasonal business use. The plan shows a staged development which means that initial accommodation can be directed to existing empty houses. Comment- The policy constraints are examined in Appendix A Section A and it has been found that although alternative sites may exist, this proposal is supported by policy with regard to development within the settlement. The adjoining SSSI may be compromised by the consequences of this use of the land. The landscape character and biodiversity of the area will be irreparably damaged.
Page 6
The proposal will impact views from and over the NSA and Wild Land. There is potential of pollution of the water course. The proposed use and the design on the main approach to Craighouse is detrimental to the setting and character of the village and the island in general. Comment – These aspects will be examined with regard to policy in Appendix A. The economic benefit to the proposer should not outweigh the detrimental impact to the communities. Comment- Noted Does not maximise the opportunity for local community benefit. Comment– Noted Current infrastructure challenges on the island are not addressed with regard to exacerbating the situation by this proposal. Comment- Noted The ferry capacity may not be sufficient for the increased traffic this will create. Comment- Noted. There is an ongoing issue with hidden homelessness on the island which this proposal may exacerbate. Comment= Noted A section 75 order for the estate to contribute to the viability of the island bus service should be considered. Comment- Noted (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) EIAR: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A design or design/access statement: Descriptions of the brief, the design and landscaping, roads, parking and access, refuse and recycling, sustainability and drainage. Yes (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Sustainability Statement covering Energy and CO2 Emissions, Water, Pollution, Health and Wellbeing and Drainage. Yes (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No
Page 7
(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ Adopted March 2015 LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environments LDP 5 – Supporting The Sustainable Growth Of Our Economy LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of our Communities LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 10 - Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption LDP 11 – Improving Our Connectivity and Infrastructure ‘Supplementary Guidance to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2015’ (Adopted March 2016) Natural Environment SG LDP ENV 1 - Development Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity SG LDP ENV 2 - Development Impact on European Sites SG LDP ENV 4 - Development Impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves SG LDP ENV 6 - Development Impact on Trees / Woodland SG LDP ENV 7 - Water Quality and the Environment Landscape and Design SG LDP ENV 12 - Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs) SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape Support For Business and Industry General SG LDP BUS 1 – Business and Industry Proposals in Existing Settlements and Identified Business and Industry Areas SG LDP BUS 5 - Economically Fragile Areas Sustainable Siting and Design SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles Bad Neighbour Development SG LDP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development Resources and Consumption SG LDP SERV 5(b) - Provision of Waste Storage and Collection Facilities within New Development Planning Gain SG LDP PG 1 – Planning Gain
Page 8
Transport Including Core Paths) SG LDP TRAN 3 - Special Needs Access Provision SG LDP TRAN 4 - New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 6 - Vehicle Parking Provision (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. Scottish Planning Policy Argyll and Bute Economic Development Action Plan Consultee comments Isle of Jura Community Council and Community Action Plan Representations Landscape Capacity Study For Housing Island of Jura (Nov 2007) Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan 2 (November 2019) – The unchallenged policies and proposals within pLDP2 may be afforded significant material weighting in the determination of planning applications at this time as the settled and unopposed view of the Council. Elements of the pLDP2 which have been identified as being subject to unresolved objections still require to be subject of Examination by a Scottish Government appointed Reporter and cannot be afforded significant material weighting at this time. The provisions of pLDP2 that may be afforded significant weighting in the determination of this application are listed below: Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Policy 78 – Woodland Removal (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No (M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (O) Requirement for a hearing: Yes The proposal has been subject to concerns raised by Jura Community Council and objections raised by 24 individuals; it is further noted that the timing of submission
Page 9
has preclude direct neighbour notification of adjacent properties within a West Highland Housing Association scheme that will be directly impacted by the proposed development as it will share the means of vehicular access. As these properties had not yet been completed and occupied at the time the application was validated it was not possible for the planning authority to directly neighbour notify occupants and invite their direct participation in the planning process although the wider population will have been informed of the proposal through advertisement in the local press. The letters of objection received from 24 individuals raise issues with the suitability of the site for the scale and nature of development proposed, the potential impact that the development may have upon the residential amenity of the new housing development being constructed, and its implications for road safety. Whilst it is the consideration of officers that the proposal is consistent with the LDP and that the various matters of concerns can be satisfactorily addressed by mitigation measures it is noted that officers recommendation to grant planning permission sits against a not-insubstantial volume of public opposition (when considered within the context of the overall population of Jura), and in the absence of any formally stated public support for the proposal from third parties. In light of significant local opposition to the development it is considered that a pre- determination hearing would in this instance add value to the decision making process. (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The application seeks detailed planning permission for the erection of staff accommodation that would be occupied by employees of Ardfin Estate. The proposal would provide accommodation that is suitable for longer term occupation by employees currently living in temporary accommodation on the island and in doing so support employment and growth of tourism related employment on the island. The proposed staff accommodation will fall under Use Class 7. The proposed development is comprised of four distinct blocks arranged in a loose courtyard and sited to the north-east of a newly built affordable housing development with which it will share access to the A846 public road. The proposal is considered to be a ‘large’ scale commercial development and exceeds the scale of development normally supported by policies LDP DM 1, LDP 5SG LDP BUS within the key settlement of Craighouse. It has however been identified that the proposal is intended to support tourism employment which is key to the island and identified as a key employment area for Argyll and Bute in the Council’s Economic Development Action Plan. The proposal accordingly may be supported under the provisions of SG LDP BUS 5 which affords flexibility to scales of development within areas identified as being ‘economically fragile’ in the LDP. The proposal has been subject to an expression of concern from Jura Community Council and objection from 24 individual third parties. No objections to the proposal from consultees in relation to its access or infrastructure requirements and it is also observed that the proposals include for provisions that will provide road improvements including streetlighting and a footway that will benefit the wider public.
Page 10
The site is located within the Jura National Scenic Area and in proximity to the Craighouse Ravines SSSI, however Nature Scotland have not raised objection in either respect. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan n/a (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Derek Wilson Date: 31.08.2022 Reviewing Officer: Peter Bain Date: 14.09.2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth
Page 11
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 21/02141/PP 1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 18.10.2021, supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan DS148:(LP) 001 Rev D 15.06.2022 Proposed Site Plan DS148:(SP) 002 Rev D 15.06.2022 Supplementary Location Plan (1:10,000) DS148:(LP) 002 Rev A 16.12.2021 Site Section as Proposed DS148:(PA) 004 11.10.2021 Elevations and Sections as Proposed - Block 1 DS148 (PA)005 11.10.2021 Elevations and Sections as Proposed - Block 3 DS148 (PA)007 11.10.2021 Elevations and Sections as Proposed - Block 4 DS148 (PA)008 11.10.2021 Elevations as Proposed - Block 2 DS148 (PA)006 11.10.2021 Proposed Roof Plan DS148 (PA)003 Rev B 15.06.2022 Proposed Ground Floor Plan DS148 (PA)001 Rev B 15.06.2022 Room Type Layout Plans as Proposed DS148 (RL)001 11.10.2021 Proposed Floor and Elevation Plans - Bin Store DS148 (PA)012 15.11.2021 Proposed First Floor Plan DS148 (PA)002 Rev B 15.06.2022 Swept path 1 7096 41 Rev B 15.06.2022 A864 upgrading 1 of 2 7096 51C A1 10.08.2022 A864 upgrading 2 of 2 7096 52C A1. 10.08.2022 Adoptable street lighting 22035 LTG 001 23.05.2022 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. The land and premises to which this permission relates shall only be used solely for accommodation of persons employed by Ardfin Estate and their immediate family members and for no other use including any other purpose in Class 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 and the General Permitted Development Order 1992 (as amended). Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to control any subsequent change of use which might otherwise benefit from deemed permission in order to protect the amenity of the locale.
Page 12
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development hereby approved shall not be first occupied prior to completion of works to widen the carriageway of the A846 to accommodate a new 2.00m wide footway and associated drainage between the dwelling known as 1 Woodside and the new development road, as per the applicant's updated plans reference 7096-51 Rev C and 7096-52 Rev C. Reason: In the interests of road safety 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until details for the provision of adoptable standard street lighting between the dwelling known as 1 Woodside and the development site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. Thereafter the adoptable standard streetlighting shall be installed in accordance with the duly approved details prior to the first occupation of the Reason: In the interests of road safety 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until details for the provision of traffic calming measures at the junction of the private estate road and the prospectively adoptable residential service road connecting the development to the A846 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. Thereafter the traffic calming measures shall be installed in accordance with the duly approved details prior to the development being first occupied, and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until details of the intended means of surface water drainage to serve the development and its access have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. All surface water drainage systems to be designed according to CIRA C753 and Sewers for Scotland 4th Edition and discharge of surface water from the site should be attenuated to the greenfield run-off rate. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full concurrently with the development that it is intended to serve and shall be operational prior to the occupation of the development and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. 7. The parking and turning area, including a turning head for a commercial vehicle, shall be laid out and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 8. No development shall commence until, a Traffic Management Plan has been submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. The Plan shall detail approved access routes, agreed operational practices (including avoidance of convoy movements, specifying conduct in use of passing places, identification of turning areas, reporting of verge damage, safety
Page 13
measures to protect users of residential service roads) and shall provide for the provision of an appropriate Code of Practice to drivers of construction and delivery vehicles. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved Traffic Management Plan. Reason: To address abnormal traffic associated with the development in the interests of road safety. 9. Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 1, no development shall commence until details of the means of construction and route of the proposed remote footpath connecting the development to the A846 have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority and the Council’s Access Officer. The submitted details shall show provision of a level access footpath and include details of gradient, and groundworks required for implementation. The footpath shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details prior to the first occupation of the development, unless an alternative timescale for completion is earlier agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the provision of an accessible remote footpath and in the absence of full detail being provided in relation to the implementation of this element of the development. 10. No development shall commence until a scheme for the retention and safeguarding of trees during construction has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise: i) Details of all trees to be removed and the location and canopy spread of trees to be retained as part of the development; ii) A programme of measures for the protection of trees during construction works which shall include fencing at least one metre beyond the canopy spread of each tree in accordance with BS 5837:2005 “Trees in Relation to Construction”. Tree protection measures shall be implemented for the full duration of construction works in accordance with the duly approved scheme. No trees shall be lopped, topped or felled other than in accordance with the details of the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to retain trees as part of the development in the interests of amenity and nature conservation. 11. No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Nature Scotland. The scheme shall comprise a planting plan and schedule which shall include details of: i) Existing and proposed ground levels in relation to an identified fixed datum; ii) Existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; iii) Location design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; iv) Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted, new planting should be of appropriate native species.; v) A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on-going maintenance.
Page 14
All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity, and to protect the special qualities of the adjacent Craighouse Ravines SSSI from non-native species. 12. Notwithstanding Article 3 Class 14 of the of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 as amended, no storage of building materials, vehicles, plant, equipment or site accommodation shall be undertaken outwith the boundary of the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Nature Scotland. Reason: In order to protect natural heritage assets in the interest of nature conservation. 13. Given the proximity of the neighbouring residential properties to the site address, the hours of these proposed works should be restricted to 0800 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0800 – 1300 hours Saturday and not at all on Sunday, Bank or Scottish Public Holidays. Reason: To minimise the impact of noise, generated by construction activities, on occupiers of residential properties. 14. The noise level from the operation of the air source heat pump must not exceed 42dB LAeq(5 min) at one metre from the window of a habitable room on the façade of any neighbouring residential property. If, in the opinion of the local planning authority, the proposed air source heat pump results in any noise nuisance to an occupant of any neighbouring residential property, the applicant shall install noise mitigation measures agreed and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: In order to safeguard neighbouring property from any potential noise nuisance in the interests of residential amenity. 15. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until a Waste Management Plan for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This shall provide details of the proposed arrangements for the storage, segregation, collection and recycling of waste arising within the site including the location, access and maintenance for on-site storage facilities. The requirements of the plan shall be implemented during the life of the development other than in the event of any revision thereof being approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to accord with the principles of sustainable waste management. 16. Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until samples of materials to be used in the construction of external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development
Page 15
shall thereafter be completed using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings.
Page 16
NOTE TO APPLICANT The length of the permission: This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period [See section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).] In order to comply with Section 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, prior to works commencing on site it is the responsibility of the developer to complete and submit the attached ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date on which the development will start. In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date upon which the development was completed. All proposed developments require to submit a Pre-Development Enquiry (PDE) Form to be submitted directly to Scottish Water via our Customer Portal prior to any formal Technical Application being submitted. This will allow us to fully appraise the proposals. Where it is confirmed through the PDE process that mitigation works are necessary to support a development, the cost of these works is to be met by the developer, which Scottish Water can contribute towards through Reasonable Cost Contribution regulations. Unfortunately, according to the records there is no public Scottish Water, waste water infrastructure within the vicinity of this proposed development therefore they would advise the applicant to investigate private treatment options. Further advice on SuDS can be found in SEPA’s Standing Advice for Small Scale Development – www.sepa.org.uk A Road Opening Permit under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 must be obtained from the Council’s Roads Engineers prior to the formation/alteration of a junction with the public road. The access shall be constructed and drained to ensure that no surface water is discharged onto the public road. Given the proximity of the neighbouring residential properties to the site address, construction works shall be restricted to 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays, 0800- 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays. Bank or Scottish Public Holidays. Regard should be had to Scottish Natural Heritage’s consultation comments in relation to the proposed development which provide further detail in respect of species/habitats which may be affected and the developer’s responsibilities and obligations under nature conservation legislation. Regards should be had to the council’s Public Protection response. To have multiple occupants in a house in Scotland, you need a license from the local authority. If you rent a house to multiple occupants in Scotland you will need a license from your local authority if the property has three or more unrelated occupants and it is their main residence. This applies whether or not the landlord lives at the property. There are also circumstances where a license would be required where a property is let to provide
Page 17
occupants with a place of principle accommodation while they undertake work or studies. More information is available, and the license can be applied for, through the Argyll and Bute Council website. The applicant can also contact Regulatory Services to discuss this matter further. An alternative means of foul drainage is likely to constitute a material amendment requiring a further planning application. Private drainage arrangements are also subject to separate regulation by Building Standards and SEPA. Disruption of neighbouring amenity arising as a result of traffic movements with regards to light or noise should be monitored and advised to the councils public protection service as required.
Page 18
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 21/02141/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT A. Settlement Strategy Policy Overview: The proposal relates to an irregularly shaped 1.87ha site which is located within the defined ‘settlement area’ of the Key Rural Settlement of Craighouse as defined by the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. Policy LDP DM 1 provides general support for up to and including ‘medium’ scale development subject to compliance with all other relevant policies in the LDP. The proposal seeks detailed planning permission for the development of staff accommodation for Ardfin Estate. The accommodation will comprise of 26 single bed apartments and 7 double bedroom apartments (33 apartments in total with a maximum occupancy of 40 persons) across four blocks. Each apartment will contain its own sleeping, cooking and bathroom facilities but will share communal recreational facilities and spaces which will include an assembly area and breakout spaces. The proposed development is considered to fall within the provisions of Use Class 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)(Scotland) Order 1997 and its use as a staff village for Ardfin Estate would operate in a manner similar to hostel accommodation. The proposal accordingly requires to be assessed against the provisions of policy SG LDP BUS 1 and SG LDP BUS 5 with regards to the scale being large rather than medium. The provisions of policy LDP 5 sets out that the Council will support the development of new industry and business which helps deliver sustainable economic growth. The supporting detail to policy LDP 5 identifies Jura as being both an ‘Economically Fragile Area’ and a ‘Tourism Development Area’. SG LDP BUS 1 seeks to support business and industry development (Use Classes 4, 5, 6 and 7) of up to ‘medium’ scale on appropriate sites within the ‘settlement area’ of Craighouse. SG LDP BUS 1 sets out the following requirements: A) Development is of a form, location and scale consistent with policy LDP DM 1; B) Greenfield sites are avoided if brownfield land is available in close proximity; C) In residential locations the proposed development would not erode the residential character of the area, or adversely affect local residents, through an increase in traffic levels, noise fumes or hours of operation; D) The proposal is consistent with any other relevant Local Development Plan policy and associated SG; E) Technical standards in terms of parking, traffic circulation, vehicular access and servicing, and pedestrian access are met in full; F) The design, scale and siting of the new development respects the landscape/townscape character and appearance of the surrounding area. Schedule B1 appended to SG LDP BUS 1 sets out the scales of development. ‘Medium’ scale development is defined as ‘buildings between 200sqm and 600sqm footprint, gross site area between 0.5ha and 2ha’. The provisions of Schedule B1 also note that within ‘Economically Fragile Areas’ consideration will be given to variation of permitted scales of development in line with policy SG LDP BUS 5.
Page 19
In operation however, SG LDP BUS 5 effectively overrides the settlement strategy considerations built into SG LDP BUS 1 as it sets out that in the Economically Fragile Areas that consideration will be given to variation of permitted scales of development where: i) It has been demonstrated that no suitable preferred location is available; ii) The proposal is directly linked to the main potential growth sectors supported by the LDP and EDAP; iii) A sustainability checklist has been completed and it has been demonstrated that any concerns that have been identified over the sustainability of the proposal can be addressed satisfactorily; iv) Greenfield sites are avoided if brownfield land is available; v) In residential locations the proposed development would not erode the residential character of the area, or adversely affect local residents, through an increase in traffic levels, noise fumes or hours of operation; vi) The proposal is consistent with any other relevant Local Development Plan policy and associated SG; vii) Technical standards in terms of parking, traffic circulation, vehicular access and servicing, and pedestrian access are met in full; viii) The design, scale and siting of the new development respects the landscape/townscape character and appearance of the surrounding area. The explanatory text accompanying SG LDP BUS 5 confirms that whilst the LDP sets out a settlement strategy which provides a framework for development which provides a framework to deliver sustainable development the provisions of SG LDP BUS 5 serve to provide additional flexibility for the planning system in support of LDP objectives for sustainable economic growth and to support population retention and growth. The provisions of LDP 5 also set out support for tourism and tourism related development. Whilst the current proposal does not seek to provide tourism accommodation it has been identified in the supporting information that the proposal is intended to provide essential staff accommodation related to the local employment generating businesses at Ardfin Hotel and Golf Course. The statement further sets out that currently staff are housed in temporary accommodation on the Estate which is not considered to be a sustainable option in either the medium or longer term. The proposal is claimed to be integral to the successful operation of the existing Hotels and Golf Course businesses and the attendant increase in employment and opportunities. With the Jura Hotel in Craighouse recently acquired by the applicant, a permanent staff facility for the two main hotel sites is regarded by the proposer as essential. The option of using the Jura hotel as staff accommodation has not been deemed viable long term to the business or the local community. The existing staff are housed in temporary accommodation or ‘pods’ located throughout the Estate but this is neither a long - or medium - term sustainable option. Assessment of the Proposal: The site is wholly within the Key Rural Settlement of Craighouse/Keils and within the Jura National Scenic Area (NSA). Jura is both an Economically Fragile Area, and a Tourism Development Area which are Key Policy Themes for Growing Our Economy Together in the council’s Local Development Plan (LDP). The settlement designation is not forecast to alter with regards to the provisions of the councils emerging LDP 2 (Local Development Plan). The proposed site includes an area of land presently being developed as access arrangements for ten affordable dwellinghouses (under separate approval 17/03311/PP) and affording access to the A843. The current application relates to the provision of new staff accommodation for Ardfin Estate. The proposed development has a gross building floor area of 1111sqm within a development
Page 20
site area of 1.8ha. The staff accommodation falls under Use Class 7 and accordingly having regard to Schedule B1 is a ‘large’ scale business and industry development. The details within the application identify that the development is necessary to replace existing temporary staff accommodation to house up to 40 members of staff during the summer season employed locally at Ardfin and Jura Hotels and Golf Course. A lower number of residents would be expected during the off season. Whilst the proposal is not intended to directly provided improved visitor facilities it would seek to support the existing tourist related activity at Ardfin and the wider island. The council’s Economic Development Action Plan (EDAP) for this area has an ongoing commitment to investing in accommodation for workers to be trained and skilled in key sectors of the islands’ economies which support tourism. Generally this is focussed on food and drink, and the opportunity to house staff to be trained in a dual sports/hospitality sector to learn new skills and to transfer skills they bring to the sector is consistent with the EDAS investment aims. The over-arching aim to invest in transport is generally aimed at high profile projects, but the required roads infrastructure improvement for this project may be seen as a benefit for the settlement overall and all visitors to the island. The original premise for the estate development was as a private, invitee resource but has since developed into a more commercial entity. Initially it was self-contained and although figures are not readily available is unlikely to have been other than a self-contained venture offering little economic multiplier to the island economy. Currently there are 34 full-time staff, 30 of which reside on Jura and four travel from Islay each day. 9 staff have their own property and 21 are in existing Ardfin staff housing. Staff housing is usually on a shared basis with a room allocated, although there are also some senior staff in dedicated houses. The existing staff housing is spread across the island in different locations, up to nine miles away from Ardfin Hotel. Additionally around 20 seasonal staff are generally required who stay in existing staff housing on a shared basis. A high standard of accommodation is the key to retaining quality staff which the proposal is intended to address and potentially release five or six houses into the Island’s general housing stock. Similarly employment levels for servicing the golf course and accommodation are not readily available. As the business model has developed, the required staff are using temporary accommodation which is unsuitable for long term use, and not an acceptable solution in spatial planning terms. Permanent accommodation of a good standard within the settlement is seen to contribute to the stability of the accommodation provision and an economic multiplier within the community. The application is accompanied by supporting information that advises that a location within Craighouse is desirable both to provide residents access to established services and facilities in the settlement but also to provide a degree of amenity and a residential environment through physical separation from their place of work. The supporting information and Sustainability Checklist accompanying the application identifies that other locations on the Estate were discounted for the opportunity to develop within an established ‘settlement area’ as defined by the LDP as opposed to a countryside location. Consideration of PDA 11/3 elsewhere in Craighouse located above the Distillery was discounted as the site lay outwith the applicant’s ownership and is not available for purchase. It was identified as croft land, is identified for housing, and had potential safeguarding issues. Officers are unaware of any other suitable areas either within an allocation, the wider ‘settlement area’ or ‘brownfield’ locations on Jura which would be suitable for a development of this scale or which should be considered a sequentially preferable location for the development. The development is intended to meet a location requirement for staff accommodation in South Jura and it would not be appropriate to extend consideration of alternative locations.
Page 21
The development is located within a ‘residential location’ and the effect of the development upon the amenity of the locale, including existing residential property is subject to detailed assessment in Section B below. The development is located within the Jura National Scenic Area. The impact of the design, scale and siting of the development upon the receiving landscape is considered in detail in Section F below. The proposed development is located within the Craighouse ‘settlement area’; the proposal would be accessible by public transport links and makes provision for improved pedestrian access into the settlement which will also be of benefit to the residents of adjacent housing development and other road users. The Estate recognises the benefit of providing a shuttle bus from the proposed site to minimise private car journeys. The central location of the new staff facility makes this possible and feasible which has the added benefit of reducing travel by car. A detailed assessment of access and infrastructure requirements is set out in sections G and H below. In summary, the proposal represents a ‘large scale’ business and industry development within the ‘settlement area’ of the Key Rural Settlement of Craighouse where a clear locational/operational need to provide staff accommodation has been demonstrated by the applicant. The provisions of SG LDP BUS 5 recognise the requirement for flexibility within ‘Economically Fragile Areas’ such as Jura and make provision for the normal scales of supported development in the Council’s Settlement Strategy to be varied to accommodate up to ‘large scale’ development in appropriate circumstances. Accordingly, it is considered that the principle of the development is consistent with policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, LDP 5, SG LDP BUS 1, and SG LDP BUS 5. B. Nature and Design of Proposed Development The proposal requires to be assessed against the provisions of policy LDP 9 and SG LDP Sustainable in terms of development setting, layout and design. The provisions of policy LDP 9 set out that new development shall be required to be sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located, that the development layout and density shall effectively integrate with the setting of the development, and that the design of the development shall be compatible with its surroundings. The provisions of SG LDP Sustainable relating to ‘isolated industrial/commercial development’ set out that the form and pattern of the landscape will largely determine the acceptability of the proposal. The extent to which the proposals would be clearly be visible from public roads, viewpoints and neighbouring local communities is also an important factor. When assessing the appearance of ‘isolated commercial development’ the planning authority are required to consider the size and extent of the proposals including visual impact, the location and its landscape setting, and the design and colour of the development and ancillary structures. The application relates to a site area of 1.8 hectares located to the immediate north east of a new affordable housing development located on the south eastern fringe of the settlement of Craighouse. The application site is previously undeveloped land around 200m south of the distillery and hotel; the site is bounded to the east by a strip of woodland that adjoins the A846, to the north and west by open gently sloping land, and to the south by a new housing development which will provide a shared means of access to the public road with the existing access being continued to form the cu-de sac around which the new courtyard is built. The land to be developed for the four blocks is north of the new housing development and will extend its access into the cul de sac compound. The land to be used is the flatter south west
Page 22
of the site with the northerly (more steep) area to be retained as woodland or turfed for amenity spaces. A proposed footpath from the rear of the site to a new footpath at the main road may be created in this area. The bin store will be centrally located within the four blocks. The parking will mainly be to the rear of the large westerly block with smaller parking (more accessible) strips between the other blocks. The proposal consists of four accommodation blocks that will be laid out in a courtyard style. The proposed buildings comprise a mix of single storey and 1½ storey design rooted in a traditional design emphasis with the utilisation of long, narrow building form, narrow gables, windows with a vertical emphasis, symmetrically pitched roofs to further break up the overall massing of the development into a number of smaller elements which are attuned to the scale, massing and appearance of existing buildings in the locality. External finishes also reflect the use of traditional building materials within the wider locality through the use of white render, and natural slate. The use of untreated timber cladding and metal standing seam roof cladding is more contemporary in nature but would not be out of keeping with the rural locality and the element of variation in finishes will help to emphasise the small scale components which contribute to the larger grouping of buildings. The overall form and massing of the collective building components reflects the traditional grouping of a farm/estate grouping of working buildings and whilst substantial remains compatible with a rural setting. In total the development provides for 26 single apartments and 7 double apartments (inclusive of 2 accessible rooms). The 33 units comprise 40 bed spaces. Whilst the development type is categorised within the LDP under ‘business and industry’ the Class 7 use is solely intended for occupation by staff employed by Ardfin Estate and as such might however be expected to share characteristics with a flatted residential development as opposed to a commercial workplace or hotel/hostel frequented by tourists. Block 1 is an ‘L’ shaped building of 1½ storey design building and single storey wing with a footprint of 485sqm floor space containing 14 ensuite single bedsit apartments and 3 ensuite double bedsit apartments with 3 communal kitchen/dining/seating areas. The building form is broken by a pend to provide vehicular access to the rear parking area and also features porches, dormer windows and inset balcony detailing. The 1½ storey main section will be finished in white render and slate roof with a small amount of timber inset detailing; the single storey return wing will be finished in timber cladding and a metal standing seam roof. Block 2 is a single storey building of rectangular 125sqm floorspace of hipped roof gable design and set out an angle of 45degrees from the northern end of Block 1 to both address the internal road line which provides access to a rear car park beyond but also provide an element of enclosure to the courtyard layout. This building will contain 6 ensuite single bedsit apartments. The building will be finished in white render and natural slate with timber cladding detail around window and door openings. Block 3 is a single storey building with an ‘H’ shaped footprint extending to 378sqm floorspace. Two parallel wings running East to West across the site are connected by a central, perpendicular link. Whilst the building is single storey the building has a stepped ridgeline as the northern wing adapts to a slight change in ground levels. The building contains 6 single bedsit apartments, 2 double bedsit apartments, a large communal kitchen and dining area and laundry facilities, the northern wing also includes a mezzanine floor above the plant room, and a snug space in the attic above the communal kitchen/dining area. The building also contains a plantroom for a district heating system with an external flue. The southern wing shall be finished in white render, natural slate with timber detailing; the central wing shall be finished in a mix of white render and timber cladding with a slate roof; and the northern wing which houses the shared facilities and plantroom will be finished in metal standing seam walls and roof covering, and timber detailing. A timber fenced, communal bin store shall site immediately to the north of this building.
Page 23
Block 4 is a small 1½ storey building containing 2 double ensuite apartments with 123sqm floorspace. The building design includes dormer windows with inset balconies and a lean-to porch. The building shall be finished in white render and natural slate with timber detailing. The proposal will introduce a ‘large scale’ commercial activity into what is a quiet rural, residential area and accordingly requires to be considered against the relevant provisions of policy SG LDP BAD 1 which sets out that ‘bad neighbour’ developments will only be permitted where there are no unacceptable adverse effects on amenity; where the proposal includes appropriate measures to reduce the impact on amenity or public service provision objections; and where technical standards in terms of parking, traffic circulation, vehicular access and servicing, and pedestrian access are met in full. The nearest Class 9 houses will be those of the housing association currently under construction. The arrangement of the proposal is not deemed to introduce any overlooking or shadowing issues in this regard. The buildings face into each other across a central courtyard which will also act as a containment for the most common issues which may occur and are contrary to this policy. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has not raised any objection on the likely operational impact of the proposed development upon the amenity of neighbouring residential property although a condition to mitigate disturbance during the construction period has been advised. In this respect it is considered that the shared access to the main road is not deemed intensification of vehicle use nor noise or light impacts above expected in a residential area. The likely shift working nature of the residents is not deemed likely to cause a concentration of cooking activity at specific times resulting in intensification of smells. It is unlikely that any agreed proposal will reach full occupancy for some time allowing the council’s officers to assess any issues and act accordingly. Building 3 includes a full height space for a plant room and an Air Source Heat Pump within a special housing is also proposed. The noise generated by these operations will be subject to control by condition of any approval. The proposal is considered to be consistent with policy LDP 9, SG Sustainable, and SG LDP BAD 1. C. Natural Environment The site lies outwith but close to Craighouse Ravine, Jura SSSI designated for its bryophyte assemblage and upland oak woodland features. The designated site is outwith the development site although the neighbouring road will be required for construction movements. Nature Scotland have advised that, subject to appropriate mitigation measure, the proposed development is unlikely to have any significant effect on the qualifying interests of the SSSI designation. Nature Scotland have however advised that conditions be imposed to preclude machinery or materials entering or being stored within the SSSI in order to avoid ground damage to the site. It is also advised that any tree planting proposed as part of landscaping are of native species in order to prevent the spread of non-native species to the SSSI woodland. Similarly the water resources in the ravine which form an important part of the habitat must also be protected especially with regard to spillage or subsidence into the water course which may harm riparian habitats and wildlife and the general ecology of the protected area Conditions will be applied to any approval in these respects and to conform with policies LDP 3, SG LDP ENV 1, SG LDP ENV 2 and SG LDP ENV 4, SG LDP, ENV 6 and SG LDP ENV 7.
Page 24
D. Historic Environment The proposed development does not give rise to any direct or indirect effects upon the site or setting of any listed building, scheduled monument, or conservation area. E. Impact on Woodland The provisions of policies LDP 3, LDP 10 and SG LDP ENV 6 would all seek to resist development which has an adverse impact upon existing trees/woodland. The proposed path from the site through existing woodland will necessarily require some clearing with compensatory planting required as a condition of any approval. The neighbouring woodland in the ravine opposite will not be subject to any disturbance under the plans. In the absence of full detail of the route, construction and requirement for tree felling required for installation of the proposed remote footpath it would be appropriate to impose conditions for submission and approval of such details to ensure compliance with LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 6. F. Landscape Character The application site is located within the Jura National Scenic Area and requires its impact upon landscape to be assessed against the provisions of LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 12. The provisions of SG LDP ENV 12 set out that the Council will look to resist any development in or affecting National Scenic Areas that would have an adverse impact upon the integrity of the area, or that would undermine the Special Qualities of the area, unless it is adequately demonstrated that any significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental, or economic benefits of national importance. Impact on the Jura National Scenic Area The whole of the site is within the NSA and therefore the design and siting as discussed earlier is critical for any decision. During the site visit by the officer it was established that there are few accessible viewpoints from where the site and the scale of the proposed buildings will be visible. These are from the road and the approached where a low rise cluster of buildings would not be unexpected within this part of the settlement. Views from off the island towards Craighouse are not expected to be interrupted or the landscape altered or ridges breached due to the scale and positioning. The Jura Housing Capacity report of 2007 identified the area around the Coastguard Station as fragmented within the settlement and the Woodside and current developments have partially addressed this. The current proposal fills the gap to the back of the station and is therefore consistent with the identified vision of this document. The proposed materials are also deemed to be consistent with the landscape colourings and those of the prominent buildings within the settlement. Nature Scotland have noted that the development is located within the settlement zone of Craighouse and is sited close to existing built developments, both residential and commercial in nature including large scale distillery buildings. It is further advised by Nature Scotland that the proposal is not considered likely to have a significant effect on the special qualities of the Jura NSA. The proposal is consistent with policies LDP 3 SG LDP ENV 12 and SG LDP ENV 14.
Page 25
G. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters. The provisions of policy LDP 11 set out that the Council will seek to ensure that an appropriate standard of access is delivered to serve new developments, including off-site highway improvements where appropriate. The provisions of policies SG LDP TRAN 4 and SG LDP TRAN 6 set out the Council’s requirements in respect of site access and parking provision. In this instance the development will connect onto an existing shared surface, prospectively maintainable adoptable road that currently terminates in a cul de sac within an existing West Highland Housing affordable housing development. A proposed new private road shall be formed from the termination of the social housing road to serve the new development. Provision of 36 parking bays shall be provided on site. It is proposed that all new car parking spaces are formed from porous paving to allow natural discharge back to the existing soil. It is also noted that by locating the new facility within the settlement, staff will be able access facilities and services at Craighouse on foot or by bicycle which will reduce reliance on travel by car. In terms of transport of the staff to Jura House, the Estate will provide a shuttle bus to minimise private car journeys. The central location of the new staff facility makes this possible and feasible which has the added benefit of reducing travel by car. The application includes for carriageway widening of the A846 and provision of a 2m wide adoptable standard footway from 1 Woodside (to the east) to the social housing development road. Additionally new adoptable streetlighting shall also be provided from 1 Woodside to termination of the public road where it connects to the private access; improved drainage will also be installed on the section of A846. The proposals to enhance the existing access arrangements have been developed in consultation with the Council’s Roads officers who have not raised objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the delivery of the necessary road improvements and parking, and for the provision of details of additional traffic calming measures to ensure that drivers entering onto the public road from the development do so at a safe speed bearing in mind that this is a shared surface serving residential development. The proposal is considered to comply with policies with LDP 11, SG LDP TRAN 3, TRAN 4 and SG LDP TRAN 6 and national standards of parking. H. Infrastructure / Waste Management Foul drainage and water supply shall be by connection to Scottish Water infrastructure. Scottish Water have not objected but did comment that the site is not currently served by a foul drainage connection; it is understood that the development will however connect in to recently installed public sewerage connection serving adjacent housing development. Scottish water have advised this proposed development may be fed from Craighouse Water Treatment Works. Unfortunately they are unable to confirm capacity currently so they suggest that the applicant completes a PreDevelopment Enquiry (PDE) Form and submits it directly to Scottish Water via their Customer Portal or contact Development Services. The proposal has included a centrally placed bin storage area for the proposal. Its design, access and positioning is acceptable in terms of the specific proposal and the wider area within the NSA under policies LDP 10 and SG LDP SERV 5(b). The main access road joining to that already under construction from the main road will drain via road gullies into the existing surface water sewer tail which extends onto the main sewer.
Page 26
The buildings surface water drainage will be discharged back to the soil via soakaway trenches whose design will be determined based on the findings of a Phase 2 site investigation which aims to determine the site’s soil porosity. The foul drainage from the new buildings is proposed to connect to the existing foul water tail which extends from the neighbouring site development and onto the main road sewer. The contours of the site allow for a design to work gravitationally and will be subject to compliance with SEPA regulations and Scottish Water connection approval. The proposal is acceptable under policies LDP 10 and SG LDP SERV 1.