Public reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 28 September 2022
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 28 September 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 Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 20 September 2022 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 at 10:30 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 August 2022 at 10.30 am (Pages 5 - 16) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 August 2022 at 2.00 pm (Pages 17 - 18) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 August 2022 at 2.30 pm (Pages 19 - 20) (d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 August 2022 at 3.00 pm (Pages 21 - 22) (e) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 August 2022 at 3.30 pm (Pages 23 - 26) 4. MR PAUL RODGER: DEMOLITION OF DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSE, ERECTION OF 3 DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSES AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS: PEAT KNOWE, BACK ROAD, CLYNDER, HELENSBURGH (REF: 21/01943/PP) (Pages 27 - 64) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
5. ARDFIN ESTATE LTD: ERECTION OF BUILDINGS TO FACILITATE RESIDENTIAL STAFF ACCOMMODATION WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS AND PARKING ARRANGEMENTS: LAND NORTH EAST OF COASTGUARD STATION, CRAIGHOUSE, ISLE OF JURA (REF: 21/02141/PP) (Pages 65 - 92) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 6. MR KEITH TURNER: USE OF ENTIRE GROUND FLOOR PREMISES AS FOOD AND DRINK ESTABLISHMENT (CLASS 3) AND USE OF NORTH EASTERN PART AS AN ANCILLARY SPACE FOR EVENTS (CLASS 10): FIVE WEST, ROYAL BUILDINGS, TIGHNABRUAICH (REF: 21/02608/PP) (Pages 93 - 122) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 7. ARGYLL COMMUNITY HOUSING ASSOCIATION: DEMOLITION OF FIVE TENEMENT BLOCKS COMPRISING 46 FLATS: BLOCK A 19-9E JOHN STREET, BLOCK C (1-5 DALINTOBER AND 24-26 HIGH STREET), JOHN STREET, PRINCE'S STREET AND HIGH STREET, CAMPBELTOWN (REF: 21/02738/LIB) (Pages 123 - 146) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 8. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ON BEHALF OF ENERGIEKONTOR UK LTD: ELECTRICITY ACT SECTION 36 CONSULTATION RELEVANT TO ROWAN WIND FARM: LAND APPROXIMATELY 4.5KM NORTH WEST OF TARBERT, ARGYLL & BUTE (REF: 22/00385/S36) (Pages 147 - 194) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 9. SCOTTISH HYDRO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION PLC: CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 13.3 KM OF 275KV OVER HEAD LINE (OHL) FROM BETWEEN A PROPOSED SUBSTATION AT CREAG DHUBH TO THE EXISTING SCOTTISH POWER ENERGY NETWORKS (SPEN) 275 KV OHL THAT RUNS FROM DALMALLY TO INVERARNAN: LAND SOUTH OF DAMALLY AND EAST OF CLADICH (REF: 22/01298/S37) (Pages 195 - 228) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 10. SCOTTISH POWER ENERGY NETWORKS (SPEN) ON BEHALF OF SCOTTISH POWER TRANSMISSION (SPT): TEMPORARY TRANSMISSION LINE DIVERSION, ERECTION OF TWO TEMPORARY TOWERS AND ONE PERMANENT TOWER (LINK TOWER FROM PROPOSED SSEN 13.3KM POWER LINE TO EXISTING SCOTTISH POWER HIGH VOLTAGE NETWORK): LAND APPROX 2KM EAST OF DALMALLY (REF: 22/01329/S37) (Pages 229 - 242) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 11. SCOTTISH HYDRO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION PLC: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR FORMATION OF ACCESS TRACKS/ARRANGEMENTS RELATING TO REFURBISHMENT WORKS ON EXISTING 33KV OVERHEAD LINES: LAND BETWEEN SLOY SWITCHING STATION AND GLENMALLAN (REF: 22/01023/PAN) (Pages 243 - 248) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 12. MH PLANNING ASSOCIATES: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR PROPOSED TIMBER LOADING FACILITY: LAND NORTH OF BUNNAHABHAIN, ISLE OF ISLAY (REF: 22/01516/PAN) (Pages 249 - 254) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth
Page 3
13. ARGYLL AND BUTE DESIGN AWARDS 2022/23 (Pages 255 - 260) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth * 14. ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL'S SHORT TERM LET LICENSING SCHEME (Pages 261 - 350) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth REPORTS FOR NOTING 15. LOCAL PLACE PLANS (Pages 351 - 358) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 16. PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 2021/22 (Pages 359 - 406) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 17. PRIVATE HIRE CARS AND TAXIS LICENSED IN ARGYLL & BUTE (Pages 407 - 412) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Items marked with an “asterisk” are items, on the basis of information available at the time this Agenda is published, on which the Committee may not have delegated powers to act, and which may therefore require to be referred to the Council or another Committee, and that referral may depend on the decision reached at the meeting. Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey (Vice-Chair) Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Willie Hume Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 4
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 5
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held ON A HYBRID BASIS BY ATTENDANCE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD OR REMOTELY BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 17 AUGUST 2022 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Willie Hume Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Patricia O’Neill, Governance Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Tim Williams, Area Team Leader – Oban, Lorn and the Isles Howard Young, Area Team Leader – Bute & Cowal/Helensburgh & Lomond Arlene Knox, Senior Planning Officer Norman Shewan, Planning Officer Fiona Scott, Planning Officer Steven Gove, Planning Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy and Luna Martin. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 June 2022 at 10.30 am was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 June 2022 at 2.00 pm was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 June 2022 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. d) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 June 2022 at 3.00 pm was approved as a correct record. 4. MACKENZIE WELDING: ERECTION OF STORAGE SHED (PART RETROSPECTIVE): PLOT 1, NANT PARK, TAYNUILT (REF: 19/02300/PP) The Area Team Leader advised that this application had been withdrawn by the Applicant on 16 August 2022 and would not require consideration by the Committee. Page 5 Agenda Item 3a
Page 6
Decision The Committee noted the withdrawal of the planning application. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 1 August 2022, submitted) 5. THE SCOTTISH SALMON COMPANY: RELOCATION AND ENLARGEMENT OF EXISTING MARINE FISH FARM (CURRENTLY COMPRISING; 8 NO. 100 METRE CIRCUMFERENCE CAGES) BY RE-EQUIPMENT WITH 14 NO. 120 METRE CIRCUMFERENCE CAGES AND EXTENSION OF MOORING GRID FROM 60 METRES TO 75 METRES TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL PENS. INCREASE IN BIOMASS FROM 1198 TONNES TO 2070 TONNES: ARDYNE FISH FARM, LOCH STRIVEN (REF: 19/02539/MFF) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. Ardyne was granted planning permission by the Scottish Government on 13 June 2011 for 8, circular 100m circumference cages for Atlantic Salmon. The existing site is located in the Sound of Rothesay, to the south of Loch Striven. There have been marine aquaculture operations at the existing site location for over 34 years. The application site is located approximately 356m south of the existing site. The proposal involves the removal of all pens at the existing site and replacement of them with 14 x 120m circumference pens in a 75m mooring grid at the application site. The replacement pens would be linked to the shore-based fed system associated with the existing site. The application has been subject to 29 objections, 1 representation and 16 expressions of support. The recommendation on this application has been guided by the conclusions of the Supporting Information, advice of Statutory Consultees, and relevant material considerations raised by third parties. The proposal has been assessed against the policies of the adopted Local Development Plan with particular regard to the criteria-based approach of the aquaculture supplementary guidance policy AQUA 1 as well as other material considerations and policies within the Plan. It is considered that the proposal complies with the Local Development and it is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons:- Standard Condition 1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 27th November 2019 and the approved drawing reference numbers: Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Page 6
Page 7
Location Plan – Figure 1 1 of 9 - 17/12/19 Location Plan – Figure 2 2 of 9 - 17/12/19 Net Plan – Title: 120m x 10m + 1.3m DEEP 24 VERTICALS, 12 SEGMENT BASE 2.1 mm SSP MBX NETTING 3 of 9 - 17/12/19 Cage Layout & Waterline Plan Title: Ardyne T4502D120/48 c/w Bird Net Poles 4 of9 - 17/12/19 Cage Ring Elevation/Bird Net Poles Title: T450 2 Ring 120m Pen 48 U/R cw 5m Bird Net Poles 5 of 9 - 17/12/19 Mooring Plan Title: 14 x 120m cages, in 16 pen 2 x 8 pen 75m x 75m grid’ 6 of 9 - 17/12/19 Net Plan Title: 120m TOP NET UTILISING RABBEN KONSULT 6m POLE SYSTEM 7 of 9 - 17/12/19 Admiralty Chart Extract Proposed – Figure 3 8 of 9 - 17/12/19 Site Plan/Grid Co-ordinates Title: Site Plan Proposed, Figure 4 9 of 9 - 17/12/19 unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for other materials/finishes/for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. Removal of Redundant Equipment 2. In the event that the development or any associated equipment approved by this permission ceases to be in operational use for a period exceeding three years, the equipment shall be wholly removed from the site thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that redundant development does not sterilise capacity for future development within the same water body. Redundant Equipment/Equipment Failure 3. In the event of equipment falling into disrepair or becoming damaged, adrift, stranded, abandoned or sunk in such a manner as to cause an obstruction or danger to navigation, the developer shall carry out or make suitable arrangements for the Page 7
Page 8
carrying out of all measures necessary for lighting, buoying, raising, repairing, moving or destroying, as appropriate, the whole or any part of the equipment. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. Lighting 4. All lighting above the water surface and not required for safe navigation purposes should be directed downwards by shielding and be extinguished when not required for the purpose for which it is installed on the site. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. Equipment Colour 5. The finished surfaces of all equipment above the water surface including surface floats and buoys associated with the development hereby permitted (excluding those required to comply with navigational requirements) shall be non-reflective and finished in a dark muted colour unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. Environmental Management Plan 6. All prescriptions, as detailed within The Scottish Salmon Company’s amended Environmental Management Plan, dated December 2020 must be implemented by the Applicant in the manner and timings specified and any subsequent approved variation thereof. The EMP should be reviewed and updated if required following the adoption by Scottish Government of any new policy framework relevant to wild salmonid interactions. Any proposed amendments to the EMP shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority prior to the changes being implemented. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. Drift nets, vertical static nets or gill nets 7. There shall be no use of drift nets, vertical static nets or gill nets to recapture escaped fish. Reason: In order to avoid putting marine birds, including guillemots, shags, divers and others at risk. Nuisance during Construction 8. Identification and assessment of all potential sources of nuisance, including noise vibration, dust, and any temporary lighting provided, which may cause disturbance to nearby residents during the construction should be undertaken by the applicant. This should include consideration of intended hours of operation, movement of vehicles, use of plant and storage of equipment and materials on site. For all potential sources of nuisance, the applicant will be required to provide a management plan with details of suitable control measures to be put in place so as to ensure that construction does not cause loss of amenity to local residents and/or statutory nuisance. Page 8
Page 9
Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. Operating Hours during Construction 9. In order to minimise, as far as necessary, the level of noise and/or vibration to which nearby existing residents will be exposed during the construction process the hours of operation of the site should be restricted to 08.00 to 18:30 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. There should be no operation on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. Operating Noise 10. The Noise Rating Level attributable to the operation of the approved scheme and its associated activities shall not exceed background noise levels by more than 3dB(A) at 3.5m from the façade of any residential property measured in accordance with BS4142:2014. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the area from noise disturbance. Traffic Management Plan 11. 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 include positive measures to be put in place to minimise impact from the development on the road network especially at peak times. The Plan shall include the construction and operational phase of the proposal with detailed timing of all HGV traffic. Once approved the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved Traffic Management Plan and no collection/deliveries shall take place outwith the agreed hours unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To address abnormal traffic associated with the development in the interests of road safety. Acoustic Deterrent Devices 12. Notwithstanding the details contained within the Predator Control Plan, no Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) shall be deployed at the site hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. This planning application has been determined on the basis that ADDs will not be used and on this basis it has been determined that there would be no likely significant effects on cetaceans. Communications and Monitoring Plan 13. Prior to the first use of bath medications being administered on the fish farm hereby approved, a Communications and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out Page 9
Page 10
wholly in accordance with the Communications and Monitoring Plan unless otherwise agreed, or varied, in writing with the Planning Authority. The Communications and Monitoring Plan shall include: (a) A Communications Plan detailing the method by which other marine users shall be informed of general safety information that should be considered by water users when in the vicinity of the fish farm, including when bath medications are being actively use at the site. The Communications Plan shall be informed by the conclusions of the Supporting Information "Assessment of the Potential Risk to Human Health Following Use of Azamethiphos, Deltamethrin and Hydrogen Peroxide; WCA; Dec 2021"; (b) A Monitoring Plan to investigate the dispersal and dilution of Hydrogen Peroxide following its use in bath treatments on the site and the use of these findings to review and update the conclusions in the aforementioned Supporting Information, and the Communications Plan. The Monitoring Plan shall include provision for reporting the findings to the Planning Authority and securing its written approval for any resultant amendment that may be proposed to the Communications Plan. Reason: To inform marine users of potential risks to human health in the vicinity of the fish farm. Predator Control Plan 14. The site shall be operated in accordance with the Predator Control Plan, Ardyne, Sound of Rothesay rev A1 dated 17th Jan 2019 with the exception of any proposed actions contained within these documents limited by other conditions on this planning permission. Any subsequent updates of these documents shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. Entanglement/Entrapment 15. The proposal shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the following: (a) A daily record of entanglement / entrapment shall be maintained using a standardised proforma (which can be supplied by NatureScot) which shall be submitted to the planning authority and copied to NatureScot at 6 monthly intervals or other specified period to be agreed in writing with the planning authority in consultation with NatureScot. The first proforma shall be submitted 6 months after the development is brought into use unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority in consultation with NatureScot. (b) In the event of any significant entrapment or entanglement of gannets, and any other SPA interests identified as relevant to a particular fish farm (e.g., involving three or more birds of any named species in any one day and / or a total of ten or more birds in the space of any seven-day period and / or repeat incidents involving one or more birds on four or more consecutive days), the operators shall immediately notify both the planning authority and NatureScot; Page 10
Page 11
(c) Adaptive management approaches should be agreed in writing with the planning authority in consultation with NatureScot in advance of these being implemented. Reason: To ensure that there are no significant effects on the qualifying interests of the Ailsa Craig Special Protection Area. Gannet in particular have an extensive range and would have the potential to become entangled in nets. Escapes Contingency Plan 16. The site shall be operated in accordance with the Escapes Contingency Plan, Ardyne, Sound of Rothesay except for any proposed actions contained within these documents limited by other conditions on this planning permission. Any subsequent updates of these documents shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The development shall comply with the Technical Standards as referred to in the Escape Contingency Plan for Ardyne. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. Wild Fisheries Sea Lice Monitoring Strategy 17. The Wild Fisheries Sea Lice Monitoring Strategy shall include monitoring of the juvenile freshwater population of Atlantic Salmon, in the Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation. The final monitoring plan shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and agreed in writing with all relevant parties, including NatureScot, prior to the site being stocked. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. Waste Management Plan 18. Prior to the commencement of development a Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. This shall include details of the arrangements for the storage, separation, and collection of waste from the site including proposals for uplift from areas where fish farm equipment has become detached from the site. Reason: To ensure that waste is managed in an acceptable manner. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 4 August 2022, submitted) 6. MR PAUL RODGER: DEMOLITION OF DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSE, ERECTION OF 3 DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSES AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS: PEAT KNOWE, BACK ROAD, CLYNDER, HELENSBURGH (REF: 21/01943/PP) At the Committee meeting on 22 June 2022, Members agreed to continue consideration of this application to their next available meeting in August 2022 and instructed Officers to request that the Applicant provide by the end of July 2022, an engineering report on the Page 11
Page 12
ground engineering works required to ensure stability of the slopping ground to prevent any slippage or flooding onto neighbouring properties. The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of supplementary reports which advised of the Applicant’s progress and intended deadlines for the submission of a Civil Engineering Report and also the detail of a representation submitted by Councillor Mark Irvine on behalf of local residents, received subsequent to the June PPSL Committee meeting. The details of this representation along with photographs were available for inspection on the Council’s planning portal. It is recommended that consideration of this planning application be continued to the September PPSL Committee to allow the Applicant the extended opportunity to prepare and submit the Civil Engineering Report requested. Decision The Committee: 1. agreed that consideration of this planning application be continued to the September PPSL Committee to allow the Applicant the extended opportunity to prepare and submit the Civil Engineering Report requested; and 2. noted that Planning Officers would undertake to carry out any further investigations required in response to concerns expressed by local residents and report back to the next available PPSL Committee. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 8 June 2022, Supplementary Report number 1 dated 4 August 2022 and Supplementary Report number 2 dated 16 August 2022, submitted) 7. KILBOWIE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD: ALTERATIONS TO INCREASE ROOF PITCH OF DWELLINGHOUSES: 1-7 KILBOWIE SHORE, GALLANACH ROAD, OBAN (REF: 22/00231/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report and to supplementary report number 1 which advised of 2 late representations. Planning permission is sought for the increase in the pitch of the roof of two existing terraces of dwellinghouses at numbers 1 to 7 Kilbowie Shore, Gallanach Road, Oban. Due to the current zinc roof failing, and remedial works to rectify the problem having failed, the current application seeks to replace the flat roof with a steeper hipped roof. The proposed changes results in an overall increase in height of 1.57 metres. The determining factors in the assessment of this application are whether the increase in the roof pitch is an appropriate design change to the dwellinghouses and whether it will have a significant adverse impact on their appearance within the site and wider landscape or give rise to any privacy or amenity issues with neighbouring properties. In this instance the proposed change is considered to be an acceptable alteration to the dwellinghouses and will have no significant adverse impact on the appearance of the dwellinghouses or their setting within the wider landscape at this location, nor will the change give rise to any privacy or amenity issues with neighbouring residential properties. Page 12
Page 13
It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following condition and reason: 1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 03/02/22, 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/Site Plan 100 A 31/03/22 Proposed Roof Plans 101 A 31/03/22 Existing Roof Plans 102 ** 04/02/22 Proposed West Elevations 103 ** 04/02/22 Terrace 1 – South East & North Elevations 104 ** 04/02/22 Terrace 2 – South, East and North Elevations 105 A 31/03/22 Terrace 1 – Section AA 106 ** 04/02/22 Terrace 2 – Section AA 107 ** 04/02/22 Terrace 2 – Section BB 108 ** 04/02/22 Terrace 2 – Section CC 109 ** Existing West Elevations Terraces 1&2 110 ** 31/03/22 Roof Report – 3 PAGES Report on Design Alterations 07/07/22 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 2 August 2022 and supplementary report number 1 dated 16 August 2022, submitted) 8. MR PAUL DAVID BARKER: APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE OF SECTION 75 OBLIGATION RELATIVE TO PLANNING PERMISSION 97/01526/DET: MELDA HOUSE, KILFINAN, BY TIGHNABRUAICH (REF: 22/00921/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The Bute and Cowal Area Committee granted Planning permission (97/01526/DET) on 7 April 1998 subject to a Section 75 obligation. There are two principal restrictions contained in the First Clause of the Section 75. The first provides that the dwellinghouse, office and shop shall not be owned, leased or otherwise occupied independently from the existing fishing venture and the second restriction is the declaration that the dwellinghouse, office and shop shall in all time coming be conveyed, leased or otherwise disposed of as a single unit, along with the fishing venture, held under one title. Page 13
Page 14
An application has been submitted seeking to discharge this Section 75 obligation. The Applicant has advised that he did attempt to continue with the fishing venture after his purchase of Loch Melldalloch and its associated land in 2002. However, due to the combination of factors that he has set out in his supporting statement summarised at Section P of the report, the business did not prove viable. Over the last 10 years or so, the use of Section 75 obligations as an appropriate mechanism to underpin support for housing required in association with crofting, agricultural employment, and other rural businesses has been phased out. Given the reality of the situation that the fishing business no longer exists and taking account of advice of the Chief Planner, Scottish Planning Policy and Circular 3/2012; and appeal decisions made in recent years, it is considered reasonable to accede to the request for the discharge of the Section 75 obligation. Decision The Committee agreed that the Section 75 obligation relative to Planning Permission 97/01526/DET be discharged. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 28 July 2022, submitted) 9. PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF PLANNING TRAINING FOR MEMBERS Over the past 9 years a series of short training sessions or occasionally workshops/site visits have been delivered for all elected Members with an aim to improve knowledge of the planning system on a wide range of issues. A report seeking endorsement of the training programme from October 2022 to June 2023 was before the Committee for consideration. Decision The Committee: 1. agreed to continuing an ongoing programme of planning related training for Members of the PPSL Committee, and that it be open to any other Members not currently involved in planning decision-making; and 2. endorsed the initial subject areas for training and the provisional dates for delivery, on the understanding that the programme may be varied to take account of any additional training requirements Members may wish to identify, along with any other particular training needs identified by Officers as a consequence of matters emerging during the course of the year. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 2 August 2022, submitted) 10. SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 2021/22 - DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH SERVICE Page 14
Page 15
A paper presenting the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee with the Service Annual Performance Review and Scorecard 2021/22 for the Development and Economic Growth Service was considered. Decision The Committee reviewed and approved the Service Annual Performance Review and Scorecard 2021/22 as presented prior to publishing on the Council website. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services dated 13 July 2022, submitted) Councillor Daniel Hampsey joined the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 11. REQUEST FOR TREE PRESERVATION ORDER A report providing background on a request for a Tree Preservation Order was considered. Decision The Committee agreed the recommendations in the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 17 August 2022, submitted) Page 15
Page 16
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 17
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held ON A HYBRID BASIS BY ATTENDANCE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD OR REMOTELY BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 17 AUGUST 2022 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Graham Hardie (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Fiona Howard (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Andrew Kain (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Liz McCabe (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Luna Martin (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Peter Wallace (Microsoft Teams) Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Governance Manager Fiona Macdonald, Solicitor (Microsoft Teams) Steve McIntyre-Stewart, Applicant (Telephone) 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Willie Hume, Mark Irvine and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A TAXI CAR LICENCE (S MCINTYRE-STEWART, GARELOCHHEAD) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT The applicant, Mr McIntyre-Stewart advised that since the LVSA survey had been carried out in 2019, he was aware of 5 taxi car licences that had either been surrendered or were no longer in use. He advised that at points in the day there were no taxis waiting at the rank, and advised that he was aware that late at night, there were customers, often lone females waiting at the rank for a taxi. He spoke of the current cost of living crisis and the need to ensure that there was adequate service provision in the outlying villages such as Arrochar. Page 17 Agenda Item 3b
Page 18
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Graham Hardie enquired as to whether there had been an increase in business following the recent rail disruptions. Mr McIntyre-Stewart advised that there had been an increase. He explained that people seem to be able to get to Helensburgh but were experiencing difficulties in getting home at the end of the day, and this had led to a number of taxis being away from the area for long periods of time, leaving a gap at the rank, particularly in the evening. The Chair, Councillor Green asked the Solicitor for confirmation of how many Taxi Car Licences had been surrendered since the LSVA survey had been carried out in 2019 and how many had been granted in the Helensburgh area since that time. Ms Macdonald confirmed that since the survey, 5 Taxi Car Licences had lapsed, 3 had been granted and 2 had been surrendered. She confirmed that in 2019 there were 48 Taxi Car Licences in total and at present there were 44. SUMMING UP Applicant Mr McIntyre Stewart confirmed that he had nothing additional to add. He also confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Green advised that on the basis that there were currently 4 fewer Taxi Car Licences than there were when the LSVA survey had been carried out in 2019, he was supportive of the application. Councillor Hardie, noting that he was a Councillor in the Helensburgh area, agreed with Councillor Green’s comments and advised that he would be happy to grant the application. Councillor Armour also agreed that given that there were 4 less Taxi Car Licences than in 2019, he too was happy that the application be granted. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr McIntyre-Stewart and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this from Legal Services within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 18
Page 19
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held ON A HYBRID BASIS BY ATTENDANCE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD OR REMOTELY BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 17 AUGUST 2022 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Graham Hardie (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Fiona Howard (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Andrew Kain (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Liz McCabe(Microsoft Teams) Councillor Luna Martin (Microsoft Teams) Councillor Peter Wallace (Microsoft Teams) Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Governance Manager Fiona Macdonald, Solicitor (Microsoft Teams) Jamie Young, Applicant (Telephone) 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Willie Hume, Mark Irvine and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICANT FOR GRANT OF A TAXI CAR LICENCE (J YOUNG, DUNBEG, OBAN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr Young spoke to the application and outlined his plans to relocate to the Oban area and secure employment while there. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Hardie asked the Solicitor if she could confirm the number of Taxi Car Licences in the Oban area since the LSVA survey had taken place. Ms Macdonald confirmed that Page 19 Agenda Item 3c
Page 20
at the time of the survey there had been 42 Taxi Car Licences in the Oban, Lorn and the Isles area. She advised that there were currently 38. She further advised that 3 had lapsed, 1 had been granted and 2 had been surrendered since 2019. SUMMING UP Applicant Mr Young advised that through his brother, who owned a Taxi firm in the Oban area, he was aware that there was enough business for another Taxi Car Licence. He advised that he did not consider that he was starting a new business, but simply assisting his brother provide a service to the Oban, Lorn and the Isles area. Mr Young confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Armour advised that as there were currently less taxis than there were in 2019 he did not consider there to be any issues and as such had no hesitation in supporting the application. Both Councillors Green and McCabe agreed with Councillor Armour’s comments. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Young and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this from Legal Services within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 20
Page 21
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held ON A HYBRID BASIS BY ATTENDANCE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD OR REMOTELY BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 17 AUGUST 2022 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Governance Manager Sheila MacFadyen, Senior Solicitor Fiona Macdonald, Solicitor Calum Fox, Applicant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Willie Hume, Mark Irvine and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A TAXI CAR LICENCE (C FOX, OBAN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr Fox advised that he has been a taxi driver since 2016 and that following the pandemic there has been a shortage of drivers for various reasons. He said that some had died, others had changed careers, and others had handed back there licences. He said that he had never known the taxi industry to be as busy as it was now. He advised that every taxi company was struggling and were not keeping up with the demand. He said that he wanted to help out with the shortage of numbers. He said that his dad ran A2B taxis and was struggling with the demand despite having 7 or 8 drivers. Page 21 Agenda Item 3d
Page 22
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Hardie asked if there had been an influx of tourists to Oban this summer since the Covid restrictions had been lifted. Mr Fox said there had definitely been an increase in the past year. He advised that as a whole, people he had spoken to, particularly tourists, were having difficulty finding accommodation in town with a lot of people staying out with, as far as Ledaig, which was 10 to 15 miles away from Oban. He also referred to rail issues and that many of the hires were for people looking to catch ferries from Mallaig and looking for transport to Glasgow Airport. Councillor Amanda Hampsey sought and received confirmation from Ms Macdonald that when the Argyll and Bute Taxi Unmet Demand and Private Hire Overprovision Survey was carried out in 2019 by LVSA, there were 52 taxi licences in the Oban, Lorn and the Isles Area and that now there were 49, with 3 taxi licences lapsing, 2 being granted and 2 being surrendered during the intervening period. SUMMING UP Applicant Mr Fox said that he thought he had covered most of what he needed to say. He pointed out that with the continuing rise in the cost of fuel and issues with car supplies, there were a lot of aging cars on the road, some with an excess of 200,000 miles on the clock. He said that it was not feasible for a lot of drivers to get new cars. He referred to the 49 taxi licences in the area, and advised that there were only about 20 cars, even on a Saturday evening, in use at any one time. He said that a lot were not being used. Mr Fox confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Amanda Hampsey advised that on the basis that there were now fewer taxis licences in Oban than there were in 2019, she would be happy to grant this licence. Councillor Green said that he was fully in agreement with that point. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Fox and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this from Legal Services within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 22
Page 23
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held on a HYBRID BASIS BY ATTENDANCE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD OR REMOTELY BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 17 AUGUST 2022 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Governance Manager Sheila MacFadyen, Senior Solicitor Fiona Macdonald, Solicitor Morgan Tyreman, Licence Holder 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Willie Hume, Mark Irvine and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: VARIATION OF TAXI OPERATOR LICENCE (M TYREMAN, HELENSBURGH) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Licence Holder opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. It was noted that Mr Tyreman had not received 14 days notice of this hearing as his letter had only arrived in the post on 15 August 2022. He confirmed that he was content with the hearing proceeding today. A report advising that the Council were seeking to vary the conditions applicable to taxi licence number 6578 held by Mr Morgan Tyreman by reinstating the condition that was imposed when the licence was granted at a hearing of the Committee on 21 April 2021. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Licence Holder to speak in relation to the proposal to vary his licence. Page 23 Agenda Item 3e
Page 24
LICENCE HOLDER Mr Tyreman referred to the condition missed off his licence when it was renewed and advised that he would be happy for this to be reinstated. He said that he understood that it was a technical issue that had led to it being omitted when his licence was renewed. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Green asked Officers if the condition was reinstated, would Mr Tyreman’s vehicle meet that condition. Ms Macdonald explained that it was her understanding that Mr Tyreman’s vehicle was a hybrid. She said that it was a separate issue as to whether or not his vehicle would meet that condition if it were reinstated. Mrs MacFadyen said that it could be a matter for a separate hearing and that the complainant would be invited to that hearing. Mr Tyreman commented that the Legal Team had been provided with a copy of written confirmation from the manufacturer that this was an electric vehicle. He said that it was his understanding that the condition was that he should have an electric vehicle and that it did not stipulate a 100% electric vehicle. He advised that as it was for an electric vehicle he would be happy for the condition to be reinstated. Councillor Howard asked if the Committee could wait to make a decision on this until after it had been confirmed whether or not the vehicle would meet the condition if it was reinstated. Mrs MacFadyen advised that the matter before the Committee today was to determine whether or not to reinstate the condition and that only if it was reinstated in its original format would it be necessary to hold another hearing as the Applicant and the complainant would need to be given the opportunity to respond to the issue of whether or not the vehicle met the criteria of the condition. Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from Mrs MacFadyen that if the condition was not reinstated, then the Licence Holder would be subject to the standard conditions of a taxi licence. She pointed out that this condition was put on his licence by the Members of the PPSL Committee in April 2021. If the Members had not put that condition on, then it would have been the standard conditions that would have applied. Councillor Armour asked if it would be wrong to say that it would not be in the Licence Holder’s interest to have this condition. Mrs MacFadyen said that Mr Tyreman had advised that he would be happy for the condition to the reinstated. Councillor Green asked if it would be possible for the Committee to apply a different condition, such as one that stated that the vehicle could also be a plug-in electric hybrid vehicle. Mrs MacFadyen said that this would be a matter for the Committee to decide. She advised that the original licence was granted on condition that the vehicle was substituted within 6 months. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mrs MacFadyen that it would be a matter for the Committee to decide whether to reinstate, or not reinstate or add any other condition. Councillor Wallace asked why the condition was placed on the licence in the first place. Mrs MacFadyen advised that at the meeting on 21 April 2021 there was a detailed discussion regarding objections to the application. She said that the Applicant himself had said that he was going to have an electric vehicle and that it would be the first 100% Page 24
Page 25
electric vehicle in Scotland. She advised that a vote was taken on a Motion to refuse the application and on an Amendment to agree to grant the licence on condition that the Applicant would substitute his vehicle for an electric vehicle within 6 months, and that the Amendment was carried. Mr Tyreman advised that it had been his original plan to acquire the vehicle referred to at the hearing but in the end this type of vehicle was not available so he went for a vehicle as close as possible to that. He said that he had an electric vehicle which ran for the majority of the time on electric. He advised that it had a purpose built ramp. He referred to the letter from the manufacturer confirming that it was an electric vehicle and he commented on the complainant being fixated on the vehicle not being 100% electric. He said that he had not tried to deceive anyone and that even if the condition was reinstated, he would not be changing the vehicle. Mrs MacFadyen suggested that the Committee may wish to continue consideration of this matter to allow for more information on the vehicle to be made available to the Committee. Councillor Green commented that it was his understanding the Committee were being asked whether or not to reinstate the condition and that advice from Officers was that whether or not the vehicle would comply with this condition was a separate matter. Mrs MacFadyen acknowledged that this was correct. Councillor Howard commented that she had the feeling that the difference between an electric vehicle and a hybrid was nit-picking. She said she would support the amended condition suggested by Councillor Green. Councillor Kain agreed with the comment made by Councillor Howard. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Councillor Green, that if the condition was reinstated, the Committee would require to have another meeting to decide if the vehicle met this condition, and that if the Committee decided not to reinstate the condition, the Licence Holder could carry on using his car and that it would be perfectly acceptable, albeit a hybrid. SUMMING UP Licence Holder Mr Tyreman said that he had not tried to deceive the Council. He advised that he had been unable to obtain the original vehicle planned for his project as the manufacturer had gone out of business. He said that he had gone for the next best thing and that this type of vehicle was acceptable to a lot of other Councils and for London Taxis and that they considered this to be an electric vehicle. He said that the condition stipulated that it had to be an electric vehicle, it did not state that it had to be 100%. He advised that even if the condition was dropped he would have no intention of changing the vehicle. He said that it worked for him and that he had in excess of 9 wheelchair users who were customers. He said that he would be happy for the condition to be reinstated or not. He said that the vehicle worked for his business and that they were heavily invested in it. Mr Tyreman confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. Page 25
Page 26
DEBATE Councillor Green advised that if the Committee were able to vary the current licence to say that a plug-in electric hybrid vehicle was acceptable he would be minded to do that. He sought and received confirmation from Mrs MacFadyen that it would be competent for the Committee to do that or continue consideration of the matter to a future meeting. Councillor Armour commented that Mr Tyreman had been very open with the Committee. He pointed out that the Committee were aware that there was under provision of taxis in the Helensburgh area and said that work would not be taken away from anyone else. He noted that Mr Tyreman was happy for the condition to be reinstated. He said that he hoped that the Committee could reach a conclusion today so that Mr Tyreman could carry on with his business. Councillor Howard questioned why other taxi operators in the area did not have this condition on their licences. Councillor Green explained that it was up to the Committee at each individual hearing to decide what conditions to apply or otherwise based on the information and evidence before them from both Applicants and any Objectors. Councillor Green advised that he believed the Committee had the opportunity here to remove this condition completely. He said that if the Committee were to impose a condition that stated that a hybrid vehicle would be acceptable, then this may be acceptable to the complainant as it would be more restrictive that removing the condition altogether. Mrs MacFadyen advised that Officers were making the Committee aware of the complaint as this was not purely an electric car as was said by the Applicant at the time of the hearing. Councillor Kain commented that other Councils were accepting these vehicles as electric vehicles and that Mr Tyreman had given substantial reasons why it was not fully electric. Councillor Kain advised that he thought the Committee should amend the previous condition on the licence. Decision The Committee unanimously agreed to reinstate the condition to taxi licence number 6578 with the inclusion that a plug-in electric hybrid vehicle would also be acceptable and noted that the Licence Holder would receive written confirmation of this from Legal Services within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 26
Page 27
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 21/01943/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mr Paul Rodger Proposal: Demolition of detached dwellinghouse, erection of 3 detached dwellinghouses and formation of vehicular access Site Address: Peat Knowe, Back Road, Clynder, Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute G84 0QF ________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION The attention of Members is drawn to the main Report of Handling dated 8th June 2022 that is currently before them for consideration in respect of the above application and the Supplementary Report No.2 dated 16th August 2022, on the main agenda. At the PPSL meeting on 22nd June, the Council agreed to continue consideration of this application at their next available meeting in August 2022 and instructed Officers to request that the Applicant provide, by the end of July 2022, an engineering report on the ground engineering works required to ensure stability of the sloping ground to prevent any slippage or flooding onto neighbouring properties. A Supplementary Report no.2 was presented to the August meeting of the PPSL advising members the requested Civil Engineering Report had not been received within the timescale required to report this to the August PPSL. However, the agent gave an assurance that the Civil Engineering Report (to address the issues raised by the PPSL Committee at the June meeting) would be submitted before the deadline of 26/8/22 at the latest (in order to allow the proposed development to be fully considered by Members at the September PPSL Committee.) The Supplementary Report No.2 also included a summary of additional considerations and clarification of previously raised issues arising from a letter of objection submitted after the June PPSL meeting. At the August meeting, in response to the Supplementary Report No.2, the Committee: 1. agreed that consideration of this planning application be continued to the September PPSL Committee to allow the applicant the extended opportunity to prepare and submit the Civil Engineering Report requested; and Page 27 Agenda Item 4
Page 28
2. noted that Planning Officers would undertake to carry out any further investigations required in response to concerns expressed by local residents and report back to the next available PPSL Committee. 2.0 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS Pursuant to the decision made by Members at the June PPSL Committee, the additional information requested from the applicant has been received on 24th August 2022: - 1) Letter dated 23rd August from Ardmore Point Ltd. to the applicant’s agent 2) Phase 1 Desk Study Report by Ardmore Point Ltd. – Issue 1 – July 2022 3) Phase 2 Ground Investigation Report by Ardmore Point Ltd. – Issue 1 – August 2022 The applicant’s consultant, Ardmore Point Ltd. provides Geomatics, Geotechnical, Drone UAV and Construction Management Services. 3.0 SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING INFORMATION The covering letter and the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Reports are available for inspection in full on the planning application file, however this information is summarised below for members convenience. Applicant’s consultant’s covering letter (23.08.2022) The ground conditions on the site are “stiff glacial till clay overlying shallow bedrock” (based on a review of the ground condition data now received from the ground investigation boreholes and testing , the site topographical survey and the proposed levels layout.) Confirmation that “subject to a suitably designed retaining wall to the front the ground would be stable for the intended road development” (based on an understanding of the proposed development layout with houses sited to the rear and an access road along the front of the site). Confirmation that the site is stable in its current state. Phase 1 Desk Study Report – Summary of Conclusions Current use (on the basis of a walkover survey carried out in July 2022) is derelict awaiting redevelopment with an existing house; a mix of hard and soft landscaping with gently sloping topography. A Flood Risk Assessment is outside of the scope of this report. It is considered that “the site has “passed” with minimal risk to flooding.” Made ground could be a potential source of ground gas on site – risk to local ecology from potential contamination is low. The “Landmark” Report makes no reference to sources of potential ground gas. Landfill gas unlikely to be present. Site is in “lower probability Radon area – no Radon protection measures are necessary in relation to construction.” Phase 2 Ground Investigation Report – Summary of Conclusions Work carried out 09.08.2022-11.08.2022 comprising boreholes, in-situ testing, sampling, gas and water monitoring installations. The borehole plan indicates 3 no. boreholes at regular intervals along the top of the ‘built up’ bank adjacent to the front of the site (BH02, WS02 & BH04); 4 no. regularly spaced boreholes along the rear part of the site; and 1 no. adjacent to the site access Page 28
Page 29
at the south east corner of the site. Boreholes BH02, WS02 & BH04 were terminated at 4.03m, 4.0m & 3.0 respectively due to Mudstone/Sandstone obstruction. Intrusive ground investigation revealed made ground (concrete) in only 1 no. borehole from 0.00-0.10m. Superficial deposits of sandy, gravelly silt with clay to a maximum depth of 3.80m was recorded consistently across the site in all boreholes. Bedrock, or possible bedrock, was encountered across the site as sandstone and mudstone recorded from 2.80m x 3.90m variable depth. Groundwater was not encountered. No areas of ecological or archaeological significance were encountered. Due to ground conditions, infiltration-based soakaways are unsuitable for this site. From the proposed site plan, levels will be reduced by approximately 900mm when the driveway is constructed. Proposed Finished Floor Levels (houses) will be typically 200mm above existing ground levels and foundations will be at the shallowest convenient depth. From inspection of ground conditions, the boulder clay encountered at 1.20m depth would be classed as “stiff to very stiff” with potential bearing capacity in the order of approximately 100kN/m2. 4.0 ASSESSMENT The additional information requested by Members at the June PPSL meeting has now been submitted by an appropriately qualified and experienced consultant and in accordance with British Standards and all normative references. The contents of the covering letter from Ardmore Point Ltd. are self-explanatory. It is noted that the Phase 1 Survey is limited to a ‘desktop assessment’ of relevant information and documentation already available supplemented by a walkover survey in July 2022. The description of the current site use at para. 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4 is not accepted by planning officers. The site has been stripped of any soft landscaping including trees, hedgerows, shrubs and grass as part of land engineering works. The topography of the site is not “gently sloping” but has a very steep and relatively high excavated bank along the rear boundary and ground made up from the spoil from that excavation along the front of the site including a high bank along the front edge of the site adjacent to the rear boundaries of existing residential properties. It is noted that the Phase 1 Survey does not include a Flood Risk Assessment. The assessment on flood risk is based on records held by regulatory authorities and statutory bodies to determine prevalent hydrological features on or within 250m of the site. The Report does not specifically address the groundworks and clearance of natural vegetation on the site and any consequent increased risk of flooding affecting nearby property and roads. It is also noted that the Phase 1 Report does not address issues of ground stability, either in respect of the proposed development or the existing site condition following significant re- contouring of ground levels. The conclusions of the Phase 1 Report are generally accepted with the exceptions of the description of the current site topography/landscaping the observation that it does not address issues of flooding outside of the site or ground stability. Page 29
Page 30
The Phase 2 Report is perhaps more informative in that the assessment is based on in-situ testing and intrusive ground investigation including boreholes. It is noted that 3 no. boreholes were located at regular intervals along the top of the banked material used to build up the ground level adjacent to the front (north eastern) site boundary. It is considered that the conclusions as set out in the covering letter from the applicants consultant, Ardmore Point Ltd., based on the desk-top and site investigation survey information provides adequate assurances that; - 1) The existing site is stable in its current state; and, 2) “Subject to a suitably designed retaining wall to the front” the ground would be stable for the intended road development. On this basis it is recommended that the application be approved in line with the original recommendation as presented to Members at the June PPSL Committee meeting. In addition, it is considered that the representations received subsequent to the June meeting of the PPSL do not raise any further material planning considerations such as would warrant the refusal of this application for planning permission. On the basis of the assessment as set out in the original Report to the June meeting of the Committee and the assessment in relation to the additional supporting information submitted, subject to planning conditions, it is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan – 2015 and all other associated guidance. 5.0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be approved, subject to conditions and advisory notes as set out in full in the main Report (June PPSL meeting) with the exception of an additional planning condition as follows: - “Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until full technical construction details of the proposed retaining wall, including the means of vehicle restraint, directly adjacent to the east of the proposed shared roadway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The retaining wall and vehicle restraint barrier shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details prior to commencement of any other development on the site in relation to the construction of any roads/driveways or the construction of the houses including ground excavation, and shall be retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the planning authority unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not result in any ground instability by reason of excavation and land-raising engineering operations carried out as part of this development, and to protect adjacent land and property from potential damage by reason of unstable ground conditions.” Author of Report: Norman Shewan Date: 9th September 2022 Reviewing Officer: Howard Young Date: 9th September 2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 30
Page 31
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 21/01943/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mr Paul Rodger Proposal: Demolition of detached dwellinghouse, erection of 3 detached dwellinghouses and formation of vehicular access Site Address: Peat Knowe, Back Road, Clynder, Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute G84 0QF ________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION The attention of Members is drawn to the main Report of Handling dated 8th June 2022 that is currently before them for consideration in respect of the above application and the Supplementary Report No.1 dated 3rd August 2022, on the main agenda. At the PPSL meeting on 22nd June, The Council agreed to continue consideration of this application at their next available meeting in August 2022 and instructed Officers to request that the Applicant provide by the end of July 2022, an engineering report on the ground engineering works required to ensure stability of the sloping ground to prevent any slippage or flooding onto neighbouring properties. At the time of the preparation of the Supplementary Report no.1 the requested Civil Engineering Report had not been received, nor had the agent contacted Officers to an agree an extended timescale for preparation and submission of the Report. As advised within that Supplementary Report no.1, Officers contacted the agent requesting an up-date to Members by means of a Supplementary Report. The agent has since provided up-dates on progress summarised below. In addition, further representations have been submitted in relation to the proposed development subsequent to the June meeting of the PPSL and the preparation of the Supplementary Report no.1 to the August meeting. The purpose of the Supplementary Report is to up-date Members with regard to the following: - 1) The applicants progress and intended deadlines for the submission of a Civil Engineering Report pursuant to consideration of this item by members at the June PPSL meeting; and, 2) Further representations received subsequent to the June PPSL meeting. Page 31
Page 32
2.0 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS Up-date by the planning agent with regard to the requested Civil Engineering Report 08.08.2022 – The agent confirmed that his client has instructed an engineer to prepare and submit the further information requested by the PPSL Committee, however he advised that a full site investigation is required to confirm the stability of the ground, and that due to the scale of this work the final report wasn't quite ready. He confirmed that a desktop study and a soil investigation study has been carried out by Cowal Design. The Report in respect of these interim investigations is awaited. The agent has assured Officers that the preparation of the Civil Engineering Report (to address the issues raised by the PPSL Committee at the June meeting) is being progressed as quickly as possible and will be submitted before the deadline of 26/8/22 at the latest (in order to allow the proposed development to be fully considered by Members at the September PPSL Committee.) 12.08.2022: - Pursuant to the above, the agent advised that the applicant is still awaiting the full soil investigation report from his civil/structural engineering consultant, Cowal Design, but in the interim has provided an email from his structural engineer with regard to the stability of the site. This e-mail is reproduced in full below: - “In relation to the above site we can confirm that we have reviewed the proposals, the site topographical survey and have recently had ground investigation works carried out on the site to establish the underlying ground conditions and confirm that on the basis of these conditions with sandy clay across the site overlying shallow bedrock the site is stable and suitable for the proposals. We will update when the Ground Investigation Report is received, and when the Civil Engineers have designed the proposed retaining wall layout”. Further representations received The main report to PPSL Committee at the June meeting advised that a total of 20 no. representations had been received, ‘broken down’ as follows: - Support 1 Objections 17 Representation 2 Since the June meeting of the PPSL, a further representation has been submitted by a Local Member, Cllr. Mark Irvine, on behalf of local residents who have raised further issues of concern. These issues are summarised below: - 11.07.2022 Cllr Mark Irvine – Sightlines Page 32
Page 33
It is submitted that the applicant has carried out site clearance works and modifications to the site (including cutting back a hedge on adjoin land without permission), as well as seeking to purchase adjacent land, prior to submission of the application in order to try to meet Roads Authority guidelines in relation to access design and sightlines for an access to serve 3 no. dwellinghouses. Comment: - The consultation response by the Roads Authority advises that there are no highways objections to the proposed development subject to a suspensive planning condition requiring formation of the access with the required visibility splays. However, planning officers will investigate whether the land required for the visibility splays are within the applicant’s ownership/control, or if not whether there is an agreement that would allow for the visibility splays to be provided and maintained where they overlap land not owned by the applicant. Officers will clarify this issue when the application is reported to the PPSL Committee following receipt and consideration of the Civil Engineering report. Boundaries Concerns have been expressed that the site boundaries have been ‘stretched’ by the felling of trees that were not within the property boundaries. Comment:- The planning authority does not have a remit to arbitrate on land ownership disputes, however, it does have a duty to ensure that the application submission is competent in relation to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 – section 35, and he Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 – Reg. 15 in relation to the land ownership certification submitted as part of the application forms. On the basis of legislative/regulatory procedure only, planning officers undertake to request confirmation of the certification on the application forms that no person, other than the applicant, was an owner of any part of the application site (edged red) at the period 21 days prior to the submission of the application. The response will be reported back to the PPSL at the first opportunity. Drainage It is implied that the small watercourse that forms the southern boundary of the application site (as shown on the application drawings) has been damaged and become blocked as a result of the applicant’s activities. It is suggested that any permission that the planning authority is minded to approve be subject to a planning condition requiring restoration/repair of this watercourse and connected to an adequate drain to avoid potential flooding to neighbouring properties. Comment: - The Main Report recommends that planning permission be subject to a suspensive planning condition requiring submission and approval of full details of a surface water drainage system (compliant with the principles of SuDS and the CIRIA’s Page 33
Page 34
Manual) prior to commencement of any further works on site. It is expected that such details shall identify any existing blockages of the watercourse and propose remedial works, and any other measures required to demonstrate that the proposed drainage system has adequate capacity to accommodate additional surface water run-off without resulting in flooding elsewhere. Public Access/Footpath A submitted extract from Scotland’s Land Information Service (LIS) suggests that there is a strip of land/footpath that is not within the property ownership. It is further submitted by local residents that a cast iron kissing gate has been removed from a position adjacent to the burn as part of the site clearance, and that this suggests that there had been some kind of pedestrian footpath along the strip of land between the burn and the hedge (cleared) that demarcated the southern boundary of “Peat Knowe”, that at one time led up to “Cromrach”. Comment: - The consultation response from ‘Scotways’ advises that right of way SD13, as recorded in the National Catalogue of Rights of Way (CROW), crosses or is close to the application site. As set out in the main report to the June meeting of the PPSL Committee, it is considered that any potential impact on the recorded Right of Way SD13 can be satisfactorily mitigated by planning condition. The route of the potential footpath along the southern edge of the site (subject of this representation) is not recorded on the ‘CROW Map’. ‘Scotways’ additionally point out that there may also be “Unrecorded Rights of Way” subject to meeting specified criteria; or subject to “General Rights of Access” created by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Planning Officers will investigate this issue in discussion with the Council’s Access Manager and advise Members further at the next available meeting. Tree Preservation Orders and Tree Felling It is submitted that a local resident made a request to the planning authority regarding a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at this site on July 26th 2021. Now that the trees have been felled there is no evidence left to prove or disprove that any of the trees would have been subject to a TPO. Comment: - It is confirmed that the trees felled on/or adjacent to the site were not subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Traffic and Access It is submitted that the local public/private road network is unsuitable to accommodate the type of HGV construction traffic required without causing major disruption and damage. It is suggested that any permission that the planning authority is minded to approve be subject to a planning condition requiring on- site provision for unloading of parked construction vehicles and on-site storage of materials. Page 34
Page 35
Comment: - The consultation response from the Roads Authority indicates that the local public road network has been considered to have capacity in principle to accommodate any additional traffic movements generated by the propose development, and that notwithstanding the width, horizontal alignment, gradients and lack of footways, that the standard of the access regime is not an over- riding constraint to the proposal in relation to the nature of traffic movements generated during the construction phase. However, any planning permission that is approved may be subject to a planning condition requiring the submission and approval of an Access Management Plan for consideration by the planning authority in consultation with the Roads Authority prior to the commencement of any further works on site. Any such condition will form part of a later report to PPSL. 3.0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that consideration of this planning application be continued to the September PPSL Committee to allow the applicant the extended opportunity to prepare and submit the Civil Engineering Report requested. Planning officers undertake to carry out any further investigations required in response to concerns expressed by local residents and to report back to the next available PPSL Committee. Author of Report: Norman Shewan Date: 15th August 2022 Reviewing Officer: Howard Young Date: 16th August 2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 35
Page 36
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 37
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 21/01943/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mr Paul Rodger Proposal: Demolition of detached dwellinghouse, erection of 3 detached dwellinghouses and formation of vehicular access Site Address: Peat Knowe, Back Road, Clynder, Helensburgh, Argyll And Bute G84 0QF ________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The attention of Members is drawn to the main Report of Handling dated 8th June 2022 that is currently before them for consideration in respect of the above application. At the PPSL meeting on 22nd June, The Council agreed to continue consideration of this application at their next available meeting in August 2022 and instructed Officers to request that the Applicant provide by the end of July 2022, an engineering report on the ground engineering works required to ensure stability of the sloping ground to prevent any slippage or flooding onto neighbouring properties. 2.0 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS Pursuant to the above decision, Officers advised the applicant’s agent of the decision taken by the PPSL Committee on 22nd June, and requested that a Civil Engineering Report be prepared and submitted of a Report as requested by the PPSL Committee to allow further assessment. Officers advised that the PPSL Committee had requested that this item be reported back to their August meeting if possible, and that in order to meet that deadline it was requested that the report be submitted no later than 31st July 2022. In the event that it was not possible to submit within this timescale the agent was requested to provide written confirmation of the reasons for any delay and the expected time period for submission in order that this can be provided as an update to PPSL in August. To date, a Civil Engineering Report has not been submitted and nor has the agent contacted officers to agree an extended timescale for preparation and submission of the Report, in sufficient time to allow this application to be reported back to the September meeting of the PPSL. Officers intend to contact with the agent prior to the August Committee and provide an up- date to Members by means of a Supplementary Report to the August PPSL Committee. Page 37
Page 38
3.0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that consideration of this planning application be continued to the September PPSL Committee to allow the applicant the extended opportunity to prepare and submit the Civil Engineering Report requested. Author of Report: Norman Shewan Date: 3rd August 2022 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 4th August 2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 38
Page 39
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 21/01943/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Paul Rodger Proposal: Demolition of detached dwellinghouse, erection of 3 detached dwellinghouses and formation of vehicular access Site Address: Peat Knowe, Back Road, Clynder, Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute G84 0QF DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Erection of 3 no. dwellinghouses Associated groundworks and retaining structures Alteration to access and formation of internal access road and parking areas (ii) Other specified operations Demolition of dwellinghouse (derelict condition) Connection to public drainage network Connection to public water supply network Landscaping (B) RECOMMENDATION: Planning permission be approved subject to conditions recommended herein. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Area Roads - 11.11.2021 - No objections subject to conditions. Sightline splays of 2.4 x 42 x 1.05m required in both directions. Gradient of new driveway shall be no steeper than 1 in 20 (5%) over the first 5m and thereafter no greater than 1 in 8 (12.5%). Off-street car parking to be provided in accordance with SG LDP TRAN6. Surface water must not be allowed to flow onto the carriageway. Page 39
Page 40
Scottish Water - 25.10.2021 - No objections. This does not confirm that the proposal can currently be serviced. Applicant should note that further investigation may be required with regard to Water and Waste Water Capacity upon submission of a formal application directly to Scottish Water. Records appear to show abandoned water infrastructure within the site. Applicant advised to contact Scottish Water Asset Impact Team for guidance if the infrastructure requires to be removed to enable development. New surface water connection will be allowed into combined public sewer system in limited exceptional circumstances. Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society – 09.11.2021 - Right of Way SD13 crosses close to the application site. Request that the above affected route is kept open and free form obstruction or obstruction before, during and after any proposed development. (D) HISTORY: None (E) PUBLICITY: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application – Expired 25.11.2021 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: A total of 20 representations have been received from interested third parties. One of these supports the proposed development and 17 are objections. The remaining two representations raise planning issues but are neutral in terms of support or objection. Support James McGuigan - Ardgare Back Road Clynder Helensburgh Objection Owner of no. 28 Straid-a-cnoc, Clynder, Helensburgh Julie Cameron - 3 Pier Road, Clynder, Helensburgh Ms Francess Harrison-Coyle - 36 Straid-a-cnoc, Clynder, Helensburgh Karen Pritchard - 22 Straid-a-cnoc, Clynder, Helensburgh Mike Kenyon – Address not provided Carolyn Kenyon – 23 Straid-a cnoc Alison Hamilton - 11 Straid-a-cnoc, Clynder, Helensburgh Margaret Swan - 21 Straid-a-cnoc, Clynder, Helensburgh Kim Chapman - Address not provided Beth Sinclair – Heatherdale, Back Road, Clynder, Helensburgh Jake McGibbon - Address not provided Gordon MacMillan – Invergare, Back Road, Clynder, Helensburgh Fay MacMillan – Invergare, Back Road, Clynder, Helensburgh Mrs. P. Walker - 20 Straid-a-cnoc, Clynder Gini Allison - Address not provided Maxime Stiles - Crossowen Cottage Back Road Clynder Helensburgh Page 40
Page 41
Dr. Lucy J Troup - Address not provided Representation Helen Williams - The Villas, Pier Road, Clynder Helensburgh Nigel Carlisle - 11 Straid Bheag, Clynder, Helensburgh (ii) Summary of issues raised: Support Positive opportunity to achieve enhancement of a derelict site to local community benefit. Comment – Noted Development will be of benefit in terms of drainage and proper grounds maintenance Comment – Drainage issues arising from proposed development will be fully assessed later within this report Objection Impact on Visual Amenity Proposed development are not in keeping with the area. Specific reference is made to the proposed number of units/plot densities, size and design relative to existing development. Will result in detrimental impact to visual amenities. Comment – The siting, plot density and design of the proposed development relative to the character and pattern of existing built development will be assessed with regard to Local development Plan policy later within this report. Impact on Residential Amenity Loss of residential amenity of occupiers of nearby houses by reason of loss of privacy through overlooking, loss of natural light and general noise disturbance. Comment: - Impact upon residential amenities will be assessed in full within section p and the appendices to this report. Impact of construction noise. Comment: - It is recommended that planning permission, if approved, be subject to a condition restricting the hours of construction activity in order to protect local residential amenity. Impact on Road Safety, On-street Parking and Congestion The existing site access junction with Pier Road is substandard in terms of gradient, alignment and visibility. Intensification of use will increase road safety hazards. It is noted that existing local roads are narrow in width with high traffic speeds and insufficient car parking resulting in congestion. Intensification Page 41
Page 42
of traffic that will have a detrimental impact upon local road safety and congestion exacerbating these existing issues. Inadequate off-street parking provision Specific concern is expressed regarding the impact of large construction vehicles infrastructure on narrow roads during the construction phase. Comment: - The Council’s Area Roads Engineer has not objected to the proposed development in relation to matters of road safety and congestion subject to planning conditions relating to technical design of the access arrangements and the provision of off-street car parking in accordance with Council standards. Impact on Land Drainage/Flooding/Mudslides Development, including land engineering works will result in surface water run-off and increased risk of flooding on nearby properties. This has resulted in substantial water/mud run-off into the gardens of adjoin gardens. Flooding on Pier Road has increased significantly since mature trees were felled and ground re-profiling took place on the site. This has caused damage to the road surface in places. Exacerbate existing drainage problems. The levelling of the site comprising a significant volume of excavated material steeply banked up along the eastern edge of the site has caused concern with regard to stability and potential landslides onto residential properties downhill to the east. Insurance claims arising from mud/landslides and flooding will increase local insurance premiums. Comment: - The planning authority notes that significant ground engineering works have been carried out prior to submission of an application for planning permission and that this has caused significant concern to local residents with regard to flooding and potential mud slides. It is recommended that any planning permission be subject to a suspensive planning condition requiring the submission and approval of further details of the proposed drainage infrastructure to demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in an increased risk of flooding on adjoining land. Potential collapse of raised land impacting upon adjoining properties is a private legal matter between the party that has carried out these operations and the owner of any adjoining land that may be affected by reason of potential collapse of the material. Impact on Natural Environment/Biodiversity Detrimental impact on wildlife and local biodiversity. Hedgerow boundary/mature trees have been ripped out which provided species habitat including for a large number of bats and a family of Tawny owls. It is submitted that any approval of planning permission be subject to the implementation of mitigation measures. Comment: - It should be noted that the complete clearance and stripping of established natural vegetation, and potential detriment to biodiversity Page 42
Page 43
and species habitat, prior to submission of an application for planning permission is considered to be extremely unfortunate. The trees and hedgerows were not protected by a Tree Preservation Order, and the site is not within a Conservation Area, and as such the clearance work does not constitute a breach of planning control. However, wildlife habitat are protected under separate legislation, notably the Wildlife and Conservation Act 1981 which potentially makes habitat destruction a criminal offence. Police Scotland has responsibility with regard to enforcing the provisions of the Countryside and Wildlife Act as opposed to the local planning authority. Re-planting, and other measures, to provide potential for wildlife habitat and to encourage biodiversity, in mitigation of the loss of natural features, can be secured by means of a planning condition. Infrastructure Further development may have a detrimental impact on water pressure. Comment – The consultation response from Scottish Water does not indicate any public infrastructure constraints with regard to water supply, however further investigation may be required when an application is submitted to Scottish Water. The Rosneath Peninsula does not have the wider community infrastructure e.g transport, to support expansive development. Comment: - The proposed development of 3 no. houses is considered to be small-scale development with regard to the LDP. The site is within the settlement of Clynder. As such the scale of development will not have a material impact upon social/transport infrastructure services and is consistent with the LDP Settlement and Spatial Strategy. Procedural Issues Not many of the home-owners were notified of the planning application. Comment: - Adjoining and nearby properties have been individually notified of the planning application fully in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Town and Country Planning Development Management Procedure Regulations Did the applicant have authorisation from the roads authority to expand the width of the roadside around the bend on Back Road to its junction with pier Road/ Comment: - This matter has been referred to Council Roads for investigation. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: No Page 43
Page 44
(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A design or design/access statement: Historic development has created a development pattern characterised by a broad mix of plot sizes; layout; densities; house sizes, ages, design and materials resulting in a semi-urban character and including original Victorian villas and 1970s bungalow type expansion. A key design principle is for a high level of contemporary design (avoiding a pastiche design solution). Such an approach will reflect the uncompromisingly modern design of the existing house on the plot (when it was constructed.) Proposed plot sizes and development pattern is to be similar to that of Straid-a-Cnoc adjacent to the east. Scale and massing of the proposed houses is to be between that of the bungalows to north and east and the large Victorian era villas to the south. Potential loss of privacy by reason of direct overlooking between windows has been carefully considered and can be achieved by window positions, arrangement of ancillary accommodation and screen walls. A staggered linear site layout along an (approximately) north-south axis will help to maintain privacy of occupiers of nearby houses and maximise views/solar gain. Main living spaces will be at first floor level and face east and southwards to maximise views and natural light. Existing access is clear and statutory sightlines can be achieved. Access will be by means of a shared hard-surfaced driveway with 12.5% gradient compliant with Scottish Technical Standards. Parking and turning to satisfy Council standards can be provided within the site. Treatment/screening of boundaries and material finishes will help to visually integrate the proposed development into its setting and maintain privacy. Concludes that the design is modern and striking (in keeping with the original development at Peat Knowe) whilst also respectful and sympathetic to existing development by reason of privacy and material finishes. Yes Page 44
Page 45
(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ Adopted March 2015 LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 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 – Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity SG LDP ENV 6 – Impact on Trees / Woodland Landscape and Design SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape General Housing Development SG LDP HOU 1 – General Housing Development Including Affordable Housing Provision Enforcement Action SG LDP ENF – Enforcement Action Page 45
Page 46
Departures from the Local Development Plan SG LDP DEP – Departures from the Local Development Plan Sustainable Siting and Design SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles Resources and Consumption SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / SuDS SG LDP SERV 3 – Drainage Impact Assessment SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage & Collection Facilities within New Development Transport (Including Core Paths) SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors SG LDP TRAN 4 – New & Existing, Public Roads & 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 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 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 Page 46
Page 47
(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (O) Requirement for a hearing: No. This is a local application. It is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan and that the material land-use planning issues arising are not unduly complex. As such it is not considered that a Hearing will add value to the determination process. (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The proposed development comprises small scale housing development on an existing residential site bounded on three sides by residential development and located within the Key Settlement of Clynder/Rosneath as identified in the Argyll and Bute Local development Plan 2015 (LDP). As such, it is considered that the proposed development accords with the LDP Settlement and Spatial Strategy. The site is currently occupied by a modestly sized single-storey house. The proposal is to redevelop the site to provide 3 no. 4-5 bedroom houses sited in a staggered pattern along the south west, upper part of the site with the principle elevations orientated towards the east to take advantage of views over the Gare Loch. The lower levels are to be ‘dug into’ the slope of the land with a highly glazed pavilion style of structure containing the main living spaces above. Whilst overtly contemporary in terms of form and detailing, the design is well-considered and whilst distinct from the 60s/70s housing to the north and east; and the Victorian era development to the south, the scale, proportions, detailing and external materials are considered to be sensitive to existing visual character. It is considered that the proposed development, by reason of location, scale, siting, massing, form, design detailing and external material finishes will visually integrate with the existing character and pattern of development in the area in accordance with the provisions of policy LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance on Sustainable Siting and Design Principles. The site is bounded on three sides by housing development with open farmland rising to a ridge to the rear (west). The proposed development is relatively modest in scale relative to the landscape character. As such, it is considered that the development will relate well to the existing pattern of development and will not be detrimental to landscape character in accordance with policy LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 14. In coming to this conclusion, officers have had regard to the “Landscape Character Types” classification published by Nature.Scot. It is considered that the proposed development will not have a materially adverse impact upon the residential amenities of adjoining properties. The proposed houses are sited at a significantly higher level than existing houses to the east, and have large areas of glazing with external balconies orientated towards the rear of these properties. However the three proposed houses are sited and orientated such that they will look out to the loch over the top of existing houses rather facing directly towards windows of existing houses on the same level. In addition, the horizontal distances between proposed and existing houses exceed the minimum distance Page 47
Page 48
advised in guidance relating to protection of privacy and daylight. Therefore, on balance, whilst the proposed houses will be prominent from the rear of adjacent houses due to relative ground levels, it is considered that the residential amenities of existing occupiers will be retained. The site has an existing access onto an adopted road, known as Back Road. It is proposed to alter the access junction and form a shared driveway with a turning head, along the north eastern edge of the site. Individual driveways to each house will be formed off of the shared driveway. It is considered that the existing public road network serving the site has adequate capacity to accommodate the intensification of traffic resulting from a net increase of 2 no. residential units without detriment to road safety or congestion. This is reflected in the consultation response by the Council’s Roads Engineer advising that there are no highways objections to the proposed development subject to planning conditions relating to technical design of the access and provision of off-street parking in accordance with Council parking standards. Local residents have expressed strong concerns that substantial ground engineering works have been carried out on the site, which in combination with removal of trees and natural vegetation, has resulted in increased surface water run-off onto adjoin properties and the public road. It is considered that the site is capable of development in principle without resulting in flooding outside of the site subject to the applicant demonstrating that any risk of increased flooding can be avoided by means of a new drainage system. This can be satisfactorily achieved by means of a suspensive planning condition. There are no other infrastructure constraints. The site has also been stripped of trees and natural planting prior to submission of this application. This has given rise to concern that this has had a detrimental impact upon biodiversity and destruction of species habitat. Policy LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 1 operate a general presumption against development that does not protect, conserve and enhance the environment. Whilst the clearance of trees and natural features prior to the application is very unfortunate, some mitigation of potential destruction of habitat and opportunities for bio-diversity can be secured by means of a suspensive planning condition attached to any planning permission. However, the applicant/developer should be aware that a comprehensive biodiversity strategy should inform the landscaping scheme as opposed to a purely cosmetic, visual landscape planting scheme. It is also expected that the landscaping scheme will re- introduce a substantial natural edge along the south west boundary of the site in order to provide a suitably defined edge to built development. On the basis of the above assessment, subject to planning conditions, it is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan – 2015 and all other associated guidance. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: It is considered that, subject to planning conditions, the proposed development is in accordance with all relevant provisions of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Page 48
Page 49
Plan and does not give rise to any other material land-use planning matters such as would warrant a departure to these provisions. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan Not applicable – It is considered that the proposed development accords with all relevant provisions of the Development Plan (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Norman Shewan Date: 31st May 2022 Reviewing Officer: Howard Young Date: 08th June 2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 49
Page 50
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 21/01943/PP 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 10th October 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 PL-659-00 A 20.10.2021 Existing Site Plan PL-659-01 - 13.09.2021 Proposed Site Plan, Elevations and Sections PL-659-02 C 24.05.2022 Proposed Floorplans and Site Elevation PL-659-03 B 20.10.2021 Site Section E-E & Photographs PL-659-04 - 24.05.2022 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until the following information is submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority in consultation with the Area Roads Engineer; - A scaled drawing showing a long section demonstrating that the following gradients can be achieved. The gradient of the new shared driveway shall be no steeper than 1 in 20 (5%) over the first 5 metres and thereafter no greater than 1 in 8 (12.5%). Thereafter the proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the following criteria: - Visibility splays in both directions of 2.40 metres to point X by 42 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access. The first 5.0 metres of the shared access driveway shall be surfaced with a bituminous material or other alternative hard material approved in writing by the planning authority. The driveway shall be formed in accordance with the approved minimum gradients. Surface water must not be able to flow from the site onto the public carriageway. Prior to work starting on site the access hereby approved shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the first occupation of any of the houses and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Page 50
Page 51
Reason: In the interests of road safety and to ensure that the proposed development is implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Local Development Plan policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until full details of the layout and surfacing of a parking and turning area to accommodate 3 no. vehicles per dwellinghouse within the application site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Roads Engineers. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full 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. 4. 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. 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) A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the planting strategy contributes towards biodiversity and creation of wildlife habitat; v) Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted; vi) A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on-going maintenance. 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 encourage biodiversity and provide compensatory species habitat in order to mitigate against loss of habitat potential as a result of site clearance. 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until full details of the intended means of surface water drainage to serve the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The design shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753. 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. Page 51
Page 52
Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding of nearby properties and/or the public adopted roads in accordance with the provisions of policy LDP 10 and SG LDP SERV 2. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, construction activity shall be restricted to between the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 Mon-Fri and to 08.00 - 12.00 on Saturdays. No construction activity shall take place outside of those periods or at any time on Sundays and Bank Holidays when such activity shall not be permitted at all. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the area. 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended), (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order(s) with or without modifications), nothing in Article 2(4) of or the Schedule to that Order, shall operate so as to permit, within the area subject of this permission, any development referred to in Part 1 and Classes 1A, 1B, 1D, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3C, 3D and 3E and Part 2 and Classes 8 and 9 of the aforementioned Schedule, as summarised below: PART 1: DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF A DWELLINGHOUSE Class 1A: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a single storey ground floor extension, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement. . Class 1B: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a ground floor extension consisting of more than one storey, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement. Class 1D: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of an addition or alteration to its roof. Class 2A: The erection, construction or alteration of any access ramp outside an external door of a dwellinghouse. Class 3A: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a building for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the alteration, maintenance or improvement of such a building. Class 3C: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the replacement in whole or in part of such a surface. Class 3D: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any deck or other raised platform within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse. Class 3E: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure any part of which would be within or would bound the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. Reason: To protect the sensitive area and the setting of the proposed dwellinghouse, in the interest of visual amenity and public health, from unsympathetic siting and design of developments normally carried out without planning permission; these normally Page 52
Page 53
being permitted under Article 2(4) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended). 8. Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until written details of the type and colour of materials to be used in the construction of walls, roofs, window and door frames have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development 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. 9. The existing core footpath C283 which follows the public roads including Pier Road and Back Road directly adjoining the application site the site shall be retained free from obstruction across its full width, including by construction vehicles, plant or materials associated with the proposed development, unless alternative provision has been implemented with the prior written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Access Officer. Reason: In order to maintain pedestrian access. Page 53
Page 54
NOTE TO APPLICANT 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).] The access shall be constructed and drained to ensure that no surface water is discharged onto the public road. Further advice on SuDS can be found in SEPA’s Standing Advice for Small Scale Development – www.sepa.org.uk Contact the Council’s Access Officer for further advice in this respect of the Public Right of Way along Back Road if required. In order to comply with Sections 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. Failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a breach of planning control under Section 123(1) of the Act 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. Page 54
Page 55
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 21/01943/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT A. Settlement Strategy The application site comprises an existing residential unit located within the Key Rural Settlement of Clynder/Rosneath wherein the provisions of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan – 2015 (LDP) policy LDP DM1 (B); LDP 8; and SG LDP HOU 1 offer support in principle for up to medium scale housing development on appropriate sites. (“Medium-scale” development in relation to residential development is defined as between 6-30 (inc.) units in the supporting text to SG LDP HOU 1. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is consistent in principle with the LDP Settlement and Spatial Strategy. B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development The application site comprises 0.30 hectares (as stated on the application forms) located towards the western edge of the settlement of Clynder. It is occupied by a small single-storey dwellinghouse within a relatively large curtilage. The site has a short frontage of approximately 13 metres in length at its south eastern corner onto the outside bend of an adopted road, Back Road, to the south west of the junction of Pier Road, Straid-a-cnoc and Back Road. It is otherwise bounded to the north west and north east by bungalow properties that front onto Straid-a-cnoc and to the south west by a larger detached Victorian house set in a generous plot fronting onto Back Road. A small watercourse runs south west to north east adjacent to south west boundary. The site is bounded to the rear by open farmland which slopes upwards to the west, away from the site boundary. The prevailing ground levels rise from the north eastern to the south western site boundaries with a level change of some 8.5 metres (from NE to SW) towards the middle of the site (taken from the submitted drawings.) The site also has a cross fall from the access point at the south east corner of the site upwards to the north-west corner amounting to a change in levels of some 9.43 metres diagonally from SE to NW. The existing modestly-scaled, flat roofed dwellinghouse is sited toward the north-west part of the site at a significantly higher level than the adjacent bungalows lower down the slope and fronting Straid-a-cnoc. The existing house has been unoccupied for some considerable time and is currently in a semi-derelict condition. Prior to submission of this application for planning permission, the land has been stripped of natural features including trees, hedgerows and ground vegetation. In addition, significant ground engineering works have been implemented including excavation towards the south western part of the site and the formation of a level area towards the north east of the site which includes the formation of a steep bank from excavated material. This bank is directly adjacent to the rear boundaries of 3 no. bungalows fronting Straid-a-cnoc and rises to a maximum height of some 4.0 metres above pre-existing ground level. The exposed earth bank created by excavation along the south-west boundary with open farmland is a maximum of some 2.90 metres in Page 55
Page 56
height. The site, at the time of the application submission, is bare earth with exposed excavated bank and built up levels with patches of pre-existing concrete apron and a derelict house. All existing tree planting and natural vegetation has been stripped from the site. It is proposed to demolish the existing dwellinghouse and re-develop the site to create 3 no. detached dwellinghouses in a staggered, linear layout along a south-east to north- west axis. The principal elevations face due east towards the Gare Loch. The site layout shows the proposed houses sited on the upper level of the site close to the south west (rear) site boundary with open farmland. A shared driveway runs along the north east edge of the site from its junction with Back Road. This shared drive has a turning head at its northern end and 3 no. driveways off of its south western side serving the 3 no. individual houses. The shared driveway is proposed at an elevated level (relative to the pre-existing ground levels) and is proposed to be retained with sheet piling and screen planted. The houses have an identical design comprising a rectilinear floor plan and strong cubic volumetric form. Ground level accommodation is ‘built into’ the slope of the site and comprises double garage, guest bedroom, office/5th bedroom and utility room and stairs to the upper level. The lower level is expressed as a white, rendered masonry volume. The upper level accommodates an open-plan kitchen/dining/living space on the principal (east facing) side of the building with three bedrooms to the rear. The main, open living space is enclosed by uninterrupted full-height glazed screens under a projecting, shallow pitched canopy roof resulting in a pavilion type of structure at the upper levels on the principal elevations. The living space gives access onto a balcony that wraps around the front and north elevations. The bedroom areas at the rear are enclosed by timber clad walls. A large, 2 storey high, stone screen wall on either end elevation sits between the glazed pavilion on the principal elevation and the more discreet timber cladding to the bedroom accommodation to the rear. Responding to the prevailing levels, the 3 number houses step up in level from south-east to the north- west. Access to the proposed development will be from the B833 main coastal road via Pier Road and Back Road. Each house is provided with an integral double garage and private driveway. The site layout drawing indicates 3 no. cars parked on the driveways at plots 2 and 3 with 2 no. cars on that at plot 1. C. Natural Environment Policies LDP 3 operates a general presumption against development that does not protect, conserve and enhance the environment. SG LDP ENV 1 Regrettably, the application site has been cleared of natural vegetation, and significant land engineering works implemented, prior to the submission of this application for planning permission. The removal of trees and hedgerows does not constitute development requiring express planning permission. The trees on the site were not subject to a Tree Preservation Order, nor is the site located within a designated Conservation Area, and as such, whilst unfortunate, the clearance of natural vegetation in itself does not constitute a breach of planning control. Any resultant destruction of habitat, as alleged by several local residents, is covered by separate legislation including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Destruction of Page 56
Page 57
habitats can be a criminal offence under the provisions of the above Act however this would have been the responsibility of Police Scotland as opposed to the local planning authority. As such, it is now very difficult for the planning authority to make a considered assessment of the impact of the site clearance works on the natural environment. However, the removal of hedgerows and mature trees will have had an undoubted impact upon biodiversity and wildlife habitat. In order that the development complies with relevant planning policy, it should be demonstrated that it can provide for mitigation of these impacts by means of a significant re-planting scheme that not only contributes to visual integration but in particular provides enhanced opportunities for biodiversity and wildlife habitat to redress the losses resulting from wholesale site clearance. It is considered that adequate mitigation to impact on biodiversity can be provided by a suspensive planning condition to secure a fully considered and comprehensive scheme of natural re-planting and other measures in order to make appropriate provision for compensatory wildlife habitat. This will require the submission and approval of a landscaping/re-planting scheme in consultation with the Council’s Biodiversity Officer prior to the commencement of any further development. D. Built Environment Clynder is a linear settlement with well-defined edges that extends along the western side of the B833 loch-side road to the north of Rosneath. The street pattern comprises the A833 with frontage development, and a secondary vehicle route running roughly parallel with the main road comprising Straid-a-cnoc and Back Road with residential development fronting onto both sides for much of its length. The two main routes are linked by a series of for shorter lengths of road. Development steps up the hill away from the shore to farmland behind rising to the central ridge of the Rosneath Peninsula. The larger, southern part of Clynder from the junction of Pier Road/A833 south to the junction with Back Road has a ‘loose’, large grain texture comprising a mix of house sizes, types, ages and materials but predominantly relatively large, detached villas set in large plots with mature landscape screening, mature tree planting and natural, planted boundaries along frontages giving a spacious, informal, semi-rural character, particularly to Back Road. The part of the settlement to the north of Pier Road has a distinct character to the development pattern south of Pier Road. This area, comprising Straid Bheag and Straid-a-cnoc has a finer-grain, more regular and dense development pattern of bungalows that appear to date from the 1960s/70s. This enclave has more of an open plan estate character in comparison to Back Road, however is nonetheless attractive for its type. A line of mature trees and natural vegetation gives a very clearly defined edge to the built development and open farmland to the west. The application site pre-dates the bungalows to the north and west and when built (est. early 20th Century) was in a prominent and relatively isolated siting and of an uncompromising Modernist design with Art Deco influence, single-storey with a flat roof. The site is immediately to the rear of bungalows fronting onto Straid-a-cnoc and as such, in spatial terms, the site relates more to the 20th century estate of bungalows, particularly when viewed from the shore to the east. However, it could be argued that the site also relates to the earlier traditional development pattern to the south and east, perhaps to a lesser degree. Page 57
Page 58
It is proposed to demolish the existing house sited toward the north-west corner of the site. Whilst of some local historic and architectural interest, the building is not listed and is in a considerable state of disrepair due to long-term neglect. As such it is considered that the demolition is acceptable in principle. Policy LDP 9 and associated Supplementary Guidance of Sustainable Siting and Design Principles seek to ensure that the design of new housing in settlements, by reason of siting; layout; density; massing; form and design details, effectively integrates with its contextual setting, as well as protecting residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby houses. The proposed layout, scale, massing, form and design of the proposed redevelopment is set out in section B (above.) It is noted that the site layout seeks to make maximum development potential from the plot however, notwithstanding the comments made within interested third party representations, it is considered that the plot sizes and overall pattern of density is comparable to that of the existing built development on Straid-a-Cnoc to the east and that along the southern side of Pier Road in the vicinity of the site. The scale and massing of the house type is not considered to be out of keeping with the wider development pattern which comprises a wide mix of house period, scales, form, design and material finishes. The house type design responds to the change in site levels by proposing a masonry ‘box’ at ground level on the front elevation with a visually lighter, pavilion style upper level under a simple, flat roof laid at a shallow mono-pitch sloping upwards from rear to front elevation and cantilevering out over the front balcony. As such, the building will appear as a single storey form when viewed from the west and a two storey form from the east. It is acknowledged that this will result in distinct form of development to both the twentieth century bungalows in front and the larger, more ornate Victorian development to the south, it is considered that this is a considered and good quality of contemporary design which responds to the site context. This contemporary intervention will add to the existing mix of styles, periods and building forms whilst having a relatively modest scale; restrained volumetric form; crisp detailing; and appropriate material finishes that is sympathetic to the visual character of existing nearby development. Therefore, having taken into account all material considerations relating to design, including policy guidance and representations, it is considered that this is a good quality of contemporary design that will reflect the nearby built development pattern and respect or compliment nearby buildings in terms of scale, shape, proportion and material finish in accordance with the provisions of policy LDP 9 and SG on Sustainable Siting and Design Principles. E. Impact on Residential Amenity of the Occupiers of Nearby Houses Potential impacts in this respect include primarily loss of privacy by reason of direct overlooking; loss of natural daylight; and general disturbance including by reason of noise, odours or dust. Overlooking Policy LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance on Sustainable Siting and Design Principles require that new development is carefully sited and designed in order to preserve residential amenities of nearby properties. The 3 no. proposed houses are sited to the rear of existing bungalows fronting Straid- a-cnoc. Due to ground levels, the finished floor level (FFL) of the proposed house at Page 58
Page 59
plot 3 will be very approximately 7.5-8.0 metres above the FFL of the bungalows to the north east. The horizontal distance from the edge of the first floor balconies to the rear elevations of the existing bungalows ranges from 19.7 metres to 31.4 metres. The proposed houses are generally orientated at an angle to the existing bungalows such that there is no direct window to window relationship. The siting and orientation is such that the principal elevations face directly towards gaps between neighbouring house to the north east and largely avoid direct overlooking between windows. The front elevation of the proposed house on plot 3 does directly face towards the rear elevation of no. 36 Straid-a-cnoc however the horizontal separation distance between relative windows will be approximately 37 metres in this instance. SG provides guidance on overlooking, advising that “no main window of a habitable room shall overlook (directly facing) the main windows of habitable rooms in neighbouring dwellings at a distance of not less than 18 metres.” The guidance continues that “standards may be relaxed where the angle of view allows privacy to be maintained.” It is considered that by reason of the horizontal separation distances exceeding the minimum 18 metre guideline, combined with the orientation of the proposed houses relative to the rear elevations of the existing bungalows that the proposed development will not have a materially adverse impact on the privacy of the existing houses by reason of direct overlooking. It is noted that the proposed houses (and the upper level living areas and external balconies) are significantly higher than the rear elevations of the neighbouring bungalows which may result in a heightened perception of overlooking, however the relative levels are so significant that occupiers of the proposed development will look over the top of the neighbouring houses to the north east. Having regard to all material considerations including third party representations and LDP policy guidance, it is considered on balance, that the proposed development will not have a materially adverse impact on the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring development in accordance with policy LDP 9 and SG on Sustainable Siting and Design Principles. Loss of Daylight Policy LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance on Sustainable Siting and Design Principles seek to resist development that overshadows other sites. The Guidance advises that planning permission will be refused “where a proposed development has a significant adverse effect on daylight and direct sunlight to existing neighbouring properties.” The proposed development is to be sited to the south west of existing bungalows fronting Straid-a-cnoc. Taking the relationship between plot 3 and no. 34 Straid-a-cnoc as a typical example there is a horizontal separation of some 34 metres between the buildings and the highest part of the roof of the proposed house is approximately 11.6 metres above the height of the (horizontal) mid-point of the windows on the rear elevation of no. 34. Having regard to the “25O angle” assessment method set out in “Site layout Planning for Sunlight and Daylight” published by the Building Research Establishment (BRE), it is considered that the propose development will not have a materially adverse effect on natural daylight to neighbouring houses consistent with the provisions of policy LDP 9 and associated Supplementary Guidance on Sustainable Siting and Design principles. Noise Potential noise nuisance will be restricted to the construction phase of development. The impact of construction can be mitigated by a planning condition that restricts the hours of construction activity to avoid evening and early morning disturbance. It is appreciated that many people now work from home during day-time hours and that some disturbance may impact on neighbours during the construction phase however, Page 59
Page 60
this will be for a limited period only and construction noise is inevitable for all development. It is considered that the restriction of construction activity to avoid more sensitive hours will satisfactorily mitigate against noise disturbance during the construction phase. F. Access to Countryside. The Clynder High Road C283 core path follows the public road (Pier Road and Back Road) past the access to the application site. Policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 1 generally requires that development safeguards and enhances public rights of access to the outdoors. In the longer term, it is not considered that the proposed development will impact upon this core path. However, it is recommended that a planning condition be attached to any permission to ensure that the path is kept clear of any obstruction at all times and that public access is not compromised in any way during construction activity given the narrow road width and site constraints. Subject to such a planning condition, it is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 1 in respect of Access to the Outdoors. G. Landscape Character Policy LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 14 generally seek to resist development when its scale, location or design will have an adverse impact on the character of the landscape. NatureScot define this area as Landscape Character Type 38 – Open Ridges characterised by broad, even slopes forming rounded ridges and occasional steep summits with marginal farmland confined to loch fringes with open moorland/forestry on the higher slopes. Built development is generally concentrated along very narrow shoreline strips. The site, currently occupied by a house is enclosed on three sides by residential development. The land to west is open farmland rising to a ridge. As such, the site relates well in spatial terms to the existing pattern of development characteristic of this landscape type i.e. a narrow strip of coastal development. Whist the 3 no. proposed houses will be prominent from the shore area due to the elevated nature of the site, the built development will be viewed in the context of built development in the foreground and against the backdrop of the hillside behind. As such, the proposed built development pattern will reflect the visual character of the landscape in accordance with the provisions of policy LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 14. H. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters. The site is served by an existing access junction onto Back Road at a point to the south of its junction of Pier Road, Straid-a-cnoc. The most direct vehicular access to the site from the A833 road is via Pier Road and Back Road. Policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 generally require that new development is served by an appropriate standard of access. SG LDP TRAN 6 requires that adequate Page 60
Page 61
provision is made for off-street car parking in accordance with approved parking standards (in this case – 3 no. parking spaces per house). The site is served by a network of existing public adopted roads serving residential development. It is considered that the public road network has capacity to accommodate an intensification of residential traffic generated by 2 no. additional houses without detriment to road safety or congestion. This is reflected by the consultation response from the Council’s Area Roads Engineer who has no objections on highways grounds to the propose development subject to planning conditions relating to matters of technical design and provision of car parking in accordance with Council standards. The Council’s Parking Standards require 3 no. spaces for a house with more than three bedrooms. Integral garages are not taken into account. The proposed site plan drawing shows parking for 3 cars on the driveways at plots 2 and 3 but only two spaces for plot 1. However, the site is large enough to provide an additional space and this can be secured by means of a planning condition requiring submission and approval of further details. As such, subject to these recommended planning conditions, it is considered that the propose development will have an appropriate standard to access without detriment to matters of road safety or congestion in accordance with the provisions of policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 and TRAN 6. I. Infrastructure It is noted that a significant scale of ground engineering works has taken place on site prior to the submission of this application for planning permission. These works comprised excavation towards the upper rear of the site resulting in an exposed steep bank approximately 2.9 metres in height at its highest point. Material has been banked up to create a level plateau along the front to the site (adjacent to the rear boundaries of bungalows fronting Straid-a-cnoc). This bank is steep and rises to approximately 4.0 metres above pre-existing ground level at its highest point. Various ditches and flexible pipes are evident on site to manage surface water drainage. Occupiers of nearby properties have raised strong concern regarding these works in relation to an increase of water run-off onto their property and onto the public road. Strong concern has also been expressed with regard to the banking of a significant amount of excavated material at a steep angle and significant height adjacent to and uphill of gardens and the potential for damage to adjoining property by reason of mud slide or collapse of the banked material. It is again regrettable that significant land engineering operations have been implemented on this site prior to submission of an application for planning permission. Notwithstanding the notes relating to drainage on the submitted application drawings, given the prevailing ground levels of the site in relation to nearby development; and the scale of proposed development including a significant increase in hard surfaced areas and the substantial alteration of the land form, it is considered that full design details of a specific drainage design are required in order to ensure that the proposed development is served by adequate drainage infrastructure in accordance with the provisions of policy LDP 10, SG LDP SERV 2 and SERV 7, in order to demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in flooding of nearby land. Page 61
Page 62
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 63
Page 63
Page 64
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 65
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 65 Agenda Item 5
Page 66
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 66
Page 67
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 67
Page 68
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 68
Page 69
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 69
Page 70
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 70
Page 71
(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 71
Page 72
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 72
Page 73
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 73
Page 74
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 74
Page 75
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 75
Page 76
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 76
Page 77
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 77
Page 78
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 78
Page 79
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 79
Page 80
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 80
Page 81
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 81
Page 82
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 82
Page 83
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 83
Page 84
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 84
Page 85
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 85
Page 86
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 86
Page 87
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 87
Page 88
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 88
Page 89
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 89
Page 90
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. Page 90
Page 91
Page 91
Page 92
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 93
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 21/02608/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Keith Turner Proposal: Use of Entire Ground Floor Premises as Food and Drink Establishment (Class 3) and Use of North-Eastern Part as an Ancillary Space for Events (Class 10) Site Address: Five West, Royal Buildings, Tighnabruaich ____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ____________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Use of entire ground floor premises as a food and drink establishment (Class 3) and use of north-eastern part as an ancillary space for events (Class 10) (ii) Other specified operations Connection to existing private foul drainage system ____________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions, reasons and informative notes set out in this report. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: Page 93 Agenda Item 6
Page 94
Planning Permission (ref: 20/00227/PP) granted on 17th April 2020 for the use of the north-eastern part of the ground floor as a food and drink establishment (class 3) and multi-functional space (class 10). ____________________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: Environmental Health Officer (memoranda dated 1st February 2022 and 31st May 2022) Confirmation that a visit to Five West was carried out by the Environmental Health Service in April 2022 and, at that time, there were no issues identified with noise or odour nuisance from the premises. No objections to the granting of Planning Permission subject to an informative note advising the applicant that, should they intend to make any structural alterations or to change the layout of the food preparation area, they should make contact with the Environmental Health Service prior to the starting of such works. Area Roads Manager No comments received and no request for an extension to the consultation period. ___________________________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: Neighbour Notification (closing date: 1st March 2022) and Regulation 20 Advert (closing date: 4th March 2022). ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Objections have been received from the following four sources: Mr Scott Raeburn, Flat 3, Royal Buildings, Tighnabruaich (e-mails dated 10th February, 25th April and 8th August 2022 and an e-mail received on 7th March 2022, which incorporated a report from Highstreet Architects dated 18th February 2022) Mrs Karen Raeburn, Flat 3, Royal Buildings, Tighnabruaich (e-mails dated 10th February, 25th April and 8th August 2022 and an e-mail received on 7th March 2022, which incorporated a report from Highstreet Architects dated 18th February 2022) Bruce Godsmark – no address provided (comments dated 16th September 2022) Rod Petrie, The School House, Kilfinan (comments dated 16th September 2022) The points raised can be summarised as follows: i. It is stated as obvious that the Planning Authority considers that the previous application (ref: 20/00227/PP) is invalid and has sought the requirement of a fresh application. Legally, it would then appear that neither the Planning Authority nor the applicant accepts that Planning Permission for the present use on the site is valid on the basis that the current application relates to an extended site, not wholly owned by the applicant. Page 94
Page 95
It is contended that this makes the current application a completely different site and, consequently, a completely different application. The view is expressed that the planning process is starting as if the previous application was not made so the Planning Authority should determine it on that basis even though the boundary remains incorrectly defined at the point of writing. Comment: The current application has been submitted with the purpose of addressing issues relating to Planning Permission 20/02127/PP and a detailed assessment is undertaken in Appendix A below. ii. The applicant’s previous application 20/00227/PP was for a different site encompassing the entire rear ground which belongs solely to the three flats above. This site was not in the applicant’s “sole ownership” as was Certified in his application form, an offence at law. Comment: This is one of the issues that has been identified with Planning Permission 20/00227/PP and which the current application seeks to address. iii. It is contended that the current application is procedurally invalid and, as such, the public cannot correctly assess it nor should it be granted permission. The area outlined in red on the submitted plans is referred to as indicating “area owned by the applicant". However, it is put forward that this is not wholly owned by the applicant since the projection at the rear of the building carries the outside access stairs to the three flats on first and second floors. Comment: Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) places the onus on the applicant and/or agent to properly carry out notification to other parties that have an ownership interest in an application site and states that it is an offence to recklessly issue a certificate which “contains a statement which (they) know to be false or misleading in a material particular.” The matter raised by the objectors was brought to the attention of the agent for the application and, in e-mail dated 21st April 2022, he confirmed that his position remained as stated in the application form dated 7th December 2021 i.e. that the applicant owns all of the land within the red line and there are no other parties that have an ownership interest in the delineated application site. The Planning Authority is not in the position of adjudicating on land ownership but has properly sought confirmation from the agent on this issue. iv. It was pointed out that the deck outlined in the initial set of plans lay outwith the applicant’s boundary and encroached onto neighbours’ land although the applicant had neglected to define the extent of his ownership in this application as required by Regulation. Revised plans were submitted by the agent on 7th April 2022 and it is contended that the "decking area outlined in blue" is not in the ownership of the applicant and that this is evidenced by Title plan information previously submitted by the objectors. It is questioned whether the Council should now be taking action as the objectors claim that this is yet a further offence committed by the applicant in terms of the relevant Planning regulations concerning Ownership Certification. Page 95
Page 96
Comment: Regulation 9 (3) (c) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 requires that, in situations “where any neighbouring land is owned by the applicant”, an application for Planning Permission must be accompanied by a plan identifying that land. The validation guidance produced by Heads of Planning Scotland states that “this requirement can assist the Local Authority when determining what neighbouring land requires to be notified of (the) application submission and reduces delays in assessing whether (the) application needs to be advertised.” It is considered that the alleged minor discrepancy in the route of the blue line on the submitted plans does not have a material bearing upon the assessment of the Planning aspects of the current application. v. Concern is expressed that the current application does not include the decking to the rear within the red line boundary. However, the plans state that its future use has yet to be determined and this is confirmation that the agent knows that this area should be within the red line boundary. It is very important that the council include the rear decking within the application as its future use could adversely impact on the privacy and Human Rights of the owners of the private land to the rear. Alternatively, the applicant should confirm that they have relinquished ownership of the decking area to the flats above. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. vi. Revised plans were submitted by the agent on 7th April 2022 and it is contended that this information was not available to neighbours for comment within the consultation period. This is regarded by the objectors as clearly unfair in this situation where the application directly affects neighbouring properties detrimentally, interfering with Convention Rights stipulated in the Human Rights Act 1998. Mr and Mrs Raeburn are of the opinion that this delay was a deliberate action on the part of the applicant to avoid full scrutiny by those who had the right to do so. Comment: The correspondence between the Planning Service and the agent and the plans that were subsequently submitted have been available for viewing on the Council’s Public Access System since the end of April 2022 and the Council tends to accept written comments up until an application has been determined. In these circumstances, it is not considered that the rights of other parties to both view and comment on further information has been prejudiced to a significantly adverse degree. vii. Mr and Mrs Raeburn state that, contrary to the information contained in the submitted plans, none of the external surrounding ground is shared under common ownership between the ground floor commercial properties and the three flats. It is contended that the area labelled "Common Access" on the applicant's plans forms part of the private amenity area solely owned by the three flats on first and second floors. Furthermore, nowhere in the Titles for either of the ground floor premises or the three flats above is a "common drying green" mentioned. Comment: The significance of this issue as a material Planning consideration is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. Page 96
Page 97
viii. Concern is expressed that the applicant does not have a Completion Certificate; that the Building Warrants that were submitted in 2017 have lapsed; and that Building Standards have written to the applicant "to inform them that they should not be operating without the completion certificate". It is contended that the illegal activity taking place in the premises presents risks for co-proprietors in the building and the adjoining neighbours. The applicant should also submit a new Building Warrant application as the uses and requirements have changed. This planning application is not for an “Internal fit-out of unit to install small café and community space” as previously submitted to Building Standards and the kitchen area has changed since. Comment: These issues do not have a material bearing upon the assessment of the Planning aspects of the current application and would be more appropriately addressed under Building Standards legislation. ix. It is put forward that the applicant's buildings insurance in the event of a claim would be null and void where the premises has no Completion Certificate or planning consent and where there has been no scrutiny of all structural alterations, electrical installation, fire safety or noise transmission measures to issue a Completion Certificate. Similarly, any public liability insurance and employer's liability insurance required by law would also be null and void. Comment: This issue does not have a material bearing upon the assessment of the Planning aspects of the current application. x. There are environmental issues that the council is required to investigate during the application and during the operation of the business by the Environment Health Service. These include confirming the catering equipment; ensuring that the ventilation extraction system is appropriate; and requiring that internal noise satisfy the various recommended levels. It is considered that validation measurements should be carried out to demonstrate compliance with the aforementioned noise conditions and that full details of the measurements should be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval after the development is finished and prior to trading. The opening hours for the property are to be from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. 7 days per week. The Council are required to determine if the opening hours are suitable in the context of their impact on those living within the immediate vicinity. Supplementary Guidance policies in the Local Development Plan relate to ‘Bad Neighbour development’ and it is incumbent on the Planning Authority to protect neighbours from the issues that they are currently experiencing specifically relating to odour, privacy and sound pollution. Comment: The significance of these issues as material Planning considerations is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. . xi. As far as Mr and Mrs Raeburn are aware, all of the other legitimate businesses in the village/local area operate correctly within the law and regulations. However, Five West is currently operational, based on a Planning application made in 2020 which the council and the applicant have agreed is invalid. It is contended by Mr and Mrs Raeburn that the café does not have planning approval and is, therefore, operating illegally. Consequently, the café should be closed until correct consents are in place. Comment: Planning enforcement is not a statutory duty and, as such, it is not incumbent upon the Planning Authority to take action but only to do so where it is Page 97
Page 98
identified to be expedient. The Council has recognised that a breach of planning control has occurred in this instance and the determination of this current application represents the Council’s view on whether the development is either acceptable; acceptable subject to appropriate mitigation; or unacceptable. As this report contains a recommendation of approval, it is not considered expedient for the Council to take formal enforcement action. xii. Mr and Mrs Raeburn state that the Council has a legal obligation to ensure that its decisions and enforcement actions are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and Convention Rights. They contend that they, and the other two flats above the proposed café/events space, have Rights in respect of the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of their property which includes the private amenity space and garden solely owned between the three flats. By granting planning consent and subsequently not taking enforcement action, the Council not only offended the Convention Rights of the objectors but facilitated the applicant to deprive them of their property, peace and privacy. Comment: The significance of these issues as material Planning considerations is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. xiii. Mr and Mrs Raeburn state that the plans make no mention of how the Convention Rights of others will be respected, namely the peaceful and private enjoyment of the private amenity space of the three residential properties. Those Rights will be interfered with detrimentally by the overlooking of the flat's private amenity space by staff and the general public in the commercial properties from two full height clear glazed doors and the clear glazed kitchen window on the rear elevation along with noise and odours caused by extraction into the residential private amenity space from a commercial kitchen and the two existing customer WC's. Comment: The significance of these issues as material Planning considerations is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. xiv. Mr and Mrs Raeburn seek the Council's assurances that action will be taken now to ensure that their Convention Rights are protected since they have experienced interference with those Rights, particularly invasion of privacy and noise nuisance, continually during their ownership of Flat 3. They allege that they were abused by a staff member when they entered their property to find a large group partying in their private space - the entire back garden - which lasted until 11.00 pm with loud music and the applicant and his family participating. They and their witnesses gave statements regarding the abuse and nuisance to the Police who attended. Comment: This issue does not have a material bearing upon the assessment of the Planning aspects of the current application and is a matter for Police Scotland. . xv. It is contended that the submitted plans lack detail regarding facilities already installed by the applicant, particularly denying full comment and input from SEPA or the Environmental Health Service on drainage; the layout of a commercial kitchen; and the fumes and odour extraction from the two WC's and commercial kitchen where these would expel noisily to the residential private amenity space and close to the windows and access of the residential properties. Comment: The significance of this issue as a material Planning consideration is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. Page 98
Page 99
xvi. It is contended that the council and SEPA are required to ensure that the drainage from the site is fit for purpose and includes a suitable grease trap where appropriate. The drainage that is installed needs to be in accordance with SEPA’s current policy and discharge into the sea would be monitored by SEPA. Due to the sea discharge, SEPA should be included within the consultations for this application. Comment: The significance of this issue as a material Planning consideration is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. . xvii. Drawing No. 574/05A submitted by the agent contains a hatched area showing "Possible area for storage of refuse bins by all owners" and this area is shown on the "access path" that is solely owned by the upper floor flats. Mr and Mrs Raeburn state that Flat 3 and the other two flats, which solely own all external ground to the side and rear of the building, already have their 6 waste bins to the rear of their access path against the opposite wall which is the most convenient place for them all. They state that any other properties wishing to site their refuse/waste on their land would require to have such permission conferred by all three flats as Burdens on their Titles. Mr and Mrs Raeburn confirm that they would not give any such permission or concession in their Title Burdens. Comment: The significance of this issue as a material Planning consideration is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. . xviii. It is contended that the applicant has no external area outwith his titles for the storage of commercial or other waste bins and Mr and Mrs Raeburn regard his continued use of their land for the siting of 7 commercial waste bins as aggravated trespass and an interference with our Convention Rights. Furthermore, they consider that there is no location for the commercial bins that would not cause interference with their privacy and peaceful enjoyment of their property or that of their neighbours. Comment: The significance of this issue as a material Planning consideration is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. xix. Mr Godsmark states that he doesn’t recognise most of the names of the supporters and that more than a few are not full-time residents in the area. He contends that all of these supporters would object to customers and staff of a commercial development looking over their private property when they are sitting in their garden and experience constant kitchen noise and cooking smells in their own gardens 7 days a week. He states that they should be ashamed of their hypocrisy. Comment: The issue of the impact of the development on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. xx. Mr Godsmark explains that he has owned his flat in the building next door to the application site since 2004 and has lived and worked in the area since 1981. He is the person who is wholly responsible for the display of flowers on the main street incorporating the planters opposite the shops plus the hanging baskets outside the shops. He has done this for more than a decade during which the Page 99
Page 100
applicant has left derelict and an eyesore those premises that he bought around 2010/11. Comment: Mr Godsmark’s role in the appearance of the commercial part of Tighnabruaich is acknowledged. xxi. Mr Godsmark has permission to use the water tap to fill his watering cans in the private garden behind the café that belongs to the flats upstairs. Over the past 2 years when Five West has been operating, he alleges that he has seen how the owner of the café has incited intimidation of co-owners in the building and tried to assert and force his use and possession of their private access and garden and sheds by telling all customers and locals he could that he owned and had access to the back garden. Mr Godsmark contends that this is not the case. Comment: This is essentially a legal matter between the parties concerned and does not have a material bearing upon the assessment of the Planning aspects of the current application. xxii. Mr Godsmark has seen, even now, customer’s bikes, prams, scooters, etc. parked on the garden area to the rear of Five West and even on the grassed area with customers walking across it to the sea wall. He alleges that customers' children have played in that private garden and their dogs have been allowed to use it. He contends that staff have used the area for breaks leaving their cigarette ends on the gravel beside the commercial bins where they also placed things which did not fit into the café bins. Comment: The issue of the impact of the development on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. xxiii. Mr Godsmark alleges that, when he was going on holiday abroad this summer, he asked the applicant and his wife to water his hanging baskets that enhance their shop. He contends that they agreed to do this but he returned home to dry baskets and wilted plants. Comment: This issue does not have a material bearing upon the assessment of the Planning aspects of the current application. xxiv. Mr Godsmark alleges that the café staff use the benches between his planters opposite on the village street for their cigarette breaks and put them out on the benches and leave them littering the pavement as they did on the gravel behind the café. Once over the past fortnight, he lifted all these cigarette ends and returned them to the café by leaving them on the doorstep which he photographed. Comment: This issue does not have a material bearing upon the assessment of the Planning aspects of the current application. xxv. Mr Godsmark contends that he experiences similar problems with his peace and privacy in the building next door where strangers use a commercial holiday property accessing over his residential private space and he has asked solicitors for advice. He states that the Council has still to reply meaningfully to his recent e-mail about these issues that he experiences at his flat. Comment: This issue does not have a material bearing upon the assessment of the Planning aspects of the current application. Page 100
Page 101
xxvi. Mr Petrie contends that no Councillor on the Planning Committee would sanction a commercial development that intruded so grievously on their residential property to the degree that this application does at Royal Buildings in Tighnabruaich. Comment: The issue of the impact of the development on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A below. xxvii. Mr Petrie states that he is utterly astonished that this matter is even being considered at all. He contends that there are so many grounds for objection and so many regulatory breaches that it's a wonder the owner of Five West has not been served with an Enforcement Notice demanding the immediate cessation of his operations. Mr Petrie queries the level of unacceptability that the various activities have to reach before the Planning Department intervenes to prevent the type of abuse being perpetrated by the applicant. Comment: Planning enforcement is not a statutory duty and, as such, it is not incumbent upon the Planning Authority to take action but only to do so where it is identified to be expedient. The Council has recognised that a breach of planning control has occurred in this instance and the determination of this current application represents the Council’s view on whether the development is either acceptable; acceptable subject to appropriate mitigation; or unacceptable. As this report contains a recommendation of approval, it is not considered expedient for the Council to take formal enforcement action. Expressions of support have been received from the following fifty four sources: Colin Slinger, Hillside, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 26th July 2022) Steven Wallis, Upper Flat, Appin Cottage, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 1st September 2022) Stephen Williamson, The Manse, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Terry Whitelaw – no address provided (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Sheila Semple, Flat 1-2, 47 Havelock Street, Glasgow (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Yvonne Blair – no address provided (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Jane Anderson – no address provided (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Nathan Mobeck – no address provided (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Gilly Dean, Fairwinds, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 2nd September 2022) George Watson, Tighnabruaich District Development Trust, Rockville, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Elaine Smith – no address provided (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Susan Rogers – no address provided (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Susan Mutch – no address provided (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Page 101
Page 102
Lucie Cooney – no address provided (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Chris Trainer, Allt Mor, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Andy Pownall, Overlook, Kames (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Mary Stephenson, Ardlamont Schoolhouse, Kames (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Rob Killow, Ardlamont Schoolhouse, Kames (comments dated 2nd September 2022) John Gavin Hamilton, Dunmar, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 2nd September 2022) Janet Lange, Dunsyre Villa, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 3rd September 2022) Eric Lange, Dunsyre Villa, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 3rd September 2022) Phyllis Burns, Drum Farmhouse, Kilfinan (comments dated 5th September 2022) Rod McLean, Beau Dubh, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 5th September 2022) Tricia Shaw – no address provided (comments dated 5th September 2022) Jim Carruthers – no address provided (comments dated 5th September 2022) Mhairi Carruthers – no address provided (comments dated 5th September 2022) Ronnie Irvine – no address provided (comments dated 5th September 2022) Fiona Irvine – no address provided (comments dated 5th September 2022) Hugh Cowley, The Former Church, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 5th September 2022) Alastair Torbet – no address provided (comments dated 5th September 2022) Graham Smart – no address provided (comments dated 5th September 2022) Morven Walker – no address provided (comments dated 5th September 2022) Rajinder Kumar – no address provided (comments dated 5th September 2022) Georgina Boyle, Kames Hotel, Kames (comments dated 5th September 2022) Alan Wilson – no address provided (comments dated 5th September 2022) Manus Quigg, Glenelg, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 6th September 2022) Brenda Millar – no address provided (comments dated 6th September 2022) Razia Dean – no address provided (comments dated 6th September 2022) Robert Borruso, Alderhouse, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 6th September 2022) Eve MacFarlane – no address provided (comments dated 7th September 2022) John Whiston, Ashcliffe, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 7th September 2022) Page 102
Page 103
Nickie Lister, Ashcliffe, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 7th September 2022) Janie Boyd, Appin Cottage, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 7th September 2022) Susan Frize, Allt Beag, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 8th September 2022) Roberta Wallace – no address provided (comments dated 9th September 2022) Graham Kerr – no address provided (comments dated 10th September 2022) Paul Sinclair, Corran Cottage Store, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 12th September 2022) Patricia Jones – no address provided (comments dated 13th September 2022) Graeme Hogg – no address provided (comments dated 14th September 2022) Elizabeth Catterson – no address provided (comments dated 14th September 2022) Joanne Douglas, Flat 2, Royal Buildings, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 15th September 2022) H B Collier, Flat 1, Royal Buildings, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 16th September 2022) Heather Nevay, Hafton Barn, School Road, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 19th September 2022) Morag Macdonald, Burnbank, Tighnabruaich (comments dated 19th September 2022) The views expressed can be summarised as follows: The owners, Bridget and Keith Turner, have turned what was a bit of an eyesore on the main street of the village into a beautiful and welcoming establishment. They employed local tradesmen on the refurbishment and now employ a healthy roster of local people serving quality local produce The upgrade of the façade has kept faith with the traditional shop fronts of the row of buildings and is well maintained The menu is commended and it serves award-winning coffee, locally roasted and supplied by Argyll Coffee Roasters. There are homemade soups; sandwiches; fresh seafood; and creative salads as well as homemade cakes, tray bakes and buns that are baked by Leoma Five West has supported fledgling businesses (for example, Argyll Coffee Roasters and Wild Kitchen) and those who started them are known by villagers. The community is delighted that Five West got behind these businesses and gave them a platform and it is asserted that all of these initiatives make a difference to the village There is a play area where children are entertained with various games; activities; and a large doll’s house whilst dogs are welcomed too with fresh water and biscuits Page 103
Page 104
The walls are covered with maps and interesting eclectic artefacts so there is always something interesting to look at With the loss of Susy’s Tearoom, it is mentioned that the ‘Lochs and Glens’ tour buses would appreciate Five West and this would also apply to the tourists who disembark ‘The Waverley’ regularly during the summer months It is contended that the owners should be rewarded for investing so much of their time and money into the village in addition to the employment opportunities they create Comment: The contents of these expressions of support are noted. ____________________________________________________________________________ (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation No (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: (iii) A design or design/access statement: No (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development No e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: (v) Supporting Information Yes A Supporting Planning Statement has been submitted by the agent, Design Practice, which can be summarised as follows: Planning Permission (ref: 20/00227/PP) was granted on 17th April 2020 for the use of the ground floor premises as a food and drink establishment (class 3) and multi-functional space (class 10). The premises are now operating as a café after reopening in early 2020 after a period of refurbishment It would appear, however, at the time of the application there was some dubiety in the site delineation on the location plan which has resulted in a question of the validity of the uses within the premises. This new application, therefore, has been submitted to clarify the boundary situation with the extent of the operation clearly defined within the red application boundary line around the whole building as specified on the submitted plans and also to clarify the usage This delineation indicates that the whole ground floor use of the building is for use as a café as existing. However, an area to the north east of the building is for use as a possible community space. This is ancillary to the overall use as a café and is aimed at occasional events mainly in relation to the tourist industry of the village. This could include, for example, the “Write by the Sea” Book Festival in March and during the Fife Regatta in June and could also include local producers market and the RNLI boat Page 104
Page 105
jumble sale. There may also be intermittent use of the space for small community activities which would be of benefit to the local community It is anticipated that the premises would accommodate around some 25 persons for small tourist oriented activities or small community events and for the daily use as a café. The seating accommodation in relation to the counter uses is fairly indicative and of course could be slightly changed due to the usage in the café but it will not change how the premises are used but indicate possibly a more simple modification to the internal layout As was considered acceptable in the conditions for the use of the premises in the previous application, the operational hours will be from 08.00 hours to 21.00 hours for the full premises on any given day If and when any events are being held in the premises, the café area will remain available for the convenience of participants As in most cafés, especially in tourist areas, there is a slight demand for some take-away facilities due to transient tourists. This is catered for in Five West by the provision of tea / coffee, soup and hot rolls for consumption off the premises. This is only a minor component of the operation as a café and can, therefore, be considered as ‘de minimis’ as advocated in Circular 1/1998 on the introduction of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended) The small additional area to the rear of property that is currently used as a timber deck has not been included within the boundary of the unit. The question of the use of this area will be considered in the future As in the previous application, it is considered that the scale and operation of the premises are compatible with activities in this central location within the village and would not be detrimental to the overall amenity of the area. It is assumed, therefore, that the usage of the premises would comply with the relevant Policies and Supplementary Guidance of the Local Development Plan E-mails dated 17th September 2022 from the applicant, Keith Turner, have also been submitted, which contain information that he wishes to be taken into account. This can be summarised as follows: A letter from Harper Macleod Solicitors dated 15th September was enclosed, which referred to a review that had been carried out on Mr Turner’s title deeds and that of his neighbours in the Royal Buildings. The letter contained the opinion that all proprietors have the same right to use the access path / common passage that lies between Royal Buildings and Kyles Convenience Store at 15 Main Street The application that was approved in 2020 contained a mistake in the location plan with the omission of part of the building’s ground floor and the purpose of the current application is to remedy this error. It is contended that this was a simple mistake on the part of the architect and was not picked up by the applicant or by the Council during the validation process Page 105
Page 106
There have been about 50 separate messages of support from the public for this application which is encouraging, given the time that has needed to be spent on this application. Notably, these messages of support include those from the owners of two of the three flats above Five West – Bruce Collier (Flat 1) and Joanne Douglas (Flat 2) The commercial premises are on the ground floor of a 140-year-old tenement building with three flats above. There is a side access lane which provides access to the back ground; to the back doors of the commercial units; to the stairs to the flats; and to the washhouse and the store. The lane has traditionally been the location of all waste bins for the building and all title holders have the same rights to the lane There is also communal ground to the rear of the building, between the main building and the sea wall, which is a communal drying green. It is contended that this is not a private garden, nor is it exclusive to the owners of the flats, and it has never been a particularly private space. It is communal to the owner of the ground floor commercial units and the owners of the three flats. Mr Turner contends that it is important that the commercial units have always had and continue to have a legal right of access to the back of the building for all necessary purposes The access to the back of the building, the former drying green, and its use over the years has been an integral part of the operation of the ground floor commercial units, whether tearoom, gift shop, fishmonger, butcher or baker. This has included, for example, deliveries in and out of the rear of the buildings and the use of the wash house and the drying green It is contended that all four of the objections at this stage include a number of similar but fundamentally inaccurate statements in relation to the ownership of the ground and the outbuildings. For example, various assertions are included that the ground associated with the building is exclusive to the flats. It is put forward that these assertions are legally incorrect and a copy of Title Sheet ARG8236 for the commercial premises has been forwarded which refers to “the ground at the rear of the said tenement and the whole erections thereon” ____________________________________________________________________________ (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 obligation required: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of No Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ____________________________________________________________________________ (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’ (2015) Page 106
Page 107
LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of Our Communities LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 11—Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan – Supplementary Guidance’ (2016) SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) SG LDP ENV 21 – Protection and Enhancement of Buildings SG LDP RET 5 – Change of Use of Shops outwith Designated Town Centres SG LDP REC/COM 1 – Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities SG LDP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP SERV 1 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater (i.e. drainage) Systems SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage and Collection Facilities within New Development 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 (2014) Consultee Responses Third Party Representations 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 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 49 – Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities ____________________________________________________________________________ (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an No Environmental Impact Assessment: ____________________________________________________________________________ (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application No consultation (PAC): ____________________________________________________________________________ (M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No ____________________________________________________________________________ Page 107
Page 108
(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (O) Requirement for a hearing: No In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing Members should consider the following: How up-to-date the Development Plan is; the relevance of the policies to the proposed development; and whether the representations are on Development Plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance The application has attracted objections from 4 sources and expressions of support from 54 sources. It is the opinion of officers that the representations received, together with officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report, provide all the information required to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations in this case, not least the fully adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and the direct relevance of key planning policies contained within it. In this instance, it is not considered that the objections raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the current Report of Handling and, as such, it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process. ___________________________________________________________________________ (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The application site is within the row of commercial properties situated at the centre of the village of Tighnabruaich. It is located on the ground floor of a two-storey building with attic accommodation that incorporates three residential flats (Flats 2 and 3 in the first floor and Flat 1 in the attic). Planning Permission 20/00227/PP was approved on 17th April 2020 in relation to the “use of ground floor premises as food and drink establishment (class 3) and multi- functional space (class 10)” and, in early September 2020, the Planning Department was advised that the entire ground floor premises had opened as a Class 3 food and drink establishment. The current application has been submitted in order to regularise this use. Based on the most recent active uses of the premises in the 2000s; the mixed commercial/residential uses in this part of Tighnabruaich; and the benefits of providing facilities that enhance the experience for both visitors and residents of the village, the principle of the development is considered to be appropriate. The objectors (in particular the owners of one of the flats directly above part of Five West) contend that the development has an adverse impact on the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of their property, which includes the flat itself and the private amenity space and garden that they state is solely owned between the three flats. Page 108
Page 109
They further state that the Council has a legal obligation to ensure that its decisions and enforcement actions are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and Convention Rights. The Environmental Health Service has confirmed that a visit to Five West was carried out in April 2022 and no issues were identified at that time relating to noise or odour nuisance from the premises. It is considered that the level of noise created by the congregation and movement of people and vehicles would not affect the privacy and amenity of adjoining residential properties to a significantly adverse degree and that a condition will be attached restricting the hours of opening of the premises to between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. The row of commercial properties in the village centre within which the application site is located primarily relies upon on-street parking – there is very little off-street parking available in the backlands of these properties. Supplementary Guidance policy SG TRAN 6 requires that car parking is provided in accordance with the standards set out within the Local Development Plan and, by applying these, the parking demand associated with the use identified in the current application would be two parking spaces more than with the previous use i.e. a shortfall of two spaces. SG LDP TRAN 6 allows for flexibility to be exercised and, in this context, it is important to consider that the premises is located in a part of the village where there are relatively good public transport and pedestrian links and there is a car park associated with the Tighnabruaich Hotel situated approximately 30 metres to the north west. It is understood that Five West is connected into the existing private foul drainage system that serves the whole building. There is a single foul drainage discharge and this is located at the bottom of the sea wall to the rear of the building and drying green. The population of Tighnabruaich is between 500 and 600 people, which falls significantly short of the 2000 figure where the LDP states that connection to the public sewerage system would be a prerequisite of Planning Permission being granted. It is understood that the owner of the top flat has been seeking to coordinate a way forward with all of the building owners. Discussions have also taken place between the Planning Service and SEPA over the last thirteen months and it is understood that there might be Scottish Water infrastructure located under the foreshore to the south-east of Royal Buildings. However, further investigation will be required to ascertain the logistics and economics involved in connecting into this infrastructure. In drawing all of the above together, it is considered reasonable for an informative note to be attached to the Planning Permission that ensures there is an impetus in examining the connection of Royal Buildings into Scottish Water infrastructure. SG LDP SERV 5(b) advocates that commercial development should make effective provision for the storage, recycling, separation and collection of waste from within the development site or, when appropriate, from an appropriate roadside or other specified collection point or points (for onward reuse and recycling). It is understood that, in recent weeks, Five West have made alternative arrangements for the storage of their waste bins (which had been in the lane adjacent to the premises), which is outwith the land associated with Royal Buildings. Notwithstanding SG LDP SERV 5(b), the principal regulation of this aspect of Five West rests with the Council’s Page 109
Page 110
Environmental Health Service and Amenity Services through a commercial contract with the premises. Based on information to hand at the time of writing, the commercial waste associated with the Five West continues to be disposed of as part of the commercial contract. ____________________________________________________________________________ (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes ____________________________________________________________________________ (R) Reasons why planning permission or a 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 Not applicable. ____________________________________________________________________________ (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No ____________________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Steven Gove Date: 20th September 2022 Reviewing Officer: Howard Young Date: 20th September 2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 110
Page 111
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO: 21/02608/PP 1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 7th December 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 Drawing No. 574_01 C 21/04/2021 Block Plan Drawing No. 574_02 C 21/04/2021 As Proposed Plan Drawing No. 574_03 E 21/04/2021 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the opening hours of the premises for customers or patrons shall be between 0800 hours and 2100 hours on any given day. Reason: In order to protect the privacy and amenity of the area. NOTES TO APPLICANT It is strongly recommended that the applicant engage with all relevant parties with the objective of connecting the premises currently known as Five West into the Scottish Water foul drainage system. Such parties would include the other owners of the property known as Royal Buildings; Scottish Water; and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The Environmental Health Service has stated that, should the applicant intend to make any structural alterations or to change the layout of the food preparation area, they should make contact with the Environmental Health Officer (Pamela Fraser on 01369 708686 or at pamela.fraser@argyll-bute.gov.uk) prior to starting works. Page 111
Page 112
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER 21/02608/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT A. PLANNING HISTORY & BACKGROUND TO CURRENT APPLICATION The application site is within the row of commercial properties situated at the centre of the village of Tighnabruaich. It is located on the ground floor of a two-storey building with attic accommodation that incorporates three residential flats (Flats 2 and 3 in the first floor and Flat 1 in the attic). An application for Planning Permission (ref: 20/00227/PP) was registered in February 2020 in relation to the “use of ground floor premises as food and drink establishment (class 3) and multi-functional space (class 10)”. The history of the premises has been explored, both prior to the 2020 application being submitted and in subsequent investigation, and the following is a summary: No applications for Planning Permission were submitted in relation to the premises between 1995 and 2020 A Building Warrant (ref: 02/01531/MTP) was approved in November 2002 relating to ‘alterations and change of use to form tearoom’. The existing layout identified in September 2002 showed two separate units (physically divided by an internal wall) – the main floorspace of the north-eastern unit was a shop with a back shop and store located in the rear part of the building whilst the south-western unit had a shop to the front and a store and WC to the rear. The layout approved in the Building Warrant showed the formation of an opening in the dividing wall; in the north-eastern part of the premises, the front shop was to be replaced with a tearoom and disabled toilet and the back shop was to be converted into a kitchen; and the shop, store and WC were to be retained in the south-western unit. The information on the Council’s website indicated that works commenced in January 2003 and that a Building Warrant Completion Certificate was issued on 14th March 2003. Based upon the existing and approved layouts on the Building Warrant drawings, the change of use of the north-easternmost shop to a tearoom would have required Planning Permission although no permission was sought or obtained The Agent’s Supporting Statement that accompanied application 20/00227/PP stated that a Class 3 tearoom and shop (‘Something Special’) began operating in approximately 2002. Mr John Beadnall bought the premises (named ‘Cranachan’) in 2006 and operated it until approximately 2009 under the name ‘Rachaels’ again continuing to function as a Class 3 (food and drink) unit. Approximately between 2009 and 2011, it was not open for customers, but the window space was used for providing information on Ardlamont House and its various associated activities and community related facilities, albeit on an informal level. Between 2011 (when the premises was purchased by the current applicant) and 2020, it was not used as a retail shop and/or food and drink establishment but had been informally utilised by the Kyles Rowing Club to build two Ayles Skiffs There is evidence that the demolition of the back shop and store that were attached to the rear of the north-easternmost part of the premises and the installation of two door-sized openings took place at some point prior to the end of 2014. No Planning Permission was obtained for these works Page 112
Page 113
There is evidence that decking was erected on the rear of the building in October 2015 but no Planning Permission was obtained for this deck. Further information also suggests that the decking has been repaired/altered at various times since October 2019 Planning Permission 20/00227/PP was approved on 17th April 2020 and, in early September 2020, the Planning Department was advised that the entire ground floor premises had opened as a Class 3 food and drink establishment. This initiated an investigation and part of this focussed on Planning Permission 20/00227/PP. The following is a summary of the findings: The package of information with the application included a Location Plan with a red line enclosing the north-easternmost part of the ground floor premises (coloured blue on the Proposed Ground Floor Plan and referred to as ‘Multi-Functional Space’) and the land to the rear of that half of the premises, up to the word ‘Waterside’ The south-western part of Five West was not within the red line and, therefore, did not benefit from Planning Permission under 20/00227/PP. There was evidence that this part of the ground floor did not have ‘lawfulness’ for its use as a Class 3 food and drink establishment In terms of the north-easternmost part of the premises, it was shown as a ‘Multi- Functional Space’ and this type of use was referred to in both the application form (‘Description of Proposal’) and Agent’s Supporting Statement (Section 1.2) as falling within Class 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended) i.e. as a non-residential institution. A case could be made, therefore, that its use for Class 3 purposes was not authorised by Planning Permission 20/00227/PP The deck on the proposed ground floor plan that was approved under Planning Permission 20/00227/PP was white in colour rather than blue, which indicated that it was not intended for use as part of the ‘Multi-Functional Space’. As such, there was a case to be made that its use as part of the Class 3 food and drink establishment was unauthorised There were apparent deficiencies in the Land Ownership certification supplied with application 20/00227/PP that might have rendered the permission open to challenge The current application has been submitted in order to regularise the use of the entire ground floor premises as a food and drink establishment under Class 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended) with the use of the north-eastern part as an ancillary space for events to be held under Class 10 of the 1997 Order i.e. as a non-residential institution. The application specifically does not include the decking to the rear within the identified red line. The submitted ‘As Proposed Plan’ states that this is to be the subject of a separate application and it contains annotation that the decking will not be used for “consumption of food or drink or congregation of people”. B. SETTLEMENT STRATEGY Tighnabruaich (in association with neighbouring Kames) is one of Argyll and Bute’s Key Rural Settlements as identified in the Local Development Plan 2015. Under Policy LDP Page 113
Page 114
DM 1, developments up to and including medium scale will be encouraged in this type of settlement. The current application relates to a small-scale development. In view of the foregoing, it is considered that the principle of the development is consistent with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1 and LDP DM 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. C. LOCATION, NATURE AND DESIGN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The application seeks to continue the use of the premises known as Five West as a food and drink establishment under Class 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended). It also incorporates the use of the north-eastern part of the premises as an events space under Class 10 of the 1997 Order (i.e. a non- residential institution) with this activity being ancillary to the principal café use. The premises is located in the row of commercial properties situated at the centre of the village of Tighnabruaich. This particular row of buildings is relatively unique in that it represents the most substantial built development on the shore side of the road in Tighnabruaich. It is characterised by commercial-type uses on the ground floor and upper floor residential units. Based on the most recent active uses of the premises in the 2000s; the mixed commercial/residential uses in this part of Tighnabruaich; and the benefits of providing facilities that enhance the experience for both visitors and residents of the village, the principle of the development is considered to be appropriate. In terms of the impact upon the built environment, the opening of Five West in September 2020 has resulted in the freshening up of the frontage of a premises that had largely been vacant for the previous nine years. As such, the overall effect upon the wider Area of Panoramic Quality is relatively positive. On the basis of the foregoing, the application is considered to accord with Policies LDP 3, LDP 5, LDP 8 and LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 13, SG LDP ENV 21, SG LDP RET 5, SG LDP REC/COM 1 and SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. D. IMPACT UPON RESIDENTIAL PRIVACY AND AMENITY The objectors (in particular the owners of one of the flats directly above part of Five West) contend that the development has an adverse impact on the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of their property, which includes the flat itself and the private amenity space and garden that they state is solely owned between the three flats. They further state that the Council has a legal obligation to ensure that its decisions and enforcement actions are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and Convention Rights. It is considered that the assessment of these impacts can be detailed as follows: i. Concerns have been raised regarding the noise and odours caused by extraction from a commercial kitchen and the two existing customer WC's into residential private amenity space. Comment: The Environmental Health Service has confirmed that a visit to Five West was carried out in April 2022 and no issues were identified at that time relating to noise or odour nuisance from the premises. Page 114
Page 115
ii. The noise and activity associated with the operation of the premises until 9 p.m. in the evening. Comment: This issue was examined in the Report of Handling on the previous application (ref: 20/00227/PP) and it was mentioned that the Environmental Health Service had raised no objections to the particular proposal at the time. Whilst no objections were raised in relation to the impact of the proposal on residential amenity, the report acknowledged that there are domestic properties in the upper floors of the subject building and adjacent buildings and that consideration should be given to the potential impact of the proposal upon the privacy and amenity of these residences. The Supporting Statement submitted with 20/0227/PP indicated that the premises would “accommodate approximately 20 persons for small community events and for the daily use of a café. The operating hours on a regular basis would be 08:00-19:00 with the community space operating to a later time of 21:00 should a local function or event take place on a less frequent basis.” The Supporting Statement associated with the current application states that “the operational hours will be from 08.00 hours to 21.00 hours for the full premises on any given day”. As referred to in Section (F) above, the owners of Flat No. 3 have specifically expressed concern in relation to the opening hours although the owner of the other flat on the first floor and the owner of the attic flat have expressed their support for the application. Whilst taking into account the points that the objectors have made, it is not considered either necessary or reasonable to come to a different conclusion than the one reached in relation to application 20/00227/PP i.e. that there is a relatively modest number of customers involved and that 21.00 hours in the evening is not unreasonably late. On this basis, it is considered that the level of noise created by the congregation and movement of people and vehicles would not affect the privacy and amenity of adjoining residential properties to a significantly adverse degree and that a condition will be attached restricting the hours of opening of the premises to between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. iii. The overlooking of the flat's private amenity space by staff and the general public in Five West from the two full height clear glazed doors and the clear glazed kitchen window on the ground floor of the rear elevation. Comment: Based on all information to hand, the window that serves the kitchen has been in existence for many years (since at least 2002) whilst the two door- sized openings were installed at some point prior to the end of 2014. No Planning Permission was obtained for these works but, having regard to Section 124 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), it is considered highly likely that no enforcement action could be taken due to the expiry of 4 years since the substantial completion of the operations. The rear elevation of the building contains an external stair that provides access into a porch which leads to the upper floor flats; a window and two doors on the ground floor; a deck on the ground floor that is accessed from the two doors; a number of windows on the first floor; and two dormer windows in the roof slope. Page 115
Page 116
Occupying the land to the rear of the building is the following: A drying green measuring approximately 160 square metres that is between the rear of the building and the sea wall A single storey outbuilding that joins with the property to the north-east An area of hardstanding measuring approximately 22 square metres between the end of the single-storey building and the sea wall that is occupied by tables and chairs and is presumably used as an external amenity space In terms of the potential for overlooking, none of the ground floor glazed apertures have an uninterrupted view over the entire drying green given the presence of the solid external stair. In addition, the north-easternmost door faces towards one end of the single-storey outbuilding. The hardstanding on which the tables and chairs are situated is largely out of sight of all of the ground floor glazed apertures. Whilst the external decking would provide a greater potential for overlooking onto a larger part of the drying green due to its projection outwards from the rear elevation of the building up to the edge of the external stair, Planning Permission is not being sought for its use as a seating area in conjunction with the Class 3/Class 10 uses of the interior. As mentioned previously in this report, the submitted ‘As Proposed Plan’ states that the decking is to be the subject of a separate application and it contains annotation that the decking will not be used for “consumption of food or drink or congregation of people”. In view of the foregoing, whilst the comments of the objectors are noted, it is not considered that the position of the glazed apertures relative to the rear area of the building results in the privacy and amenity of residents being affected to a significantly adverse degree. It is recognised that the issue of Human Rights is a material consideration in the determination of Planning applications and enforcement issues. In carrying out a robust assessment of the development in terms of its impact upon the privacy and amenity of residential properties, it is considered that the Council is properly carrying out its obligations as Planning Authority. On the basis of the foregoing, the application is considered to accord with Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP BAD 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. E. ROAD NETWORK, PARKING AND ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT MATTERS The row of commercial properties in the village centre within which the application site is located primarily relies upon on-street parking – there is very little off-street parking available in the backlands of these properties. Supplementary Guidance policy SG TRAN 6 requires that car parking is provided in accordance with the standards set out within the Local Development Plan. Section 1.12 of the standards states the following: Page 116
Page 117
“In normal circumstances, adequate off-street parking or communal parking should be provided adjacent to all new development to ensure that vehicles are not parked on the road where they may impede traffic flow or cause a hazard. A degree of flexibility will be available where: - 1. It can be shown by the applicant that the parking requirement can be met by existing car parks and that the demand for parking in connection with the development will not coincide with the peak demand from the other land uses in the area. 2. The development is a straight replacement that can use the existing parking provision. It should be noted that there may also be a requirement to provide additional parking spaces if there was a shortfall in the original provision. 3. The development is adjacent to, and well served by, good public transport and pedestrian links. 4. The development, due to special characteristics, is likely to generate a significantly lower demand for parking than the standards would imply. 5. Environmental considerations are of prime importance e.g. the development is proposed within a Conservation Area. 6. There is a need for additional disabled parking to serve the needs of the users of the building.” The most recent uses of the premises prior to Five West opening in 2020 are outlined in Part (A) of this Appendix. Based upon this, it would appear that the last relatively active and continuous use was as a tearoom and shop in 2009. The lawfulness of the premises from a Planning perspective has not been tested in any formal manner; however, it could be reasonably argued that, if it had been proposed to re-commence exactly the same arrangement of uses from 2009, Planning Permission might not have been required given the passage of only 11 years and the lack of any substantial deterioration in the condition of the property. The significance of this in relation to assessment under SG LDP TRAN 6 is as a basis for comparing the parking demand of the lawful use with the intended use under point (2) above. The Car Parking Standards referred to in the Supplementary Guidance allocate one parking space for every 30 square metres of gross retail floor area and two parking spaces for every 22 square metres of gross tearoom floor area. Having regard to the layout of the premises shown in Building Warrant 02/01531/MTP, the tearoom took up 35 square metres and the shop (including the ancillary rear store) took up 42 square metres. Based on the standards in SG LDP TRAN 6, this would equate to four-and-a-half car parking spaces. In terms of the current development, it is considered reasonable to base the calculation of the number of car parking spaces on the primary tearoom use of the entire ground floor and this floor area (77 square metres) equates to six-and-a-half spaces. By applying the Car Parking Standards contained within the LDP Supplementary Guidance, the parking demand associated with the use identified in the current application would be two parking spaces more than with the previous use i.e. a shortfall of two spaces. It is important, however, to consider that the premises is located in a part of the village where there are relatively good public transport and pedestrian links and there is a car Page 117
Page 118
park associated with the Tighnabruaich Hotel situated approximately 30 metres to the north west. In the above circumstances, it is considered reasonable to exercise the flexibility that is allowed for and to conclude that, on balance, the application accords with Policy LDP 11 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP TRAN 6 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. F. INFRASTRUCTURE It is understood that Five West is connected into the existing private foul drainage system that serves the whole building. No information had been submitted in relation to the previous application (ref: 20/00227/PP) in 2020 to suggest that these arrangements would be an issue. Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP SERV 1 of the Local Development Plan states that connection to the public sewer as defined in the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 will be a prerequisite of Planning Permission for all development proposals in the main settlements identified in the LDP with a population equivalent of more than 2000 and wherever significant development (large scale) is proposed. It goes on to state that, in other situations, connection to the public sewer will be required unless the applicant can demonstrate that: (i) connection is not feasible, for technical or economic reasons, or (ii) the receiving waste water treatment plant is at capacity and Scottish Water at that time has no programmed investment to increase that capacity; and (iii) the proposal is not likely to result in or add to existing environmental, amenity or health problems. Planning Permission for development with private waste water systems will only be allowed where proposals satisfy (i) or (ii) above, and satisfy (iii). In this particular case, the population of Tighnabruaich is between 500 and 600 people, which falls significantly short of the figure referred to above with the consequence that connection to the public sewerage system is not a prerequisite of Planning Permission being granted. As referred to in Section (E) above, it could be reasonably argued that, if it had been proposed to re-commence the same arrangement of uses from 2009 (which included a tearoom containing toilet facilities), Planning Permission might not have been required given the passage of only 11 years and the lack of any substantial deterioration in the condition of the property. In this hypothetical situation, there would have been no involvement from the Planning Service. It is believed that there is a single foul drainage discharge serving all of the properties in the block known as Royal Buildings (Five West and three residential flats) and this is located at the bottom of the sea wall to the rear of the building and drying green. It is understood that the owner of the top flat has been seeking to coordinate a way forward with all of the building owners. Discussions have also taken place between the Planning Service and SEPA over the last thirteen months and it is understood that there might be Scottish Water infrastructure located under the foreshore to the south-east of Royal Buildings. However, further Page 118
Page 119
investigation will be required to ascertain the logistics and economics involved in connecting into this infrastructure. In drawing all of the above together, it is considered reasonable for an informative note to be attached to the Planning Permission that ensures there is an impetus in examining the connection of Royal Buildings into Scottish Water infrastructure. On the basis of the foregoing, and with the inclusion of a suitably-worded informative note, the application is considered to accord with Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP BAD 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. G. WASTE STORAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION FACILITIES Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP SERV 5(b) of the Local Development Plan states that commercial development “shall make effective provision for the storage, recycling, composting where appropriate, separation and collection of waste from within the development site or when appropriate, from an appropriate roadside or other specified collection point or points (for onward reuse and recycling)”. At the time of the submission of the application in December 2021, the waste bins associated with Five West were stored (along with the bins for the upper floor flats) at the south-western edge of the lane that provides access to the rear of the building from the main street. The agent submitted Drawing No. 574/05A Rev A on 21st April 2022, which identified the location of a possible area for the siting of waste bins in association with all properties and this was at the opposite edge of the access lane closest to the building. As mentioned in Section (F) above, Mr and Mrs Raeburn have stated that, if Five West wish to site their refuse/waste on this land, they would require to have such permission conferred by all three flats as Burdens on their Titles. The objectors confirm that they would not give any such permission or concession in their Title Burdens. As mentioned in Section (G), Part (v) above, the applicant has submitted a letter from Harper Macleod Solicitors, which refers to a review that has been carried out on Mr Turner’s title deeds and that of his neighbours in the Royal Buildings. The letter contains the opinion that all proprietors have the same right to use the access path / common passage that lies between Royal Buildings and Kyles Convenience Store at 15 Main Street. It is understood that, in recent weeks, Five West have made alternative arrangements for the storage of their waste bins, which is outwith the land associated with Royal Buildings. It has been drawn to the attention of the Planning Service that items are being stored on the deck to the rear of Five West and that some of these items may relate to commercial waste (e.g. bread crates). Whilst there is Supplementary Guidance relating to waste disposal arrangements (SG LDP SERV 5(b) referred to above), the principal regulation of this aspect of Five West rests with the Council’s Environmental Health Service and Amenity Services through a commercial contract with the premises. Based on information to hand at the time of writing, the commercial waste associated with the Five West continues to be disposed of as part of the commercial contract. The submissions of Mr and Mrs Raeburn and of Mr Turner during the processing of this application indicate that there is a difference of opinion as to the legitimacy of the storage of waste bins by Five West in the lane next to the premises. This is essentially a legal matter between the parties concerned and the principal issue for the Council is to ensure that Five West maintain contact with Amenity Services in respect of the point of uplift for their refuse. Page 119
Page 120
The storage of a relatively small number of items such as crates, boxes and containers on the deck is considered to be ‘de minimis’ in the context of the overall operation of Five West. On the basis of the foregoing, the application is considered to accord with Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP SERV 5(b) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. Page 120
Page 121
Page 121
Page 122
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 123
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling in relation to The Planning (Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2015 Reference No: 21/02738/LIB Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Argyll Community Housing Association Proposal: Demolition of five tenement blocks comprising 46 flats Site Address: Block A 19-9E John Street, Block C (1-5 Dalintober and 24-26 High Street), John Street, Prince’s Street and High Street, Campbeltown DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Listed Building Consent Substantial demolition of Dalintober Estate, a category B listed building (ii) Other specified operations n/a (B) RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the Council determine to grant listed building consent subject to the conditions and reasons attached, and accordingly notify the decision to Scottish Ministers in light of objections from a statutory consultee. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (19.08.2022): Formally object to the proposed demolition and note that in the event that the Council as planning authority is minded to grant consent, with or without conditions, then it would be required to notify the decision to Scottish Ministers. HES object to the application because the applicant has not demonstrated that there is no alternative to the full demolition of the category B listed Dalintober Housing Estate. The current proposal is considered to represent a substantial loss to Campbeltown’s heritage and all reasonable options to avoid this loss have not been fully explored. ABC Design and Conservation Officer (30.08.2022): Page 123 Agenda Item 7
Page 124
It is considered that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that building is incapable of meaningful repair or reuse for modern purposes. It is highlighted that demolishing a listed building is a last resort when every other viable option has been explored. The consideration of substantial or full demolition of a listed building is not something that the planning authority would allow in many circumstances and it is paramount in any application such as this that viable alternatives to demolition must be sought. However in this particular case it is considered that the special interest of this particular heritage asset lies in its massing as a whole group and as an example of a scheme of planned interwar housing. Consent for demolition is considered to be satisfactory in terms of the building being incapable of use for modern purposes whilst retaining its special interest. (D) HISTORY: 14/00581/LIB – Installation of replacement doors – Withdrawn 15/03083/LIB - Installation of replacement doors – Approved – 16.12.2015 15/03084/LIB – Installation of replacement door – Approved – 16.12.2015 15/03085/LIB - Installation of replacement doors – Approved – 16.12.2015 15/03086/LIB – Installation of replacement doors – Approved – 16.12.2015 15/03087/LIB - Installation of replacement doors – Approved – 16.12.2015 15/03088/LIB – Installation of replacement doors – Approved – 16.12.2015 15/03089/LIB – Installation of replacement doors – Approved – 16.12.2015 15/03110/LIB - Installation of replacement door – Approved – 22.12.2015 21/02558/PPP – Site for Housing Development – Pending consideration (E) PUBLICITY: Oban Times / Edinburgh Gazette – Listed Building – Published 04.02.2022; Expired 25.02.2022 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: One letter of support has been received from Donald Cameron MSP dated 8th July 2022. Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: Page 124
Page 125
It is stated that the properties at Dalintober were built in the 1930’s and have now reached the end of their useful purpose; It is stated that the configuration, layout and room sizes are not fit for modern living, and are also of low energy efficiency; It is stated that the demolition of the building would create a site for the development of 18 modern new build homes that would meet the needs of existing tenants and others on ACHA’s waiting list; It is stated that the work required to bring the existing buildings up to required standards would be three times greater than new build housing costs; It is stated that the current tenants as well as elected members of Argyll and Bute Council are understood to support ACHA's proposals which are considered to be a practical. Timely and cost effective solution to meet the housing needs of the local community. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A design or design/access statement: No (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Yes Supporting information provided as follows: Submitted 24.12.2021: Dalintober Design Competition Report Rev. A Oct. 2021 (ABC Doc. Ref. 22591460) Options Appraisal Report Rev. D Nov. 2019 (ABC Doc. Ref. 22591463) Listed Building Demolition Statement Dec. 2021 (ABC Doc. Ref. 22591464) Tenements at Dalintober – Conservation Architects Report and Survey Interim Report March 2021 (ABC Doc. Ref. 22591465) Submitted 11.03.2022: Feasibility study exploring flat reconfigurations and site options. (5 items ABC Doc Ref.s 22637114 – 22637118) Page 125
Page 126
Feasibility Cost Report (Rev. C – 101019) (ABC Doc. Ref. 22637387) Report exploring the option of retaining and selling the properties (Ref 280319) 5th Oct. 2018 (ABC Doc Ref. 22637111) Submitted 16th May 2022: Feasibility Cost Report Rev. B 13th May 2022 (ABC Doc. Ref. 22676634) Engineering Comment on Options (ABC Doc. Ref. 22676636) Response to HES Comments May 2022 (ABC Doc Ref. 22676639) Submitted 8th July 2022: Plan for preliminary options appraisal for retention of Block E (ABC Doc. Ref. 22718152) and Commentary (ABC Doc. Ref 22718154) Submitted 31.08.2022: Response to HES Objection Letter (ABC Doc. Ref. 22753918) (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: N/a (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 (delete as appropriate) LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of our Communities ‘Supplementary Guidance to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2015’ (Adopted March 2016 & December 2016) Historic Environment and Archaeology Page 126
Page 127
SG LDP ENV 16(b) – Demolition of Listed Buildings Sustainable Siting and Design SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles (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. (delete as appropriate) Scottish Planning Policy Consultee Responses Managing Change Guidance for Demolition of Listed Buildings (April 2019) HES Green Recovery Statement April 2022 Scottish Government’s Housing to 2040 (March 2021) Argyll and Bute Local Housing Strategy 2022-2027 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: n/a (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): N/a (M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (O) Requirement for a hearing: No (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The application seeks listed building consent for the substantial demolition of a category B listed building as a means to facilitate the redevelopment of the site by a Registered Social Landlord to provide affordable housing. Page 127
Page 128
National policy and guidance is provided respectively in Scottish Planning Policy and Historic Environment Scotland’s Managing Change Demolition publication. The latter setting out a presumption against the demolition of listed buildings except where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that either i) the building no longer merits being listed; and/or ii) that the building is incapable of meaningful repair; and/or iii) that the demolition is essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community. Policy LDP ENV 3 and SG LDP ENV 16(b) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 set out similar protection for the historic built environment. The applicant has sought to demonstrate in their submission that the building is incapable of meaningful repair or reuse in any manner that would both retain the special characteristics of the building and provide a viable modern housing development that meets the requirements of the applicant and the Campbeltown community. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) have formally objected to the application and raised concern that, in their opinion, the applicant has not exhausted consideration of all viable options for re-use/partial retention of the building, and that in the absence of the property being marketed it cannot be satisfactorily established that demolition is acceptable as a means of last resort. HES also raise concern that demolition will release embodied carbon within the existing building. The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer has however provided differing consultation advice which considers that the supporting documentation provided by the applicant is sufficient to demonstrate that the building is incapable of meaningful repair or reuse for modern purposes. The proposed demolition of the heritage asset would facilitate the redevelopment of the site for delivery of affordable housing and as such would seek to support stated aspirations of both the Scottish Government and Council in this respect. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes (R) Reasons why Listed Building Consent Should be Granted: It is considered that, notwithstanding the concerns raised by Historic Environment Scotland in their objection, it is the consideration of officers that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the category B listed building is incapable of meaningful repair or reuse for modern purposes without loss of the key attributes of its distinctive massing and external architectural form that provides its special interest. Furthermore, it is recognised that the demolition of the building would facilitate the redevelopment of the site for affordable housing that would be tailored to meet the housing demand of the local community and would contribute toward local and national targets for delivery of new affordable housing. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/a Page 128
Page 129
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: Requirement under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)(Notification of Applications) Direction 2015 to notify Scottish Ministers in the event that the Council were minded to grant listed building consent contrary to the advice of Historic Environment Scotland. Author of Report: Peter Bain Date: 11.09.2022 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 13.09.2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 129
Page 130
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 21/02738/LIB 1. LIB - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 24.12.2022, supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan 20351-ECD-XX- XX-DR-A-07001 PO2 14.09.2022 Site Plan 200351-ECD-XX- XX-DR-A-05100 PO2 14.03.2022 Plans and Elevations as Existing 200351-ECD-XX- XX-DR-A-05101 PO2 14.09.2022 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. Note to Applicant: This consent will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period [See section 16 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).] 2. No Demolition Until A Contract Has Been Let For Redevelopment No demolition works shall commence until satisfactory evidence has been submitted to the Planning Authority to show that a contract has been let for the redevelopment of the whole site in accordance with proposals for which detailed planning permission/approval of matters specified in conditions has been obtained. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the locale and the built environment by preventing the premature demolition of the property concerned, and in order to underpin the justification for development of the building as being essential to delivering significant benefits to the wider community. Note to Applicant: Under the terms of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, section 7(2)(b)(c), applicants receiving consent for works of demolition to a listed building/unlisted building in a conservation area must: notify RCAHMS of their intention to carry out the work; thereafter allow RCAHMS reasonable access to record the building for at least 3 months following the granting of consent and the giving of notice to the Commission, during which time demolition may not be undertaken unless RCAHMS has indicated in writing that its record has been completed or that they do not wish to record it. The RCAHMS contact details are as follows: The Royal Commission on Ancient Historical Monuments (RCAHMS), Threatened Buildings Survey, John Sinclair House, Page 130
Page 131
16 Bernard Terrace, Edinburgh, EH8 9NX. Tel. 0131 651 6773 3. Demolition Method Statement No demolition works shall commence until a Demolition Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Demolition Method Statement shall address the developer’s intentions in respect of: Demolition Methodology - Type and sequence of demolition and site establishment; Disposal of Waste Materials – details of the intended means of disposing of all materials arising from the demolition including any special arrangements required for the potential removal and disposal of hazardous materials; Notification of demolition to adjacent property owners and local residents; Dust & Noise Reduction Strategy - steps to be taken to minimise the risk and nuisance to adjoining land, building or road users; Proximity to Buildings, Other Structures, Roads and Accesses – measures to protect structural integrity, to ensure exposed gables remain weather tight and protection of means of access; Traffic Management – to protect safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Demolition Method Statement, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of public safety and in order to protect the amenity of the locale and the built environment. Note to Applicant: In devising the Demolition Method Statement consultation should take place with the Council’s Building Standards Officers, Environmental Health Officers and the Roads Authority to ensure compliance with other statutory requirements. 4. Reclamation of Materials No demolition works shall commence until a schedule of items to be reclaimed from the site during or prior to demolition has been drawn up in consultation with, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. These materials and items shall be satisfactorily set aside, stored and/or used in a manner which shall first be agreed with by the Planning Authority, prior to any demolition taking place. Reason: In order to protect and save materials and items which can reasonably be retrieved, in the interests of the historical and architectural qualities of the building to be demolished. Note to Applicant: Consultation with the Council’s Design & Conservation Officer should be undertaken in identifying items to be reclaimed. Page 131
Page 132
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 21/02738/LIB LAND USE PLANNING AND POLICY ASSESSMENT A. Policy Context: This application seeks listed building consent for the demolition of a group of category B listed buildings collectively referred to as Dalintober Housing Estate and comprising 46 flats (Block A 19-9E John Street), Block B, (21-33 John Street), Block C (1-5 Dalintober), and Block E (17-21 Dalintober and 24-26 High Street). Policy Background: Scottish Planning Policy 2020 sets under s137 that the planning system should: Promote the care and protection of the designated and non-designated historic environment (including individual assets, related settings and the wider cultural landscape) and its contribution to sense of plane, cultural identity, social well- being, economic growth, civic participation and life-long learning; and Enable positive change in the historic environment which is informed by a clear understanding of the importance of the heritage assets affected and ensure their future use. Change should be sensitively managed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the fabric and setting of the asset, and ensure that its special characteristics are protected, conserved or enhanced. S141 expands on this and advises that: Change to a listed building should be managed to protect its special interest while enabling it to remain in active use. Where planning permission and listed building consent are sought for development to, or affecting a listed building, special regard must be given to the importance of preserving and enhancing the building, its setting and any features of special architectural or historic interest. The layout, design, materials, scale, siting and use of any development which will affect a listed building or its setting should be appropriate to the character and appearance of the building and setting. Listed buildings should be protected from demolition or other work that would adversely affect its setting. Historic Environment Scotland’s ‘Managing Change Guidance for Demolition’ (April 2019) is a national statement setting out guidance which includes a number of tests to be applied when considering demolition. In particular it is highlighted that demolition should only be considered if it can be demonstrated that: The building is no longer of special architectural or historic interest; or It is incapable of meaningful repair; or Demolition is essential to delivering significant economic or wider community benefits. If none of the above apply then demolition should only be considered if it can be demonstrated that retention is not economically viable. This should include open and Page 132
Page 133
transparent marketing of the building to demonstrate that every effort has been made to secure a buyer who would retain the building. HES have also highlighted their Green Recovery Statement April 2022 as a material consideration in the determination of this application. The statement seeks to set out that “the historic environment can make a vital contribution to Scotland’s green recovery from the pandemic and its transition to net zero and a climate resistant society”. The objection from HES highlights “that the reuse and adaption of Scotland’s existing historic buildings is integral to a net zero transition”, and identifies that “the demolition of buildings releases the embodied carbon within them. A well maintained and retrofitted traditional building will emit less carbon by 2050 than if it was demolished and replaced by a new building. Retrofit uses less material (mitigating resource scarcity and damaging extraction) and generates less waste in comparison to demolition”. Policy LDP 3 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 sets out a presumption against development that does not protect, conserve or where possible enhance the established character of the built environment in terms of its location, scale, form and design, and/or where development will have adverse effects on the integrity or special quality of nationally designated built environment sites. Supplementary Guidance to the LDP provides more specific detail on the approach to demolition of listed buildings. SG LDP ENV 16(b) sets out that proposals for total or substantial demolition of a listed building will only be supported where it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of keeping it. This will be demonstrated by evidence that the building: 1. Has been marketed at a reasonable price for a period reflecting its location, condition, redevelopment costs, and possible viable uses without finding a purchaser; and 2. Is beyond economic repair and incapable of re-use for modern purposes through submission and verification of a thorough structural condition report prepared by a conservation accredited professional and a detailed verifiable breakdown of costs in line with guidance provided in the Managing Change Guidance Note on Demolition. SG LDP ENV 16(b) also identifies that in exceptional circumstances retention of a building may prevent wider public benefits that may derive from the redevelopment of that site. Justification for demolition in the interest of wider public benefit may be considered in those instances. This justification would only be considered if the proposed redevelopment was of regional or national significance and that clear evidence shows that every effort was made to incorporate the listed building into the new development. In circumstances where demolition is to be approved SG LDP ENV 16(b) sets out that the planning authority must also approve detailed proposals for the restoration and reuse of the site, including any replacement building or other structures, and may require that a contract be let for redevelopment in advance of demolition in appropriate cases. Appropriate provision is also required by conditions in relation to recording of buildings prior to demolition, confirming the methods of demolition to be employed, and conservation/retention of architectural or other features/materials. Page 133
Page 134
B. Location, Nature and Special Interest of the Buildings This application seeks listed building consent for the demolition of a group of category B listed buildings collectively referred to as Dalintober Housing Estate and comprising 46 flats (Block A 19-9E John Street), Block B, (21-33 John Street), Block C (1-5 Dalintober), Block E (17-21 Dalintober and 24-26 High Street), and Block F (20-22 High Street). The application site is a residential development located within the settlement of Campbeltown occupying a substantial site located between High Street, Prince’s Street and John Street/Kinloch Park. The 2 and 3 storey Scots Baronial style development at Dalintober is considered by Historic Environment Scotland to be a distinctive example of planned, interwar council housing estate that was built in 1939. The buildings are a product of the 1930’s Housing Acts which placed an emphasis on the provision of generous space standards, larger family homes and higher densities. The form and massing of the buildings is expressed by symmetrically composed blocks with steep pitched roofs, crow stepped gables ad curved bow windows. This bold form makes a strong streetscape contribution to High Street, Prince’s Street and John Street. The statutory listing item LB43081 covers seven distinct tenement blocks that are covered under a single listing. The current application seeks to demolish the five tenement blocks within the ownership of the applicant, Argyll Community Housing Association. For the avoidance of doubt the tenement block on the opposite side of Prince’s Street (comprising 3 Queen Street, 18-20 Prince’s Street, and 28-30 High Street), and also Block F (20-22 High Street) are not included within the current application for demolition. The application therefore relates to a substantial as opposed to complete demolition of a group of buildings covered by a single listing. It is further noted for clarity that Block F was originally identified in the original submission but subsequently excluded following submission of updated plans on 14th March 2022. The statutory listing published by Historic Environment Scotland sets out the following description and statement of special interest: 19-33 (ODD NOS) JOHN STREET, 1-21 (ODD NOS) PRINCE’S STREET, 18 AND 20 (EVEN NOS) PRINCE’S STREET, 3 QUEEN STREET AND 20-30 (EVEN NOS) HIGH STREET DALINTOBER, WITH BOUNDARY WALLS AND GATEPIERS LB43081 Summary Category B Date Added: 28/03/1996 Supplementary Information Updated: 23/04/2018 Local Authority: Argyll And Bute Planning Authority: Argyll And Bute Burgh: Campbeltown NGR NR 72017 20891 Coordinates 172017, 620891 Description Henry Edward Clifford, 1939. Planned development of 3-storey Scots Baronial tenements, with elevations composed symmetrically to streets. Stugged squared and Page 134
Page 135
snecked sandstone battered base course to cill height, harled walls above, some elevations with strip of pebble-dash block-finish to ground floor windows and to dormers. Moulded eaves course to principal elevations, square profile to sides and rear. Margins and projecting concrete cills to windows. 19 JOHN STREET: 3-storey, 6-bay symmetrical south elevation, 3-storey bows flanking centre 2 bays, 3-light at ground and 1st floor, tripartite windows at 2nd floor, bipartite windows at bays to outer left and right. 21-33 JOHN STREET: 14-bay south elevation comprising 2-storey and attic 6-bay centre block with flanking single storey and attic 4-bay wings. Two windows at ground floor and tripartite windows at 1st floor of bays flanking centre. Gabled dormers breaking eaves at 2nd floor. Advanced and gabled bays flanking, two windows closely spaced at ground floor, tripartite windows at 1st floor and bipartite windows at 2nd floor. 4-bay wings flanking comprising advanced and gabled outer bays with tripartite windows at ground and 1st floors, 3-bay links with gabled dormers breaking eaves at centre bay and flanking catslide dormers. 1-5 PRINCE’S STREET: tenement on corner site comprising 2-storey and attic corner block with 4-bay elevations to John Street and Prince’s Street, symmetrical to corner, and 2-storey 4-bay asymmetrical wing extending to north along Prince’s Street. Gabled corner bay with two windows at ground floor, bipartite windows at 1st and 2nd floor, 2nd floor window corniced with panelled apron, datestone in gablehead. 2-bay flanking elevations with gabled dormers breaking eaves at 2nd floor, gabled wings flanking with bipartite windows at ground floor, and tripartite windows at 1st and 2nd floors. 3-bay wing projecting to right of Prince’s Street elevation, gabled wing at outer right with tripartite window at ground floor, bipartite window at 2nd floor. 7-15 PRINCE’S STREET: 14-bay east elevation comprising 6-bay 3-storey centre block (matching 19 John Street), flanking 2-storey 4-bay wings, gabled bays at outer left and right with tripartite windows at ground floor and bipartite windows at 2nd floor. 17-21 PRINCE’S STREET AND 24 AND 26 HIGH STREET: mirror image of 1-5 Prince’s Street, except for additional wing to High Street matching that on Prince’s Street. 3 QUEEN STREET, 18 AND 20 PRINCE’S STREET AND 28 AND 30 HIGH STREET: mirror image of 17 - 21 Prince’s Street. 20 and 22 HIGH STREET: 2-storey, 3-bay north elevation. Advanced and crowstepped gable to left with a tripartite window at ground and 1st floor. Dormer windows breaking eaves, central dormer with gablehead. REAR ELEVATIONS: harled elevations over brick base course, regularly fenestrated with openings of various sizes. Modern tilting plate glass timber windows, some original timber doors surviving, 3-panel flush-beaded entrance doors with 9-pane uppers, and vertically-boarded timber doors to stores. Grey slate piended roof with cast-iron gutters and downpipes, pedimented dormerheads with thistle finials. Harled stacks with deep battered copes and tall black battered circular cans. Harled crowsteps at gables and blind concrete margined slit windows in gableheads. BOUNDARY WALLS AND GATEPIERS: random rubble battered dwarf walls fronting street elevations, rubble saddleback cope with raised copestones giving crenellated effect. Tapered drum gatepiers, coped with domed caps. Page 135
Page 136
Statement of Special Interest The Dictionary of Scottish Architects notes that Clifford died in 1932, so it has been assumed that the buildings were executed posthumously. Minor updates to listed building record in 2018. C. Is the Building No Longer of Special Interest? Managing Change guidance identifies that “in some circumstances a listed building may no longer be of special architectural or historic interest. This might include when there has been a significant loss of fabric or features of interest, or where there have been later alterations that have affected the character of the building”. It is observed that whilst the building has been the subject of repair and minor alteration to its fabric over time, most recently through replacement of doors and windows, the key architectural features and form, it’s scale, massing and contribution to townscape remain intact. The supporting information provided by the applicant includes information that casts doubt on the Special Interest attribution historical interest of the building design to Henry Clifford and indicates that the building design appears more likely to be the work of less celebrated architects James Thomson & Sons. HES have acknowledged that the attribution to Clifford was based on information held at the time of listing and that their records will be updated to reflect the applicant’s research. They have however also stated that the new attribution does not in their view undermine the purpose of the listing as it is the distinctive massing and external architectural form that creates the buildings significant character and special interest. Whilst the applicant has sought to contend that the Special Interest of the building is diminished by the lack of certainty over its attribution to Clifford, officers consider that the relatively intact and little altered state of the buildings would suggest that it continues to merit its listed status. D. Is the Building Incapable of Viable Repair? Managing Change guidance identifies that “in some instances the repair and reuse of a building is not economically viable. This means that the cost of retaining the listed building would be higher than its end value. Where the cost of works is higher than the end value, the difference is referred to as the ‘conservation deficit’”. “The principle of demolition should only be accepted where it has been demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to retain the listed building. The efforts should take into consideration the special interest of the building”. The guidance also identifies that “this includes undertaking proactive marketing measures”. The requirement to consider whether the building is beyond economic repair and incapable of modern use, and marketing of the buildings is also required by the provisions of policy LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 16(b) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. The applicant has through their supporting submissions sought to demonstrate that they have engaged with HES and Argyll and Bute Council since October 2018 as part of their approach to exploring alternatives to demolition. During this time period ACHA Page 136
Page 137
has employed a range of professionals including conservation architects, market and property specialists, architects and structural engineers to review the options and prepare feasibility studies on the viability of retaining the buildings. This included the submission of the ‘Dalintober Estate Options Appraisal’ report (Nov. 2019) which considered the following options: A – Refurbishment of the Buildings B – Partial Demolition and Façade Retention C – Mothballing of the Site D – Sale of ACHA’s interest in the Site E – Demolition of the Buildings to Facilitate Redevelopment The options appraisal concluded that option E was the only viable option for ACHA in terms of meeting housing needs of its tenants. Following review of the initial submission concern was raised by HES that the applicant had not satisfactorily considered all potential options for viability. In response a further options appraisal was submitted in May 2022 that included: 1. Retention and conversion of Block E to terraced houses; 2. Façade retention for Block E to build terraced houses behind, and 3. Façade retention for Block E to build terraced houses (alternative proposal). The May 2022 options appraisal concluded that from both a design and cost perspective these proposals were not a viable option for ACHA. The achievable layouts would have some difficulty in complying with Building Standards Regulations, would provide limited private gardens, and were not suitable ‘family’ properties, and would compromise the applicant’s vision to deliver a net zero homes for life’ development. Condition of the Building: The options appraisal identified that the external fabric of the building was consistent with a typical building of its age (80+ years) which had not benefitted from any major investment. Externally the building is finished in roughcast which is past its expected design life of 40-60 years and showing signs of deterioration through cracks and areas of bossed render. The roof covering of slate is original; a traditional slate roof would be expected to have a design life of around 120 years, however the report did flag up concerns relating to the lead flashings which are showing signs of failure and evidenced by water penetration at the chimneys and roof valleys. It is noted that a building within the listing but outwith ACHAs ownership has required a replacement roof and extensive chimney downtakings to combat issues of water ingress. Windows and doors have recently been replaced and in reasonable condition. External areas consist primarily of grass and tarmac which are also maintained in a reasonable condition. Refurbishment of the Buildings: (2019 Options Appraisal Report) Option A identified that issues relating to dampness would require to be addressed through replacement roof coverings, flashings and roughcast. Internal works would be required to 12 flats to provide adequate sized modern bathrooms requiring structural alteration and replacement of kitchen and bathroom fittings. Ground floor flats would also require alteration to door frames and provision of access ramps to address accessibility requirements. Door entry systems would require to be installed in common closes and likely to require external additions to accommodate appropriate door widths. The removal of existing internal cavity Page 137
Page 138
insulation and installation of external wall insulation, upgrading of windows, boilers/heating and installation of solar panels were all recommended to meet current energy efficiency standards. Reconfiguration of the building (inclusive of Block F which has subsequently been removed) would reduce the number of existing units from 46 to 28, and would comprise of 8 four-bed houses, 10 maisonettes, 4 three-bed flats, and 6 two bed-flats. It was identified that the proposed housing mix and lack of private garden space did not meet the needs of applicants currently on ACHA’s waiting list and as such could not justify the estimated outlay of £2.4m to undertake refurbishment works. Refurbishment also considered an alternative proposal to convert 6 flats within Block E into a new area office for ACHA. A number of floor layouts were considered and rejected on the basis that they did not meet ACHA’s requirements for open plan office space and it was considered that refurbishment would cost more than a new build office of the same size. (Feasibility Cost Report May 2022) Option 1 considered the option to retain Block E for conversion through internal alteration and refurbishment to create 2 and 3 storey terraced housing. Whilst this option would have the significant benefit of retaining the external appearance of a significant corner block the design of housing provided would be compromised through use of internal wall insulation, technical issues with entrances and stair cases, lack of garden space for the corner unit, and an additional cost of £120k per unit over and above ACHA’s typical new build costs which would leave a shortfall in funding of £972k for the conversion works. This option was not considered to be viable by ACHA. Partial Demolition and Façade Retention: (2019 Options Appraisal Report) Option B looked at the partial clearance of the site and redevelopment to provide houses tailored to the housing demand and current standards. The 2019 report looked at the demolition of Blocks D, E (&F which has subsequently been removed from the application) and façade retention of Blocks A, B and C to create 10 four bedroom houses with facades retained on the frontage onto John Street/Kinloch Park. This option was not considered in detail as the demand for four-bed houses is low and unlikely to be cost effective. (Feasibility Cost Report May 2022) Options 2 and 3 looked at different options for façade retention of Block E and provision of new development behind. Whilst these options would have had the significant benefit of preserving the streetscape and massing of the High Street/Prince’s Street corner neither was identified to be capable of delivering new housing that met the requirements of ACHA’s current waiting list, or which was considered to be cost effective. Option 2 looked at the provision of 7 new build houses behind the retained corner façade, however it was not possible to deliver a design that met ACHA’s requirements on housing mix or accessibility, and it was also identified that compromises in design to accommodate the retained façade would give rise to issues on daylight afforded during winter months and inclusion of roof terraces that were no family friendly features. This option was costed at £230k above ACHA’s typical new build cost per unit with a projected funding shortfall of £1.6m. Option 3 looked at a new build housing mix better attuned to demand as identified in the Housing Need and Demand Assessment. The design was again however compromised by the requirement to work around the retained façade and was considered unlikely to comply with Building Regulations and Housing Standards. The additional cost per unit over normal ACHA build costs was identified as £244k per unit with an overall funding shortfall of £1.7m. Page 138
Page 139
Mothballing of the Site: (2019 Options Appraisal Report) Option C identifies that mothballing would involve the relocation of existing tenants and then only providing basic maintenance of the properties. Public consultation by ACHA identified strong opposition to this option with concerns raised about the security of empty properties, and the appearance of boarded up windows being a blight on the locality. Whilst this option would avoid demolition of the building and would solve immediate issues it would only offset the requirement to provide a long term solution and would only be desirable if it were desirable to pursue on of the alternative options and it was reasonably expected that a future change in circumstances would be likely to improve the prospects for that being deliverable. Sale of the Site: (2019 Options Appraisal Report) Option D of the report notes that ACHA have already extensively marketed the properties for rent with little success. The appraisal considers both sale of the whole estate and piecemeal disposal. The appraisal notes that any prospective purchaser would be likely to face similar issues to ACHA in relation to the requirement for significant investment to bring the properties up to liveable standard but no guarantee that demand in the local market would support the investment. Further supporting information submitted in July 2022 advises that sale of the site was also identified to be impeded and the applicant has advised that the Scottish Housing Regulator expressly forbids Registered Social Landlords from offering a tenanted property for sale. A tenant ballot would require to be undertaken to allow any transfer (sale) of a tenanted property and this could only be to another Registered Social Landlord. The three other Registered Social Landlords in Argyll and Bute have declined any interest in the Dalintober Estate. The applicant has also appointed DVS Property Specialists to review market conditions and economic viability. Their report identified that there is a lack of demand for flats in the locality which would likely require lengthy marketing periods to achieve sales observing that many other flats in Campbeltown remain unsold despite extensive marketing periods and indicates a likely lack of interest from private investors in a property of this type. The report also identifies that the properties within the Dalintober Estate are not perceived to be desirable within the wider community. Summary: The applicant has set out the position that they believe that the alternatives to substantial demolition have been fully explored and are comprehensively presented in the supporting reports. HES acknowledge in their consultation response that “the current layout of the buildings, and their energy efficiency, does not meet the needs of the applicant or the wider community”. They also note their understanding “that constraints on funding streams available to the applicant to repurpose the buildings limits the applicant’s viable options”, and acknowledge that “additional work has been undertaken by the applicant to consider a range of adaption/façade retention options”. HES have however also stated that they do not consider “that all options short of complete demolition of the estate have been adequately explored”. The response identifies that further options including the reconfiguration of internal layouts and rear elevations, the introduction of private front and rear entry doors, improvements to close entrances, enhancement of the buildings thermal performance, action to address Page 139
Page 140
dampness, and conversion of flats to terraced houses could all be included in the potential options. HES have also identified that they “are open to options that include retention of a key block, or number of blocks, that best express Dalintober’s form, massing and architectural style while demolishing other buildings to provide scope for new development. The retained block/s could then be repurposed either by the applicant or marketed with an agreed design brief”. HES also note the applicant’s stated position on the marketing of the property but comment that they consider “it should be possible to market the properties if the remaining tenants have been rehoused or to market part of the estate that is untenanted”. HES also state that “undertaking a targeted marketing exercise with an agreed design brief setting out the scope for intervention and potential for partial, selective demolition would establish if there were buyers who could retain the listed buildings” noting that this could include commercial uses as part of a mixed use development. The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer has commented that ACHA’s claim that they would be unable to sell the building to any other party than anther RSL does not appear to be wholly correct as guidance on the Scottish Housing Regulator website relating to the disposal of land by an RSL includes discussion on disposal to a person or body other than an RSL although it is acknowledged that such matters are subject to regulation that seeks to protect the rights of existing tenants and requires their consultation in such matters. The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer further comments that they do consider that the applicant has undertaken appropriate analysis as to whether the building is capable of meaningful repair as per the requirements of national HES Managing Change guidance on demolition. It is observed that the local provisions of LDP ENV 3 and SG LDP ENV 16(b) of the LDP do not unfortunately dovetail with the HES guidance but is nonetheless a material consideration that must also be considered. The LDP policy asks whether the building is beyond economic repair and incapable of reuse for modern purposes thereby amalgamating the two points which HES consider separately. The latter part of the LDP clause alludes to meaningful repair, and as per the HEs guidance, does not then lead to a requirement for marketing of the building where it is established that the building is incapable of meaningful repair. The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer further advises that this is a unique case and as such would not set a precedent for demolition without marketing. E. Is the Building Incapable of Meaningful Repair? Managing Change guidance identifies that “most traditionally-built buildings, even those in an advanced state of decay, can be repaired. There are occasions when repairing and reusing a listed building would lead to extensive loss or replacement of fabric, which would have a consequent effect on its special interest. If repairing a building cannot preserve its special interest, it is not capable of meaningful repair”. It is further clarified that “this issue separate to that of economic viability of any repairs”. HES have identified in their consultation response that it is the “distinctive massing and external architectural form that creates the buildings’ significant character and special interest”. The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer has commented that, in their view, the applicant has demonstrated that the 1930’s layouts cannot be retained in a manner that meets current requirements for energy efficiency and modern living space, no matter the level of retention of the exterior. It is further observed that, whilst the crow- stepped gables and curved bow windows add interest, that these do not amount to such significant interest without the overall massing of the buildings to make façade Page 140
Page 141
retention of one or more block sufficient to retain the current special interest of the overall Dalintober Estate. It is on this basis that officers consider that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the building is incapable of meaningful repair or re-use for modern purposes. F. Is the Demolition of the Building Essential to Delivering Significant Benefits to Economic Growth of the Wider Community? Managing Change guidance identifies that “some projects may be of such economic or public significance that their benefits may be seen to outweigh the strong presumption in favour of retaining a listed building.” It is further discussed that “if the proposals involve a new development on the site, planning permission for the replacement development should be demonstrated as being in line with local and national policy. Unless this can be done, there is no certainty that planning permission will be achievable. This would make it impossible to ensure that the benefits were going to happen, and the demolition would therefore not be justified”. SG LDP ENV 16(b) similarly offers qualified support for demolition that would facilitate a redevelopment of a site demonstrated to be merited for wider public benefit of regional or national significance where it has been demonstrated that the listed building cannot be meaningfully incorporated into the new development, or that every effort to place the new development in an alternative location was made. The applicant has confirmed that they currently have no alternative sites within Campbeltown on which they are able to deliver a housing scheme of the scale required. The applicant has also advanced the argument that the listed building cannot viably be incorporated into a re-development of the site for social housing in a manner which would both satisfactorily address the local requirements for housing or other regulatory requirements, and result in any meaningful retention of the building which enhances or preserves the qualities which are attributed to its special interest. The importance and requirement to deliver affordable housing is a national objective and underlined by the Scottish Government’s vision statement ‘Housing to 2040’ which seeks to deliver 100,000 affordable homes by 2032 as part of a 20 year vision for housing. This includes an aspiration for all new homes delivered by RSLs to be zero emissions by 2026, and supporting housing development in rural and island areas helping to prevent depopulation and enabling communities to thrive. The Council’s Local Housing Strategy 2022-2027 identifies that 11% of housing stock in Kintyre is ineffective and that further development would support regeneration and positive economic growth. It identifies that “the focus in Kintyre remains on repairing, maintaining and managing existing stock but that there is scope for some judicious new build developments in line with repopulation and growth agendas for the area. Tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency remains priorities.” Whilst the applicant has stated their intent to redevelop the site to provide affordable housing that meets local demand and it is the consideration of officers that the applicant’s intent to redevelop the site can be aligned with matters that are arguably of regional and national interest in relation to meeting targets for delivery of affordable housing. Demolition and Redevelopment: (2019 Options Appraisal Report) Option E only puts forward a summary case for demolition, clearance of the site and its redevelopment with housing tailored to meet Page 141
Page 142
housing demand. The original submission is however also accompanied by a supporting information that sets out detail of a design competition run with the RIAS to identify an architect to take forward a zero-carbon design approach to redevelopment of the site, and the public consultation undertaken as part of this process. The report identifies that 12 entries were received that were initially scored by ACHA and the RIAS with an 80% Quality Score and a 20% Price Score; four finalists proceeded to an interview stage with the judging panel which also included community representation and a public consultation. The applicant has not however as yet produced a detailed design solution for the redevelopment of the site although an application for planning permission in principle (ref. 21/02558/PPP) has been submitted for consideration of the Council. The Design Statement for that application identifies that a pre-demolition audit would be undertaken with the aim of re-using as many of the existing building components as possible in order to both lower loss of embodied carbon through demolition but also to save elements of the building design and reuse these within the redevelopment. Whilst the project architects have initiated discussions with officers to further explore their ideas for a design solution these remain at concept stage and have not been submitted for consideration at this time. It has also been communicated that the applicant requires to obtain certainty on their ability to demolish the existing buildings before they are able to commit to the significant investment required to flesh out a detailed design for the redevelopment of the site and as such is unable to do this until both listed building consent for demolition and planning permission in principle for the redevelopment of the site have been attained. The applicant has also identified that maintaining the status quo is also not a viable solution as the vacant properties within the Dalintober Estate cost approx.. £200k to retain the properties when void rent loss is considered. This presents a ‘Catch-22’ position as both the Managing Change guidance and SG LDP ENV 16(b) of the LDP set out an expectation that the applicant can demonstrate their ability to deliver a high quality redevelopment of the site and the benefits that this will entail as part of the justification for the demolition of a listed building. In this instance it is however recognised that the applicant has engaged with both the Council and HES over a period of four years with a view to addressing a longstanding issue of vacant property within the Dalintober Estate and use of the site to address current demand in the locality for affordable housing. Whilst it would not be appropriate for the Council to seek to determine the related application for planning permission in principle ahead of the issue on demolition being definitively resolved it is however possible to identify that, aside from historic environment constraints, no other fundamental barrier to the redevelopment of the site for housing development has been identified to date and as such the key issue in this respect, would be to identify the extent to which the principle of demolition can be accepted and how this should influence the definition of conditions setting out the parameters for the siting, design, and finishes for the redevelopment, and extent to which this should incorporate elements of the existing buildings/materials/architectural detailing. The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer has noted that in seeking detailed planning approval, the applicant will require to demonstrate a detailed site and contextual analysis considering the historical assets within the setting of this site, as well as giving consideration to the existing building and how any elements should be replicated or acknowledged in some regard. HES’s guidance on New Design in Historic Settings provides relevant guidance and notes that “a modern building which disregards its setting is very likely to be regarded as unsuccessful both now and in the future” and that “new design should consider and respond to those layers of history – the narrative of the place. Analysis of historical maps along with archive material and published sources are very useful analytical tools to understand the historical development of a place”. In the context of the Dalintober Estate it is highlighted that Page 142
Page 143
Block E forms a strong corner element that is currently mirrored to the east by a block that will not be demolished; the treatment of this corner is critical to retain a sensitive relationship to the remaining streetscape. Additionally as the crow-stepped gables and curved windows form part of the special architectural interest then consideration could be given to incorporation of similar detailing in the new scheme. This is again a relatively unique position where there is general support in principle within the LDP for the use of the site for affordable housing as per the intent of the applicant but where the actual design solution and the extent to which this might reutilise elements of the existing building or reflect its scale/massing/architectural features remains unspecified. In the absence of a detailed design solution for the site it is considered that it would be appropriate to underpin any acceptance of the principle of demolition to ensure that no demolition works can commence until such time as detailed planning permission for the redevelopment of the site for affordable housing is in place, and that a contract has been let for the implementation of the approved redevelopment scheme. It is considered that the use of appropriately worded suspensive conditions would ensure compliance with Managing Change and SG LDP ENV 16(b) in this particular respect. G. Carbon / Net Zero HES have expressed concern in their consultation response that the demolition of the building would give rise to the release of embodied carbon and generation of waste, and highlights that an appropriate scheme for the re-use and adaption of historic buildings might be expected to emit less carbon by 2050 when compared to demolition and replacement by a new building. The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer in their response notes the importance of embodied energy being given due consideration in any application but advises that in the case the applicant has demonstrated that the only feasible option in terms of providing accommodation that potentially meets RSL needs would be façade retention, which would account for a small portion of the overall embodied energy within the scheme. Page 143
Page 144
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 145
Page 145
Page 146
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 147
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) Section 36 consultation regarding the proposed Narachan wind farm on land east of Tayinloan, Argyll & Bute Reference No: 22/00385/S36/ECU00003230 Applicant: The Scottish Government on behalf of EnergieKontor UK Ltd Proposal: Electricity Act Section 36 consultation relevant to Rowan Wind Farm Site Address: Land Approximately 4.5km North West of Tarbert, Argyll & Bute (A) Section 36 application made up of the following elements: Construction, 35 year operation and subsequent decommissioning, of up to 13 wind turbines with a tip height of up to 200m (approximately 85.8MW) Associated turbine compound areas including foundations and hardstanding areas for erecting cranes at each turbine location On-site tracks connecting each turbine A new graded access junction with the B8024 New pedestrian, cyclist and recreational use of the wind farms tracks following commissioning of the wind farm, and associated facilities including 10-vehicle informal car park, interpretive boards, benches and bins Ten new watercourse crossings On-site 132kv substation to provide ‘tee-in’ to the Inveraray to Crossaig overhead line Underground cables linking the turbines to the substation, typically along internal tracks An Energy Storage Compound to store batteries to a 5MW capacity which would be within the construction compound footprint Up to two borrow pits for the extraction of stone on-site A temporary construction compound including provision for onsite concrete batching Forestry felling and restocking Habitat Management provisions The proposed development will use the Inveraray to Crossaig Overhead Line to connect to the grid, which passes to the eastern edge of the application site. This connection is subject to a separate application as details would be agreed following consent of the main wind farm. _________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council as Planning Authority objects to this proposal for the reasons detailed below, and that the Scottish Government be notified accordingly. Members should note that an objection from the Council will instigate the requirement for a Public Local Inquiry to be held. ___________________________________________________________________ Page 147 Agenda Item 8
Page 148
(C) CONSULTATIONS: ENERGY CONSENT UNIT RESPONSES: NatureScot (17th June 2022) – advised the ECU that the Proposal does not raise issues of National Interest, however NatureScot summarise the key considerations to be: Landscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects and night time effects; Construction effects on the Glen Ralloch to Baravalla Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) / Tarbert Woods SAC (Special Area of Conservation); and Operational effects on Schedule 1 birds, predominately ospreys and red-throated divers. NatureScot also provide advice on landscape, ecology and ornithology. NatureScot response to the Applicant’s Technical Note (Gavia Environmental) regarding curtailment of Turbine 4 (27th July 2022) – have advised the ECU that they have considered the Technical Note on the proposed curtailment of Turbine 4 (T4) in order to minimise collision risk for ospreys and red-throated divers. NatureScot welcome the Applicant’s commitment to curtail the operation of T4 so that it only operates between sunset and sunrise, thereby avoiding the more sensitive daylight hours when these species are likely to be feeding and commuting between hill lochs and West Loch Tarbert. NatureScot also advise that they would be happy to discuss possible monitoring of the effects of curtailment as part of any post consent discussions. Transport Scotland (TS) (14th April 2022) – have advised the ECU that they have no objection. TS request that conditions are attached in the event that the proposal receives consent relating to: Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Phased Delivery Plan; Road Condition Review/Assessment; Abnormal Indivisible Loads Management Plan; vehicles transporting construction material are sheeted; vehicle wheel cleaning facilities; abnormal load delivery trial-run; approval of the proposed route for abnormal loads and any accommodation measures; details of any additional signing or temporary traffic control measures deemed necessary (by Quality Assured traffic management consultant); and a Decommissioning Plan. Scottish Forestry (SF) (31st March 2022) – advised the ECU that they had insufficient information to recommend that the proposal meets the requirements of UKFS. Additional information is required to allow Scottish Forestry to confirm that the proposal for restocking meets UKFS. Planning conditions to secure Compensatory Planting and a Long Term Forest Plan in the event the proposal receives consent are also recommended. Scottish Forestry (SF) consultation response to Applicant’s clarification (29th June 2022) – advised the ECU that they are content that the proposal meets the UKFS species diversity requirements and confirm that they have no outstanding issues with the proposal. Planning conditions to secure Compensatory Planting and a Long Term Forest Plan in the event the proposal receives consent are also recommended. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (9th March 2022) – have advised the ECU that they have reviewed the information supplied with the application, including the EIAR, and have found it to be insufficient to allow them to determine the potential impacts. SEPA therefore submit a holding objection and request that determination be deferred until further information is provided regarding private water supplies (PWS). SEPA will review this position if these issues are adequately addressed. SEPA also request that if the ECU are minded to grant consent that conditions are attached relating to: micrositing; an updated Peat Management Plan; and water crossings. Page 148
Page 149
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (4th May 2022) – have advised the ECU that having considered the Rowan Wind Farm – Review of Private Water Supplies (dated 15 April 2022) prepared by Ramand Environmental they remove their holding objection regarding private water supplies. SEPA continue to request that if the ECU are minded to grant consent that conditions are attached relating to: micrositing; an updated Peat Management Plan; and water crossings. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (30th March 2022) – have advised the ECU that they have no objection to this proposal. Ironside Farrar (Environmental Consultants on behalf of Scottish Government ECU to audit Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA)) (26th April 2022) – advised the ECU that the PLHRA requires minor revisions: although much of the PLHRA is sound, one or two key elements are considered to be insufficiently robust to support the PLHRA conclusions and minor revisions are required; areas for attention will be advised in the review findings and may be progressed by the developer through either an appendix to the original submission or by clarification letter. BT (1st March 2022) – have advised the ECU that they have no objection to the proposal. Defence Infrastructure Organisation/ Ministry of Defence (MOD) (2nd March 2022) – advised the ECU that they have no objection subject to conditions to secure: aviation lighting and aviation charting & safety management. Joint Radio Company Limited (16th May 2022) – advised the ECU they have no objection to the proposal, subject to 30m micrositing. Fisheries Management Scotland (FMS) (28th February 2022) – advised the ECU that their remit is confined to alerting the relevant local DSFB/Trust to any proposal. The proposal falls within the catchment relating to the Argyll DSFB and the Argyll Fisheries Trust. The proposals should be conducted in full consultation with the local DSFB & Trust. Due to the potential for such developments to impact on migratory fish species and the fisheries they support, FMS have developed, in conjunction with Marine Scotland Science, advice on terrestrial wind farms for DSFBs and Trusts in dealing with planning applications which should be fully considered. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (7th March 2022) – advised the ECU that they have no objection subject to conditions to ensure: comprehensive pre and post development monitoring (electrofishing surveys of juvenile fish populations) is undertaken to ensure Argyll DSFB that all habitat and fish populations are unaffected by the development; as part of any development, all conifer trees are to be removed from riverbanks and measures taken to regenerate native broadleaf trees; and all stream crossings are conducive to the upstream and downstream movement of all fish. RSPB Scotland (29th April 2022) - has advised the ECU that it does not object to this proposal but provides advice, in relation to biodiversity and habitat management to minimise and ensure any impacts are fully mitigated and that biodiversity benefits are achieved. RSPB ask that conditions to secure: a Bird Protection Plan; Habitat Management Plan; an appropriately qualified and experienced Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW); and, an appropriate programme of post-construction monitoring are attached to any consent. Page 149
Page 150
Scottish Water (25th February 2022) – advised the ECU that they do not object and advise that this does not confirm the proposal can be serviced. Advice is provided on: drinking water protected areas and surface water. Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) (5th April 2022) – advise the ECU that the development raises aviation safety concerns which have an operational impact on the Airport as an air navigation services provider. Until all technical and operational aviation safety matters are addressed to the satisfaction of the Airport, and a mitigation agreement is put in place for the life of the windfarm, the Airport must object to this proposed development Glasgow Prestwick Airport – further comments in response to Applicant’s 12th May email (9th September 2022) – advise the ECU that they continue to object to this proposal. They continue to have concern in regard to: airspace, airport surveillance coverage and air traffic service; air space and air traffic control; in the absence of appropriate mitigation the turbines visible to the airport’s primary surveillance will generate clutter and render the airspace above the wind farm unusable to Air Traffic Control; further wind farms without appropriate mitigation will exacerbate this; and the turbines are capable of impacting VHF reception from ATV to aircraft, the airport requires to be satisfied that the proposal will not have an adverse impact upon VHF communication infrastructure (further analysis required). GPA is optimistic that appropriate mitigation of these effects will be possible and that an agreement can be reached with the Applicant in respect of mitigation measures, which would allow GPA to withdraw its objection. Glasgow Airport (23rd February 2022) - Have advised the ECU that the proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. They, therefore, have no objection to this proposal. Edinburgh Airport (28th February 2022) – have advised the ECU that the location of this development falls out with the Aerodrome Safeguarding zone for Edinburgh Airport they have no objection/comment. National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) (18th February 2022) – have advised the ECU that the proposed development has been examined by their technical safeguarding teams and conflicts with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) plc objects to the proposal. The reasons for NAT’s objection is that a technical impact is anticipated, which has been deemed to be unacceptable. Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL) (22nd March 2022) - advise the ECU that at the given position, this development is in the vicinity of the Instrument Flight Procedures of both Islay and Campbeltown Airports. However, their calculations show that there is no impact to the safeguarding criteria for Islay and Campbeltown Airports. If the proposed layout of the wind farm does not significantly change and the maximum height, 200m, of the proposed wind turbines does not increase; Highlands and Islands Airports Limited has no objections to this proposal. However, if the layout changes significantly and the turbine height increases then Highlands and Islands Ltd would object until it is determined that there is no impact to the IFPs of Islay and Campbeltown Airport. Civil Aviation Authority (17th February 2022) – advised the ECU that the proposed development has 13 turbines, with turbine heights at 200m ground to tip. This brings them into scope of the Air Navigation Order Article 222 requirements for obstacle Page 150
Page 151
lighting at night. Based on the information, the CAA is satisfied with the proposed lighting scheme, Crown Estate Scotland (12th May 2022) – have advised the ECU that the assets of Crown Estate Scotland are not affected by this proposal and they have no comments to make. North Ayrshire Council (23rd May 22) – have advised the ECU that in this instance, they leave the comments relating to impacts on North Arran NSA and the Wild Land Area to NatureScot. West Kintyre Community Council (WKCC) (10th May 2022) – have submitted an objection to the ECU on the grounds of: Landscape and Visual Impact; and Tourism Impact. Tarbert & Skipness Community Council (TSCC) (30th May 2022) – have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds that the proposal will have an adverse landscape and visual impact and adverse tourism impact. South Knapdale Community Council (SKCC) (21st June 2022) – have advised the ECU that whilst SKCC shall not be making formal comment, SKCC remains neutral on this matter. East Kintyre Community Council (28th February 2022) – have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the following grounds: a) Visual Amenity due to cumulative harmful visual impacts contrary to Argyll & Bute Council’s LDP 6 and Proposed Local Development Plan 2 Diagram 7. b) Community Development Amenity due to the wholesale harmful impacts to a designated Tourism development area ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL RESPONSES ABC Landscape Consultant Review (April 2022) – it is recommended that this proposal should be objected to on landscape and visual grounds principally because of its prominent location in relation to West Loch Tarbert and its sensitive coastal fringes, including impacts on views from key transport routes which are important for visitors. ABC Landscape Consultant response to Applicant’s rebuttal (June 22) – concludes that it is acknowledged that all wind farms will have significant adverse landscape and visual impacts but what is important to consider is the nature and degree of severity of these effects in making recommendations to the Council. The LV Review provides an impartial analysis of likely significant adverse landscape and visual effects but also the mitigating features of the proposal are clearly noted, for example the limited visibility of turbines in views from the east across Loch Fyne. It is not appropriate for the Applicant to determine the acceptability of the proposal in landscape and visual terms as this can only be determined by the decision maker (the Council in this instance) upon receipt of the full range of information which needs to be considered in the planning judgement. ABC Area Roads (21st March 2022) – no objection subject to conditions to secure: a Traffic Management Plan; a detailed Method Statement; new passing places; carriageway widening; carriageway widening to be soiled and seeded; report identifying vulnerable areas of road to traffic loading (including assessment of culverts or other structures and proposed mitigation); and a detailed roads condition survey; Page 151
Page 152
weekly road inspections. Furthermore, the Applicant should be made aware that there will be no financial contributions from Argyll & Bute Council towards the work required to facilitate the works or to make good any damage directly attributable to the construction of the wind farm. The Applicant should be made aware that they will be responsible for making good any damage to the public roads which is directly attributable to the construction of the wind farm. Transport Scotland should be notified as there may be work to be carried out within the road corridor of the A83 Tarbet – Campbeltown Trunk Road. Conditions. A section 96 Legal Agreement will be required. The Roads Engineer has also highlighted the following notes for intimation to the Applicant: in terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 a Road Opening Permit (S56) will be required, and no surface water is allowed to discharge onto the public road. ABC Environmental Health (13th March 2020) – no objection subject to conditions relating to: noise during proposed works; site noise plans; noise immissions; report demonstrating compliance with noise limits; complaints & independent noise monitoring; provision of independent consultants assessment; logging of wind speed, wind direction and power generation data; nominated representative/point of contact for local residents for noise complaints; and provision of a private water supply action plan. ABC Flood Risk Assessor (23rd May 2022) - No objection subject to conditions to ensure that: watercourse crossings not to reduce the capacity of the channel and ideally be designed to convey the 1:200 year plus climate change flow; and Surface water drainage should be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensure that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. ABC Local Biodiversity Officer (22nd March 2022) - no objection, advice provided in relation to biodiversity interest, surveys, mitigation, construction environment management and overseeing, habitat management and restoration protocols. The Local Biodiversity Officer recommends monitoring of the condition of the structures (culverts/bridge), that silt catchment measures are effective and that a log of any incidents of contamination are kept. The Local Biodiversity Officer requests that: an ornithological watching brief is kept and any collisions are recorded and submitted to NatureScot, the planning authority and the RSPB; and the applicant drafts an eradication plans for the following species: Japanese knotweed rhododendron; montbretia; and butterfly bush and submits it to the planning authority as this supports biodiversity enhancements. The West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) (6th April 2022) – No objection subject to condition to secure the approval of a written scheme of archaeological investigation, to be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Please note: the above are summaries and the full consultee responses can be viewed on the Energy Consent Unit and Argyll & Bute Council websites. ___________________________________________________________________ (C) REPRESENTATIONS: As the Council is not the determining Authority all letters of representation are considered by the Energy Consents Unit. At time of writing, public representation figures stand at 10 of which 3 are objections and 7 are in support, all of which are published on the ECU website. The main issues raised are summarised below: Page 152
Page 153
Material Considerations raised in the objections are summarised as follows: Adverse Landscape Impact – It is the landscape of Kintyre and Knapdale which represents the area's future economic wellbeing. Wind farms, new power lines and the miles of tracks they seem to need are destroying the landscape and the special feel of remoteness of the area. They contribute almost nothing to anyone locally but do enrich landowners who almost all live elsewhere. Visitors to the area cannot understand the lack of value accorded the special quality of the area. When it is gone perhaps some of those involved in its destruction may come to appreciate what they have done? Adverse Visual Impact – view north along West Loch Tarbert from Gartnagrenach (special often photographed and commented on by visitors and enjoyed by locals). This proposal would be visible from very many places especially in Kintyre and especially from Gartnagrenach. Adverse Impact on Tourism & Recreation and associated economic impact - this application would be directly in front of Tarbert Holiday Park which extends to 50 acres. It is also close to West loch Shores and Escart Farm and Bay (200 acres approx). We are the biggest accommodation provider in Kintyre and the landscape is what attracts people to this particular area close to Tarbert. There seems to be a lot of further Wind farms proposed but I feel this one is one too many and too close to us. It will also significantly financially affect the future income of the businesses. Adverse Noise Impact on Mullach Glas (already experiencing adverse noise impact from SSEN development) Adverse Impact of Access Road/public footpath on the property Mullach Glas Adverse Cumulative Impact of SSENs 50m pylons and proposed wind farm on Mullach Glas Lack of public consultation/notification with/for neighbouring properties (including Mullach Glas) Loss of privacy for Mullach Glas – construction of new access road, wind farm construction following on from SSEN pylons. Planning permission already granted to Rowan wind farm for temporary mast with no neighbour notification, despite site area bordering Mullach Glas Should be a matter for Public Inquiry before any consent is awarded. Adverse Impact on Visual/residential Amenity of Mullach Glas Intermittent technology - The amounts of intermittent power that would be produced is small compared with the output of a new nuclear power station at Hunterston. It would be able to produce power 24 hours a day, seven days a week not now and then. Considerations raised in support are summarised as follows: Page 153
Page 154
Climate Emergency & Climate Change benefits (including need for renewable energy) The Government have publicised a substantial further need for new wind farms in the right places by 2030. Whilst there are other wind farm schemes in Argyll & Bute, the Applicant has demonstrated that another wind farm can be accommodated in this location It does not detract from the wider scenic nature of the area; it is a key part of our future that brings benefits to the immediate community as well as 85MW of clean energy to be used across Scotland. An opportunity for local contractors - the opportunity to tender for work in construction which supports local economies. Whilst perhaps not every wind farm is well placed, it is our view that this wind farm brings more benefits than harm to our local area. Expansion of Renewable Energy required to meet Net Zero targets The following matter raised in representations is not a material planning consideration: Community Benefit Public Consultation – Whilst not a statutory requirement for Section 36 applications, the applicant has undertaken Public Consultation. Further information on this is contained in the Pre-Application Consultation Report (January 2022) which is available on the ECU website (reference: ECU00003230). Note: the comments raised above are addressed in the assessment of the proposal at Appendix A of this report. Note: please note that the letters of representation above have been summarised and that the full letters of representations are available on the Energy Consents Units website. ___________________________________________________________________ (E) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR): Yes EIAR (December 2021) presented in 4 volumes: Volume 1: Written Statement Volume 2: Figures Volume 3: Visualisations Volume 4: Technical Appendices Page 154
Page 155
Key matters covered in the EIAR include: Introduction; EIA Methodology; Project Description; Design Evolution; Renewable Energy & Planning Policy; Landscape & Visual; Socio-economics & Tourism; Ecology; Ornithology; Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Geology and Peat; Cultural Heritage; Noise; Traffic and Transport; Forestry; Other Issues; and Schedule of Mitigation. The EIA Report should also be read in context with the following documents: EIA Non-Technical Summary (NTS) Planning Statement Pre-Application Consultation Report (PAC Report) Design and Access Statement (DAS) which illustrates the approach to design and access. ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: Yes – as NatureScot has advised that this Proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the western acidic oak woodland feature of the Tarbert Woods SAC. This will be undertaken by the ECU as the Determining Authority in this case. iii) A design or design/access statement: Yes (January 22) iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc.: All relevant reports are encompassed within the EIAR (F) Local Development Plan (LDP) and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application: Members are asked to note in the context of the Local Development Plan (LDP) and planning process that this application has been submitted to the Scottish Government under Section 36 (S36) of the Electricity Act 1989. As part of the S36 application process, the applicant is also seeking that the Scottish Ministers issue a Direction under Section 57 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that deemed planning permission be granted for the proposal. In such instances, the LDP is not the starting point for consideration of S36 applications, as Sections 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which establish the primacy of LDP policy in decision-making, are not engaged in the deemed consent process associated with Electricity Act applications. Nonetheless, the adopted Argyll & Bute LDP 2015 still remains an important material consideration informing the Council’s response to the proposal. Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act does require both the applicant and the decision-maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the prospective developer shall have regard to: (a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and Page 155
Page 156
(b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects. Similarly, it obliges the Scottish Ministers in their capacity as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at a) and the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty at b). Consideration of the proposal against both the effect of SPP (2014) and the adopted Argyll & Bute LDP 2015 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent which the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties. (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan (2015) LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables 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 & Bute Local Development Plan 2015 & 2016 SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity) 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 5 – Development Impact on Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) SG LDP ENV 6 – Development Impact on Trees / Woodland SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment SG LDP ENV 9 – Development Impact on Areas of Wild Land SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources SG LDP ENV 12 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs) SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape SG LDP ENV 15 –Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Development Impact on Listed Buildings SG LDP ENV 19 – Development Impact on Scheduled Monuments SG LDP ENV 20 – Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance SG LDP MIN 2 – Mineral Extraction SG LDP PG 1 – Planning Gain SG LDP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development SG LDP Sustainable - Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP SERV 1 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater (i.e. drainage) Systems SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / Sustainable Systems (SUDS) SG LDP SERV 3 – Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) Page 156
Page 157
SG LDP SERV 5 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage and Collection Facilities within New Development SG LDP SERV 6 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation SG LDP SERV 7 – Flooding and Land Erosion – The Risk Framework for Development SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors SG LDP TRAN 2 - Development and Public Transport Accessibility SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 6 –Vehicle Parking Provision SG LDP TRAN 7 –Safeguarding of Airports SG LDP REC/COM 1 - Safeguarding and Promotion of Sport, Leisure, Recreation, Open Space and Key Rural Services Supplementary Guidance 2 (December 2016) Supplementary Guidance 2 - Windfarm map 1 Supplementary Guidance 2 - Windfarm map 2 Note: The above supplementary guidance has been approved by the Scottish Government. It therefore constitutes adopted policy and the Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk (ii) List of other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A. National Planning Policy Framework 3 (NPF3) (June 2014) National Planning Policy Framework 4 (NPF4) (November 2021) Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (June 2014) Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2017) Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 The Future of Energy in Scotland: Scottish Energy Strategy, Scottish Government (December 2017) Onshore wind policy statement, Scottish Government (January 2017) Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) (April 2019) The Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) SNH Review 78 – Landscape Assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde (1996) SNH Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance, (August 2017) Argyll & Bute Proposed Local Development Plan 2 November 2019 Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, (2013); Onshore Wind Turbines: Planning Advice, Scottish Government (May 2014). Planning Advice Note 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’ Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership and Community Benefit of Onshore Renewable Energy Developments; Views of statutory and other consultees; Planning history of the site Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters Argyll & 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 Page 157
Page 158
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 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 19 – Schedule Monuments 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 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Policy 76 – Development Impact on Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) ___________________________________________________________________ (G) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (H) Is the proposal consistent with the Local Development Plan: No ___________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 13th September 2022 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 13th September 2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 158
Page 159
RECOMMENDED REASONS FOR OBJECTION TO: 22/00385/S36 1. Landscape & Visual Impact (including cumulative) Argyll & Bute Council will assess development proposals with the aim of protecting conserving and where possible enhancing the built, human and natural environment. A development proposal will not be supported when it does not protect, conserve or where possible enhance the established character and local distinctiveness of the landscape in terms of its location, scale, form and design. Argyll & Bute Council will resist renewable energy developments where these are not consistent with the principles of sustainable development and it has not been adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, whether individual or cumulative. The proposed development site lies within the Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic Landscape Character Type (LCT) which covers much of the Knapdale area between West Loch Tarbert and the southern edge of the Knapdale National Scenic Area. This landscape has a simpler landform in the south-west but is complex and craggy in the north-east. The operational Allt Dearg and Srondoire wind farms occupy a prominent location in the LCT. The consented Airigh wind farm, while comprising larger turbines, is associated with the more subdued terrain occurring in the south-west of this LCT. This proposal, which comprises very large turbines of up to 200m, would be sited in a basin which reduces its prominence and intrusion seen from Loch Fyne and from the settled eastern coastal fringes of this loch. The containment provided by landform is diminished in views from the south around West Loch Tarbert however where turbines would be visible in closer proximity and where their scale would be more appreciated due to greater visual exposure and because they would be seen in close conjunction with the smaller scale settled loch fringes. Visibility from the northern shores of West Loch Tarbert will be minimal and while this proposal would be visible from parts of Gigha, the Ardpatrick Point area and from the west Kintyre coast, it would not have a significant effect due to the greater distances involved and also because of the presence of the consented Airigh wind farm which is more prominent in some of these views. The greatest degree of visibility (and intrusion) would occur from the waters of West Loch Tarbert, from its south-eastern coastal fringes and from parts of the northern Kintyre uplands. Significant adverse effects would occur on the following landscape/seascape character areas: The Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT extending approximately 2km from the proposed wind farm site The Rocky Mosaic LCT where it covers the south-eastern shores of West Loch Tarbert The West Loch Tarbert Local Coastal Character Area. The significant adverse visual effects associated with the proposal would principally affect views in the West Loch Tarbert area as follows: The A83 where it is aligned on the south-eastern coastal fringe of West Loch Tarbert. This road is an important tourist route forming part of National Cycle Network 78 and the Kintyre 66. The Kennacraig to Islay ferry route within inner West Loch Tarbert Footpaths in the Dun Skeig area and from a section of the Kintyre Way. Page 159
Page 160
In the above views, this proposal would be seen simultaneously or sequentially with the operational Freasdail and consented Airigh wind farms. This proposal would be one of the first wind farm proposal to introduce lighting to the dark skies of Kintyre. While the intensity of lights will reduce when seen from lower elevation coastal fringes, it is considered that they would still be clearly visible from these more settled and frequented areas and that they may extend the duration of significant adverse effects on views from the West Loch Tarbert area. The potential cumulative effects of visible aviation lighting on character and views are a concern given the number of recent applications for turbines >150m in Argyll & Bute requiring such lighting although it should be noted that the recent Earraghail wind farm application is committed to the adoption of an Aircraft Detection Lighting Strategy (ADLS) which would substantially reduce the duration of night-time lighting. Cumulative landscape and visual effects with the application-stage Sheirdrim wind farm are a key concern. If the Sheirdrim proposal is consented on appeal it is considered that the addition of the Rowan proposal would result in a major adverse combined cumulative effect on the West Loch Tarbert area significantly affecting its character and views from the A83, settlement, footpaths and the Islay ferry. It is therefore concluded that this proposal is unacceptable in landscape and visual grounds principally because of its prominent location in relation to West Loch Tarbert and its sensitive coastal fringes, including impacts on views from key transport routes which are important for visitors. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will have significant adverse landscape and visual impacts (including cumulative) and is therefore inconsistent with the provisions of: SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape; SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design; of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; SPP (2014); the Onshore wind policy statement, (2017); and guidance contained in the Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2017. 2. Aviation Argyll & Bute Council will assess development proposals with the aim of preventing unnecessary dangers aircraft. Policy requires that development is refused where it would constrain the present and future operations of existing airports and airfields. National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) have advised that an unacceptable technical impact is anticipated and they object. Glasgow Prestwick Airport advise that the development raises aviation safety concerns which have an operational impact on the airport as an air navigation services provider. Until all technical and operational aviation safety matters are addressed to the satisfaction of Glasgow Prestwick Airport, and a mitigation agreement is put in place for the life of the wind farm, the airport also objects to the proposal. Local Development Plan Policy is clear that developments that have an adverse impact on the Safeguarding of Airports should be refused. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that due to the fact that National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport have advised the Energy Consents Unit that they object to the proposal, it will have an adverse impact on aviation and is therefore inconsistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and SG LDP TRAN 7 Page 160
Page 161
–Safeguarding of Airports of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect. Argyll & Bute Council therefore object to the proposal due to the adverse impact it would have on Aviation. The Energy Consents Unit should please note that in the event that National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport withdraw their objections, then Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. Should these objections not be removed and the proposal progresses to an Inquiry, Argyll & Bute Council would defer to National Air Traffic Services and Glasgow Prestwick Airport as the Technical Experts on this matter. Page 161
Page 162
APPENDIX A – PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT A. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME In Scotland, any application to construct or operate an onshore power generating station, in this case, a renewable energy development with an installed capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any ministerial authorisation given would include a ‘deemed planning permission’ and in these circumstances there is then no requirement for a planning application to be made to the Council as Planning Authority. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee along with various other consultation bodies. It is open to the Council to either support or object to the proposal, and to recommend conditions it would wish to see imposed in the event that authorisation is given by the Scottish Government. In the event of an objection being raised by the Council, the Scottish Ministers are obliged to convene a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they are minded to approve the proposal. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Such an Inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter(s) appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. In the event that consent is given, either where there has been no objection from the Council, or where objections have been overruled following PLI, the Council as Planning Authority would become responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, and for the ongoing monitoring and enforcement of such conditions. This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and 3rd party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government following publicity of the application by them. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Scottish Government on behalf of the Council before a final decision is taken on the matter. The conclusion of this report is to recommend that the Council raise an Objection to this Section 36 consultation on Landscape & Visual Grounds for the reasons detailed in this report. B. SETTLEMENT STRATEGY Policy LDP 6 of the Adopted Local Development Plan sets out the Council’s Policy for renewable energy developments, in accordance with SPP 2014. In addition, there is also the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). SPG 2 contains a Spatial Framework which has been prepared in accordance with SPP 2014. In terms of the Local Development Plan Settlement Strategy, the main wind farm site area is located within a primarily a combination of: Countryside Zone and Very Sensitive Area; with some small areas adjacent to the B8024 located within Rural Opportunity Area all subject to the provisions of LDP policy LDP DM 1. In principle, policy LDP DM 1 supports renewable energy and ancillary developments in these areas, providing they are consistent with all other Local Development Plan Policies. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that the scale and location of the proposal, will integrate sympathetically without giving rise to adverse consequences in terms of: landscape & visual impact (including cumulative). For the reasons detailed below in this report, it is considered that this proposal does not satisfy Development Plan Policy and associated guidance in respect of renewable energy development. Having due regard to the above it is considered that due to adverse Landscape & Visual Impact (including cumulative) the proposal is contrary to the provisions of LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones; SPP (2014); and National Planning Framework 3. Page 162
Page 163
C. SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF RENEWABLES Argyll & Bute Council is keen to ensure that Argyll & Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, reinforced by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects. D. LOCATION, NATURE AND DESIGN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Site - is located approximately 4.5km to the north west of Tarbert. Tarbert lies approximately 1.2km east of the site boundary and 4.5km south-east from the nearest proposed turbine. The site is situated within a combination of existing commercial plantation forestry and open moorland. The forested part of the site predominately hosts dense sitka spruce, mixed broadleaves along watercourses and other mixed conifers, whilst the open moorland to the west of the site comprises interspersed pockets of peaty soils and shallow peat habitat rising up to several modest rocky summits. Loch Chaorainn is situated outside of the site boundary at its northern edge and is a reservoir source for Tarbert’s drinking water. It links to Abhainn na Cuile which runs generally north to south through the site, eventually meeting West Loch Tarbert approximately 900m south of the site boundary. Part of Abhainn na Cuile is excluded from the site boundary owing to an existing run of river hydro power scheme. Loch Chaorainn Beag is situated to the south-west of the site. The site is located approximately 600m north-west of the A83, and site access is proposed to be taken from the corner of the B8024. The A83 is the main arterial route that serves the Kintyre Peninsula and links Campbeltown to the western shore of Loch Lomond where it joins the A82 south to Glasgow and north to Inverness. There are several ferry services which operate close to Tarbert. The Tarbert to Portavadie ferry is a small vehicle and passenger ferry which operates approximately hourly on a ‘turn up and go’ basis and links Kintyre to the Cowal peninsula. Approximately 7.2km south of the nearest turbine (T13), ferries operate two or three times daily from Kennacraig to both Port Askaig and Port Ellen in the north and south of Islay. Further south, Gigha is serviced multiple times per day by ferry from Tayinloan. Loch Fyne is situated approximately 4.2km to the east of the nearest turbine (T4), whilst West Loch Tarbert is situated approximately 2.8km south of its nearest turbine (T13). Both Lochs have part of their shorelines designated as Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs). Loch Fyne and to a lesser degree West Loch Tarbert are used by recreational water users, in particular those pleasure craft using Portavadie Hotel, Marina and Spa across Loch Fyne at approximately 10.5km to the nearest turbine (T4). South Knapdale adjoins the Kintyre Peninsula close to the site. The B8024 serves as the main route to small settlements on the south Knapdale coast including Torinturk, Dunmore, Kilberry, Cretshengan and Ormsary. Kilberry, on the western coast of South Knapdale, is approximately 12km west of the nearest turbine (T11) whilst Torinturk on the southern coast is approximately 5km south of T12. Proposal – The proposed development would be time-limited to 35 years from the first date of commercial operation. The construction phase would last approximately eighteen months and decommissioning would last approximately six months. Deemed planning permission is sought to permit a period of five years between the date of the Decision Notice and expiry of consent (should works not be commenced) rather than the usual three years. This is to accommodate any potential grid delays. The proposal would consist of the following principal components: 13 wind turbines up to 200m to blade tip (some with aviation lighting); associated Page 163
Page 164
turbine compound areas including foundations and hardstanding areas for erecting cranes at each turbine location; on-site tracks connecting each turbine; a new graded access junction with the B8024; new pedestrian, cyclist and recreational use of the wind farms tracks following commissioning of the wind farm, and associated facilities including 10-vehicle informal car park, interpretive boards, benches and bins; 10 new watercourse crossings; on-site 132kv substation to provide ‘tee-in’ to the Inveraray to Crossaig overhead line; underground cables linking the turbines to the substation, typically along internal tracks; an Energy Storage Compound to store batteries to a 5MW capacity which would be within the construction compound footprint; up to 2 borrow pits for the extraction of stone on-site (indicated on EIA Figure 3.1) (the Council would normally expect these to be the subject of separate mineral consent applications);; a temporary construction compound including provision for onsite concrete batching; Forestry felling and restocking as proposed within EIA Report Chapter 14: Forestry; Habitat Management provisions as proposed within Technical Appendix 8.5 within Volume 3 of the EIA Report. Turbines would be of tubular steel construction, finished in a typical off-white matt colour and comprise three blades. The final turbine choice would be made post-consent during the procurement phase, but for the purposes of the EIA Report, a representative candidate turbine of 200m tip, 155m rotor diameter and 122.5m hub height is used. In order to carry the power generated to the local electricity network, each turbine would require a transformer to step up to a high voltage. Transformers will be internal to the turbine. Infrastructure Water and Foul Drainage – Scottish Water has advised the ECU that they have no objection; however, they advise that this does not confirm that the proposal can be serviced. Drinking Water Protected Areas – Scottish Water has advised the ECU that a review of their records indicates that the proposed activity falls within a drinking water catchment where a Scottish Water abstraction is located. Scottish Water abstractions are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPA) under Article 7 of the Water Framework Directive. Loch Chaorainn supplies Tarbert Argyll Water Treatment Works (WTW) and it is essential that water quality and water quantity in the area are protected. It is a relatively small catchment therefore there may be less opportunity for dilution and a potential higher risk of activities affecting water quality. Travel times of any pollution event will be short and water quality protection measures must be implemented and Scottish Water must be made aware of what these measures will be and when work will commence on site. There are at least 3 turbines that are close to the source, it would be useful to have the turbine numbers and eastings and northings of each of them so that Scottish Water can plot them on their mapping system and confirm which turbines are the highest risk to water quality. Scottish Water has provided advice/list of precautions to the ECU to pass on to the Applicant in this regard. Infrastructure within the boundary – Scottish Water has advised the ECU that a review of their records indicates that there are Scottish Water assets in the area. There are water mains and other possible infrastructure and pipework where the activity is taking place and also in close proximity to some of the turbines. This should be confirmed however through obtaining plans from Scottish Waters Asset Plan Providers. All Scottish Water assets potentially affected by the activity should be identified, with particular consideration being given to access roads and pipe crossings. All of Scottish Water’s processes, standards and policies in relation to dealing with asset conflicts must be complied with. Works should not take place on site without prior written acceptance by Scottish Water. Surface Water - Scottish Water has advised the ECU that for reasons of sustainability and to protect their customers from potential future sewer flooding, they will not accept any surface water connections into their combined sewer system. Page 164
Page 165
Grid Network - The grid connection does not form part of the section 36 consent application. Final details of the grid connection would be subject to a separate design and consent process at a later date. Figure 3.2: Typical Turbine Elevations shows a hub height of 200m and a rotor diameter of 155m, this would give an overall height of 277.5m. E. SPATIAL FRAMEWORK FOR WIND FARMS SPP requires that planning authorities set out in the development plan a spatial framework identifying those areas that are likely to be most appropriate for onshore wind farms. In terms of the Council’s Spatial Framework for wind farms (Supplementary Guidance 2: Wind Farm Map 1 - Figure 1 Spatial Framework for wind turbines over 50 metres to blade tip), the proposal lies predominately within a Group 3 area (area with potential for wind farm development subject to other policy consideration), with its western edge being in a Group 2 area (Area of significant protection) owing to its classification as an area of Class 2 Carbon Rich Soil and Peat. In Group 2: Areas of significant protection – wind farms may be appropriate in some circumstances. Further consideration will be required to demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation. Group 3: Areas are likely to be acceptable, subject to detailed consideration against identified policy criteria. F. NET ECONOMIC IMPACT, INCLUDING LOCAL AND COMMUNITY SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS SUCH AS EMPLOYMENT, ASSOCIATED BUSINESS AND SUPPLY CHAIN OPPORTUNITIES Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewables and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities. Large scale infrastructure projects, such as wind farms have the potential to impact upon local and national economies. The EIA has considered the likely effects of the proposal on the economies of Argyll & Bute and Scotland including specific consideration of the effects on employment and population. It has also considered the effects on tourism and recreation activities which are a key part of the Argyll & Bute economy (covered under the tourism heading of this report). In addition, the effects of the proposal on energy security and fuel poverty have been assessed. The assessment has found that, for Argyll & Bute, the proposal would lead to beneficial effects on the wider economy and specifically through job creation during the construction process, and predicts that construction of the proposal would result in effects on both job creation and the economy in Argyll & Bute that are of a moderate level and would not be significant. Some significant effects are predicted on tourism and recreation activities during the construction process. These would be limited to one accommodation (Lochhead Cottage) and localised areas where impacts would be experienced by walkers and equestrians on the B8024 and cyclists on Sustrans Route 78. All relate to the construction of the site entrance and access. Effects on all other tourist and recreation receptors during construction would not be significant. There would be no effects on either the energy security of the local or wider communities or on levels of fuel poverty during the construction phase. There would be no significant effects on population as a result of the construction of the proposed wind farm. During operation there would be low levels of employment relating to operation and maintenance of the wind farm. As a result, effects on job creation and the wider economy Page 165
Page 166
would be of a low level and would not be significant. There would be no effects on energy security and fuel poverty during the operation and there would be negligible effects on population. The EIAR advises that Community Benefit Funds would be made available for the local community. Community Benefit is not however, considered to be a ‘material planning consideration’ in the determination of planning applications. In the event that permission were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit, either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process. Representations have been received by the ECU in support of the proposal in this regard as an opportunity for local contractors – the opportunity to tender for work in construction which supports local economies. Having due regard to the above the proposals net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities has been assessed and it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Supplementary Guidance 2 (December 2016); LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SPP (June 2014) and the Onshore wind Policy Statement (January 2017) in this regard. G. THE SCALE OF CONTRIBUTION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TARGETS Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets. The Scottish Government is committed to increasing the supply of renewable energy within Scotland. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 sets stringent targets for Scotland. The Act sets a legally-binding “net-zero” target of all greenhouse gases by 2045. The “net-zero” target for Scotland is five years ahead of the date set for the whole of the UK. The proposal would provide approximately 85.8 MW of installed capacity in addition to 5MW of battery storage capacity, depending on the turbine model chosen. It is estimated by the Applicant that this installed capacity could generate approximately 300,502MWh of renewable electricity each year which would be expected to power the equivalent of approximately 80,500 homes on average each year1, or provide 1.6 million full battery charges for electric vehicles per year. Representations have been received by the ECU in support of the proposal in this regard including: Climate Emergency & Climate Change benefits (including need for renewable energy); expansion of Renewable Energy required to meet Net Zero targets; The Government have publicised a substantial further need for new wind farms in the right places by 2030; and it does not detract from the wider scenic nature of the area; it is a key part of our future that brings benefits to the immediate community as well as 85MW of clean energy to be used across Scotland. Having due regard to the above the proposals scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets has been assessed and it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SG 2; Supplementary LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Page 166
Page 167
Environment; LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SPP (2014); and the Onshore wind Policy Statement (2017) in this regard. H. EFFECT ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against their effect on greenhouse gas emissions. In respect of SG policy, the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 raises the ambition of the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act sets a legally- binding “net-zero” target of all greenhouse gases by 2045. The proposal would generate renewable electricity and would therefore displace carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with electricity generation, which would otherwise be supplied via other forms of power generation requiring the combustion of fossil fuels. The Scottish Government Carbon Calculator for Wind Farm on Peatlands has been used to calculate a payback period for the proposal based on the full development lifecycle. A carbon assessment was included in the EIAR to estimate the potential savings in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by the proposal replacing other electricity sources. This would be a large contribution to renewable energy generation targets. The carbon calculator is reported upon within Chapter 15 of the EIAR. It concludes that the carbon payback time is 3.4 years for the scheme, and 50,698 tonnes of carbon would be saved. Having due regard to the above the proposals effect on greenhouse gas emissions has been assessed and it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SPP (2014); and the Onshore wind Policy Statement (January 2017) in this regard. I. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY, NOISE AND SHADOW FLICKER (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS). Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has noted the following from the “Rowan Wind Farm, Environmental Impact Assessment Report, Volume 1, Chapter 16: Schedule of Mitigation, December 22, page 7”: Construction times - Construction activities will be scheduled, unless otherwise agreed, from Monday to Friday 07:00 to 19:00 and Saturday 07:00 to 13:00. Unattended plant equipment should be kept to a minimum. Construction activities outside of these times, short term high transient noise events, or activities relatively close to noise sensitive receptors (NSRs) should be scheduled in consultation with the residents to minimise their inconvenience. As part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) a Construction Noise Management Plan (CEMP) would be produced. The plan would be taken forward for all Construction works and any post- construction works of a similar nature that are associated with the proposal (e.g. maintenance). The plan would include a clear construction schedule detailing the equipment to be used and the following information: Detailed plan showing how permitted working hours will be adhered to; Selection of quiet equipment and possibly acoustic barriers near noisy sources to ensure construction noise limits are met; and A detailed plan on community Page 167
Page 168
relations including a Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) including the setting up of a complaint phone line, a procedure to notify residents and the EHO of any necessary work outside of the permitted working hours and an approach to the investigation of complaints. Conditions are recommended by the EHO in respect to noise and private water supplies. Noise Assessment – the EHO notes that final turbine selection would be made following the grant of any planning consent, following a tendering and procurement exercise. It is has been assumed that turbines would generate power for all wind speeds between 4m/s and 25m/s; and that at wind speeds greater than 25m/s (gale force) the turbines would shut down for self- protection. Operational Noise effects have been assessed using the methodology described in ETSU-R-97 and the proposal in isolation would comply with the simplified criterion of 35 dB, LA90, 10min described in ETSU-R-97 and cumulative effects would not significantly exceed full ETSU limits based on background noise. In both scenarios, the proposal will comply with the required noise limits at all receptor locations. Noise - The EHO has no objection to the proposal, subject to noise conditions being attached to any consent the ECU is minded to give. These conditions relate to: noise during proposed works; site noise plans (Construction Noise Management Plan); noise immissions; noise immissions; report demonstrating compliance with noise limits; complaints & independent noise monitoring; provision of independent consultants assessment; logging of wind speed, wind direction and power generation data; and a nominated representative/point of contact for local residents for noise complaints. Note: there are two typos in the EHO response: reference is made to a blade tip height of 230m this should be 200m and condition 2 of the recommended conditions begins “Prior to the installation of any turbines” this should read “Subject to the wind farm being commissioned”. Air Quality – the EHO has not made any comment in respect to air quality Lighting – the EHO has not made any comment in respect to lighting. Shadow Flicker – Scottish Government guidance states that shadow flicker is only a concern for residential properties that are 10 rotor diameters from a turbine or less. Furthermore, due to the angle of the sun in this part of the world, only properties lying 135 degrees either side of geographic north are affected. Since the rotor diameter of the turbines studied in the EIA Report is 155m, properties within 1.55km of a turbine could experience effects from shadow flicker. A study of the area surrounding the proposed development has shown that there are no properties in any direction within 1.55km of a turbine. Shadow flicker is therefore not a concern. The EHO has not made any comment in respect to Shadow Flicker. Private Water Supplies – The EHO has advised that a condition should be attached in the event that consent is granted to secure the submission of a Private Water Supply Action Plan prior to the commencement of development. This plan should detail all mitigation measures to be delivered to secure the quality, quantity and continuity of water supplies to properties which are served by private water supplies which may be affected by the development. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) initially advised the ECU that they objected to the proposal on the grounds of insufficient information in regard to private water supplies. In response the Applicant provided “the Rowan Wind Farm - Review of Private Water Supplies (dated 15 April 2022) prepared by Ramand Environmental. SEPA considered this, and have since informed the ECU that their objection in respect to private water supplies is withdrawn. SEPA further advise that should the ECU be minded to grant consent that conditions are attached relating to: micrositing; an updated Peat Management Plan; and water crossings. Page 168
Page 169
Residential amenity – as detailed in summary of representations earlier in this report, concerns have been raised by the owner of Mullach Ghlas in respect to the impact of this proposal on their residential amenity. These concerns relate to: length of construction; construction and operational noise; visual amenity; and private water supplies. It is understood that the Applicant has been in discussion with the owner of this property, in respect to these matters. The construction period is estimated to be 18 months. In terms of construction noise the Applicant has estimated that the owner would likely receive 41.9dB at their property during the noisiest and closest element of construction work which would involve breaking rock at the eastern borrow pit approx 800m away. This is within a limit of 65dB. Track will require upgrading/widening in places – the closest part of track to the closest part of Mullach Ghlas is approximately 172m and approximately 155m from the edge of the garden. Given the borrow pit is predicted to be the noisiest activity, it is assumed that works to the track would be below the 41.9dB referred to above. The Applicant understands that works under this limit may still cause issues to the owner of Mullach Ghlas and have advised that they would be happy to commit to construction noise monitoring at Mullach Ghlas (and other nearby) properties from an independent 3rd party. It is understood that the Applicant may also be in discussion with their noise consultants and other potential noise attenuation measures. In terms of operational noise the nearest turbine is T4, which is approximately 2.6km from Mullach Ghlas. The Applicant has calculated that this would be 25.9dB against a limit of 35dB and therefore there would be no significant effect. In terms of visual amenity the Applicant has advised that the owner of Mullach Ghlas won’t see the turbines because of topography. Furthermore, that there should be an element of forestry retention that will screen Mullach Ghlas from most of the construction work (i.e. substation (approximately 800m away), borrow pit (approx 1.5km away, turbines). The owner may see some of the track upgrade at the closest point to Mullach Ghlas, and the grading of the initial slope and entrance from the road/golf club. During operation, the Applicant has advised that they do not foresee the privacy of Mullach Ghlas being an issues from drastically increase use of the paths, but they would be open to further discussion with the owner on this once they are at the detailed design stage (should they get consent). In terms of private water – it is understood that discussions are ongoing between the Applicant and the owner of Mullach Ghlas. Having due regard to the above subject to the recommended conditions being applied in the event that consent is granted by the ECU it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including, residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker and subject to the recommended conditions is consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design; SPP (2014); and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement (2017) in this regard. J. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS, INCLUDING EFFECTS ON WILD LAND (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any landscape and visual impacts including wild land. Page 169
Page 170
Argyll & Bute Council’s landscape consultant provides the following advice: Introduction – A review of the landscape and visual effects of the proposal has been undertaken by Argyll & Bute Council’s landscape consultant and is based on examination of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA-R) dated December 2021 and a field visit undertaken in March 2022. This review was originally issued in April 2022 but revised in June 2022 to take account of changes made by the applicant to the visibility aviation lighting strategy. The Proposal - The Rowan Wind Farm proposal comprises 13 turbines, 200m to blade tip and ancillary infrastructure including an energy storage compound. Access to the development would be from the B8024 and 11.88km of new track would be constructed. The description of the proposed development set out in Chapter 3 of the EIA-R dated December 2021 does not address the requirements for visible aviation lighting with the specification for this contained in the LVIA. The applicant issued a revised aviation lighting strategy and assessment in June 2022. Information provided in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) - The LVIA has been undertaken in accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition. The level of detail provided is appropriate and the Council’s landscape consultant agrees with the majority of the judgements made with regard to significant landscape and visual effects. The figures provided to support the LVIA are clear and informative with representative viewpoint location maps, the detailed 10km Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) map and figures illustrating sequential effects from ferry routes especially useful. 2017 Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study - The proposed wind farm lies within the Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosiac Landscape Character Type (LCT) 6b identified in the Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Capacity Study (ABLWCS). This LCT covers the Knapdale peninsula between West Loch Tarbert and the southern boundary of the Knapdale National Scenic Area. The Knapdale Upland Forest-Moor Mosaic LCT has an irregular and often complex craggy landform with pronounced ridges and occasional high, more defined summits, although some limited areas of slightly smoother and gentler hill slopes also occur, mainly in the south-west. This LCT has a simple land cover of extensive coniferous forestry and moorland; it is also sparsely populated and already accommodates wind farm development. While the scale and sparsely settled nature of this landscape presents potential opportunities to accommodate large scale wind farm development, areas of more complex smaller scale hills fringing the outer edge of this upland area and the more defined ridges and peaks within its core are sensitive to such development. There is little settlement in this landscape and it is not notably popular for recreation. Visibility of the interior of these uplands is fairly restricted from roads and settlement within adjacent low-lying coastal areas although there are longer views from the nearby Knapdale NSA, across Loch Fyne, West Loch Tarbet and from Arran and Gigha. The proposed turbines, which would be up to 200m high to blade tip, would fall within the ‘Very Large’ typology considered in the ABLWCS. The study concludes that the combined landscape and visual sensitivity of the Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT to this size of turbine would be High. The ABLWCS sets out key constraints to development in this LCT. The Council’s landscape consultant considers that this proposal would be contrary to some of these constraints in respect of its effect on views across West Loch Tarbert from the A83 and cumulative effects Page 170
Page 171
with other wind farms, including the operational Freasdail wind farm (and the Airigh wind farm which has been consented since the issue of the ABLWCS in 2017). While this proposal would not be located on the highly sensitive ridge between Stob Odhar and Meall Reamhar which is a scenic feature in views across West Loch Tarbert, it would detract from it in some views from the south-east side of the loch. The proposed wind farm also lies close to the boundary of the Rocky Mosaic LCT. This LCT covers much of the east and west coasts of Kintyre and extends around the shores of West Loch Tarbert. Key constraints identified in the ABLWCS include the strong contrast which occurs between these intricate settled sea and loch fringes with adjacent simple and more expansive uplands, which makes an important contribution to the rich scenic composition characteristic of Argyll. Landscape effects - The proposed development lies within the Kintyre Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT and would have direct significant adverse effects on its character. The LVIA concludes that these effects would occur within approximately 2km of the proposed wind farm due to the extent of visibility of the proposal and the Council’s landscape consultant is in agreement with this judgement. The Rocky Mosaic LCT comprises a narrow coastal strip on both the east and west coasts of Kintyre and around the shores of West Loch Tarbert. This is a small-scale, diverse and settled landscape which is highly sensitive to large wind turbines. The proposal would not be located in this LCT but would lie in relatively close proximity and be clearly seen from parts of this LCT, principally affecting the south-eastern coastal fringes of West Loch Tarbert. The LVIA concludes that effects (considered in a baseline which includes the operational Freasdail wind farm) would be significant along the southern coast of West Loch Tarbert. The Council’s landscape consultant agrees that the effects of this proposal would be significant and adverse on the part of the Rocky Mosaic LCT lying on the south-eastern side of West Loch Tarbert. The LVIA additionally considers effects on the West Loch Tarbert Local Coastal Character Area (LCCA), concluding that these would be significant. The Council’s landscape consultant is in agreement with this judgement. Effects on valued landscapes - The proposed development site is not covered by any landscape designations or other recognised landscape interests although a number of national and local landscape designations lie within 20km of the proposal. There would be limited visibility of the proposal from the Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA) which lies to the north and from the Kyles of Bute NSA which lies to the west. There would also be limited visibility of the proposal from parts of the Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) covering south-west Knapdale. While a greater degree of theoretical visibility would occur from the APQ covering the west coast of Kintyre in the Tayinloan area, this proposal would be seen in the context of the closer consented Airigh wind farm and at distances of >10km thus reducing impact. There would also be a greater degree of potential visibility of the proposal from the APQ covering the east coast of Loch Fyne and the Ardlamont peninsula area. However, screening of the site by landform reduces the visibility of the full vertical extent of the turbines and this limits intrusion from more open coastal fringes and hills. In conclusion, the Council’s landscape consultant considers that the effects of this proposal on designated landscapes lying within Argyll & Bute would not be significant. Visual effects - The proposal sits in a shallow basin and benefits from a degree of screening by landform which particularly limits views of the vertical extent of turbines from the east across Loch Fyne, its eastern shores and the Ardlamont peninsula. The screening effect of landform Page 171
Page 172
within the site is diminished however to the south-west and this proposal would be widely visible across the West Loch Tarbert area and seen in relatively close proximity to key receptors. LVIA Figure 6.4 is useful in showing the likely extent of visibility within 10km of the proposed development site. The location of the proposal close to the transition with the more settled coastal fringes of West Loch Tarbert and to key roads, increases the impacts of this proposal when compared with other operational and consented wind farms located on the Kintyre peninsula. This proposal would be particularly prominent in views from the north Kintyre uplands and from the south-eastern shores of West Loch Tarbert. Significant adverse effects on views would occur on the following receptors: The A83 as it is aligned to the south of West Loch Tarbert. This is an important route for tourists, forming part of Kintyre 66 and National Cycle Network Route 78 (Caledonia Way). EIA-R Viewpoints 2, 10 and 19 demonstrate the significant adverse effects that will occur on scenic views from this route. Similar views will be experienced from settlement including from parts of Whitehouse and its surrounds as well as from dispersed residential properties. The Kennacraig to Islay ferry route – The ferry route assessment visualisations and maps set out in the LVIA are informative and help confirm that significant adverse effects would occur on views from approximately 2km of the route within West Loch Tarbert. This proposal would be seen sequentially with the operational Freasdail wind farm in views from the waters of West Loch Tarbert. Footpaths in the local area, including those to Dun Skeig and from the northern section of the Kintyre Way where significant cumulative effects with operational and consented developments will also occur. EIA-R Viewpoints 6 and 11 illustrate these effects. Night-time lighting effects - Visible aviation lighting is proposed on the nacelles of 6 of the 13 turbines of the proposal. Reduced intensity lighting (where 2000 candela nacelle lighting would reduce to 200 candela during periods of clear visibility) and directional lighting with a focussed horizontal beam of light (limiting lighting intensity seen from lower-lying views) are both embedded features of the lighting scheme. Night-time visualisations have been produced from 4 representative viewpoints and a lighting assessment is set out in the updated Technical Appendix 6.3. All 4 of these viewpoints are located at low elevations and between 3.7km to 13.6km from the proposal. Table 6.3.4 summarises the number of illuminated turbines that will be seen from each of the 21 representative viewpoints considered in the LVIA. The LVIA lighting assessment concludes that no significant effects would be associated with visible aviation lighting. Roads and settlement are principally located on lower-lying coastal fringes where the intensity of light would be reduced to between 200-175cd or 20-18cd in clearer conditions which are estimated in the EIA-R to occur for 98% of the time (Figure 6.3.Cb). There are few elevated locations where the lights would be seen at greatest intensity with the Kintyre Way one of the few higher-level viewpoints in this part of Argyll & Bute. The reduced and directional intensity lighting committed to by the applicant would reduce night-time effects although in the absence of comparable visible aviation lighting on operational turbines to visit in the field it is difficult to gauge the accuracy of night-time visualisations and the LVIA lighting assessment (it is the understood that there are currently no operational wind turbines which feature reduced and directional intensity of lighting mitigation. Review of the visible aviation lighting assessments undertaken for a range of recent wind farm proposals reveals a divergence in lighting specification, night time visualisations and judgements made on the likely significance of effects). The Council’s landscape consultant considers that the lighting assessment may have under- Page 172
Page 173
estimated the effects of visible aviation lighting for Viewpoints N2 and N10. The Council’s landscape consultant also believes that the night-time visualisations need to be treated with caution as, while they provide some indication of effects, they generally do not replicate the levels of brightness that can be experienced in the field. It is useful to note the differences between the night-time visualisations prepared for this application and the recently submitted Clachaig Glen wind farm application. Both applications feature similar lighting specifications with directional intensity mitigation accounted for in the generation of the night-time visualisations. However, while viewpoint N2 (Rowan EIA-R) and viewpoint 8 (Clachaig Glen EIAR) lie at similar elevations, the Rowan visualisations depict a much more subdued lighting scheme. This is surprising especially given the increased distance of viewpoint 8 from the Clachaig Glen proposal (8.94km as opposed to 3.7km). The Council’s landscape consultant considers that the night-time lighting would increase the duration of adverse effects and that these effects may be significant from the waters and south-eastern shores of West Loch Tarbert where lit turbines would introduce new sources of lighting into a relatively dark environment. Cumulative landscape and visual effects - Significant cumulative landscape and visual effects would occur where this proposal would be seen together and sequentially with the operational Freasdail wind farm and the consented Airigh wind farm in views from the Kennacraig to Islay ferry and from the A83 in the West Loch Tarbert area. The addition of this proposal to a scenario which includes the Freasdail, Airigh and the application-stage Sheirdrim wind farm would also incur significant adverse cumulative effects from the Kennacraig to Islay ferry and on views from the A83, settlement and from footpaths on the south-eastern coastal fringes of West Loch Tarbert and the north Kintyre uplands. The effect of this scenario would be one where wind turbines would form a key defining feature of the West Loch Tarbert landscape, significantly detracting from the scenic qualities of the loch and its diverse shores. This proposal would also be seen in combination and sequentially with the operational Srondoire and Allt Dearg wind farms and the application-stage Earraghail wind farm from parts of Loch Fyne and its eastern shores. Screening by landform generally restricts the extent of visibility of the Rowan turbines in views from the east and this, together with the wide spacing between developments and intermittent screening by roadside vegetation, would limit cumulative effects from the B8000 north of Portavadie. Significant landscape and visual cumulative effects would not occur from Portavadie and the Ardlamont Peninsula. This proposal will contribute to significant sequential effects on views from the Kintyre Way but would generally have a lesser effect than operational and consented wind farms, and the application-stage Narachan and Earraghail wind farms, which are sited closer to this long- distance route. The application-stage Narachan wind farm, which also features visible aviation lighting, would be principally seen together in more distant views from parts of north Arran, Gigha and the largely unsettled Kintyre uplands. In terms of cumulative night-time effects, this proposal would have a lesser and minimal effect when seen together with the Narachan wind farm in views from these locations due to its greater distance (the Earraghail wind farm Applicant is committing to an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS) and, as this would significantly reduce the duration of night‐time lighting, this scheme is therefore considered unlikely to contribute to significant cumulative lighting effects). Conclusions - the proposed development site lies within the Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT which covers much of the Knapdale area between West Loch Tarbert and the southern edge of the Knapdale National Scenic Area. This landscape has a simpler landform Page 173
Page 174
in the south-west but is complex and craggy in the north-east. The operational Allt Dearg and Srondoire wind farms occupy a prominent location in the LCT. The consented Airigh wind farm, while comprising larger turbines, is associated with the more subdued terrain occurring in the south-west of this LCT. This proposal, which comprises very large turbines of up to 200m, would be sited in a basin which reduces its prominence and intrusion seen from Loch Fyne and from the settled eastern 2 The Earraghail wind farm applicant is committing to an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS) and, as this would significantly reduce the duration of night‐time lighting, this scheme is therefore considered unlikely to contribute to significant cumulative lighting effects coastal fringes of this loch. The containment provided by landform is diminished in views from the south around West Loch Tarbert however where turbines would be visible in closer proximity and where their scale would be more appreciated due to greater visual exposure and because they would be seen in close conjunction with the smaller scale settled loch fringes. Visibility from the northern shores of West Loch Tarbert will be minimal and while this proposal would be visible from parts of Gigha, the Ardpatrick Point area and from the west Kintyre coast, it would not have a significant effect due to the greater distances involved and also because of the presence of the consented Airigh wind farm which is more prominent in some of these views. The greatest degree of visibility (and intrusion) would occur from the waters of West Loch Tarbert, from its south-eastern coastal fringes and from parts of the northern Kintyre uplands. Significant adverse effects would occur on the following landscape/seascape character areas: The Knapdale Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT extending approximately 2km from the proposed wind farm site The Rocky Mosaic LCT where it covers the south-eastern shores of West Loch Tarbert The West Loch Tarbert Local Coastal Character Area. The significant adverse visual effects associated with the proposal would principally affect views in the West Loch Tarbert area as follows: The A83 where it is aligned on the south-eastern coastal fringe of West Loch Tarbert. This road is an important tourist route forming part of National Cycle Network 78 and the Kintyre 66. The Kennacraig to Islay ferry route within inner West Loch Tarbert Footpaths in the Dun Skeig area and from a section of the Kintyre Way. In the above views, this proposal would be seen simultaneously or sequentially with the operational Freasdail and consented Airigh wind farms. This proposal would be one of the first wind farm proposal to introduce lighting to the dark skies of Kintyre and while the intensity of lights will reduce when seen from lower elevation coastal fringes, the Council’s landscape consultant considers that they would still be clearly seen from these more settled and frequented areas and that they may extend the duration of significant adverse effects on views from the West Loch Tarbert area. The potential cumulative effects of visible aviation lighting on character and views are a concern given the number of recent applications for turbines >150m in Argyll & Bute requiring such lighting although it should be noted that the recent Earraghail wind farm application is committed to the adoption of an Aircraft Detection Lighting Strategy (ADLS) which would substantially reduce the duration of night-time lighting. Cumulative landscape and visual effects with the application-stage Sheirdrim wind farm are a Page 174
Page 175
key concern. If the Sheirdrim proposal is consented on appeal the Council’s landscape consultant considers that the addition of this proposal would result in a major adverse combined cumulative effect on the West Loch Tarbert area significantly affecting its character and views from the A83, settlement, footpaths and the Islay ferry. It is recommended that this proposal should be objected to on landscape and visual grounds principally because of its prominent location in relation to West Loch Tarbert and its sensitive coastal fringes, including impacts on views from key transport routes which are important for visitors. Key visualisations for the Committee to see include: Figure 6.4 Detailed ZTV 10km Figure 6.9 ZTV with Landscape Planning Designations Viewpoint 9 Portavadie (note that fewer turbine hubs would be visible when compared with the Earraghail wind farm proposal) Viewpoint 12 Kilfinan (demonstrates the siting of the wind farm in a dip provides greater screening of turbine bases in views from the east) Viewpoint 10: A83 near Gartnagrenach (a scenic view across West Loch Tarbert) Viewpoint 19: A83 Whitehouse (effects on views to the high ridge on Knapdale) Viewpoint 11: Dun Skeig Clachaig Glen EIA-R – Viewpoint 8 Night-time visualisation Figure 8.5 and Viewpoint N2 in the Rowan EIA-R (to enable comparison between night-time visualisations) Applicant’s response to ABC Landscape Comments - the Applicant advised the ECU that they wished to provide further comment on the landscape objection provided by the Council’s landscape consultant. Furthermore, that they have prepared four documents in response: a written request to the objection, which gives their view on the intermittent nature of significant effects (as quoted in the objection) with evidence from the EIAR, and places the objection in the context of the adopted LDP, SPP and tilted balance; a new ZTV which shows the extent of theoretical visibility to blade tip out to 15km when incorporating forestry. This fully demonstrated the screening afforded to this site; a new ZTV which shows the above, but for hub height; and a revised Figure 6.17a which places the sequential assessment for the A83 into categories of where you can see it (in green), and where you cannot. The Applicant has advised that they wish the committee to consider this response prior to reaching a decision on this proposal. It is available on the ECU website by following this link: Rowan WF Landscape response_May2022_final (004) (1).pdf Argyll & Bute Council Landscape Consultant - was consulted further on the Applicant’s rebuttal to the Landscape & Visual review and has provided the following further advice: The Landscape and Visual Review (LV Review) focusses on identifying the principal landscape and visual effects of the proposal. It was undertaken on the basis of field assessment and its conclusions were informed by comparison of the landscape and visual effects of similar wind farm proposals across Argyll & Bute and other parts of Scotland. The LV Review does not provide a detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment as an alternative to that included in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA-R) for the Rowan wind farm proposal. This would not be possible or appropriate given limited resources and time constraints. It provides an overview of the key landscape and visual effects of the proposal on Argyll & Bute and is one of many other sources of information which will be considered by Argyll & Bute Council when determining the acceptability of the proposal in terms of the planning balance. Many of the points raised in the applicant’s response can be attributed to differences in professional opinion and are therefore not argued further here. There are three matters Page 175
Page 176
addressed in the Applicant’s response which merit further comment and clarification as follows: Effects on the Rocky Mosaic Landscape Character Type - The LV Review states that ‘The LVIA concludes that effects (considered in a baseline which includes the operational Freasdail wind farm) would be significant along the southern coast of West Loch Tarbert. The Council’s landscape consultant agrees that the effects of this proposal would be significant and adverse on the part of the Rocky Mosaic LCT lying on the south-eastern side of West Loch Tarbert’. While it is accepted that the LVIA does not judge the effects of the proposal on this LCT to be significant, either ‘individually’ or cumulatively with the operational Freasdail wind farm, it is the view of the Council’s landscape consultant that this proposal would incur a significant adverse additional cumulative effect on the character of part of the Rocky Mosaic LCT (broadly equating to Unit B identified in the LVIA). With reference to paragraph 2.12, just because the author of the Applicant’s response deems the effects to be ‘localised’ this does not mean that they are not important. There are very few wind farm proposals which have, what could be termed as, more widespread ‘regional’ effects. Visible Aviation Lighting - This is a rapidly changing technology with no similar specification of lighting on operational wind turbines to enable judgements as to likely night-time effects to be made in the field. The examples stated in paragraph 1.3.28 of the updated Technical Appendix 6.3 as having been visited by the LVIA team are also acknowledged as not having the same specification of visible aviation lighting as the proposal. Comparison of the night- time visualisations produced in a cross-section of current EIA-Rs reveal a divergence in the nature of visualisations and the findings on the significance of effects. In particular, review of the recently submitted Clachaig Glen II wind farm proposal demonstrates the disparity between the depiction of lighting effects despite directional intensity mitigation having also been taken into account in the generation of the visualisations and visualisations produced from similar viewpoint elevations. It is only correct that a precautionary approach should be taken in appraising wind farm applications with visible aviation lighting given the low-lighting levels present in Argyll & Bute and the potential for cumulative effects to arise with other proposed wind farms featuring such lighting. Conclusion – it is acknowledged that all wind farms will have significant adverse landscape and visual impacts but what is important to consider is the nature and degree of severity of these effects in making recommendations to the Council. The LV Review provides an impartial analysis of likely significant adverse landscape and visual effects but also the mitigating features of the proposal are clearly noted, for example the limited visibility of turbines in views from the east across Loch Fyne. It is not appropriate for the Applicant to determine the acceptability of the proposal in landscape and visual terms, as this can only be determined by the decision maker (the Council in this instance) upon receipt of the full range of information which needs to be considered in the planning judgement. NatureScot - have advised the ECU that the nature and scale of the proposal in this location cannot be accommodated without significant adverse landscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects and night time effects. Significant adverse effects of the proposal are predominantly in relation to the West Loch Tarbert (WLT) area, in particular the waters of WLT and the southeast coast (west coast and uplands of northern Kintyre). In NatureScot’s view, turbines of this scale in this location, would detract from the character, scenic views and experience of West Loch Tarbert area as currently enjoyed by tourists and residents. NatureScot consider the proposal would also have some significant effect on the appreciation of the relatively dark skies in this area as a result of the introduction of turbine lighting with the potential for significant cumulative effects with the wind farm proposals (>149.9m high) requiring aviation lighting on nearby Kintyre. Page 176
Page 177
North Ayrshire Council have advised the ECU that in this instance, they leave the comments relating to impacts on North Arran NSA and the Wild Land Area to NatureScot. West Kintyre Community Council have advised the ECU that they object to this proposal on the grounds of Landscape and Visual Impact. Tarbert & Skipness Community Council have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds that the proposal will have an adverse landscape and visual impact. East Kintyre Community Council have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds of visual amenity due to cumulative harmful visual impacts contrary to Argyll & Bute Council’s LDP 6 and proposed Local Development Plan 2, Diagram 7. Representations have been received by the ECU objecting to the proposal in this regard, including: It is the landscape of Kintyre and Knapdale which represents the area's future economic wellbeing. Wind farms, new power lines and the miles of tracks they seem to need are destroying the landscape and the special feel of remoteness of the area. They contribute almost nothing to anyone locally but do enrich landowners who almost all live elsewhere. Visitors to the area cannot understand the lack of value accorded the special quality of the area. When it is gone perhaps some of those involved in its destruction may come to appreciate what they have done?; and the adverse visual impact on the view north along West Loch Tarbert from Gartnagrenach (special often photographed and commented on by visitors and enjoyed by locals). This proposal would be visible from very many places especially in Kintyre and especially from Gartnagrenach. Representations have been received by the ECU in support of the proposal in this regard including: whilst there are other wind farm schemes in Argyll & Bute, the Applicant has demonstrated that another wind farm can be accommodated in this location; and whilst perhaps not every wind farm is well placed, it is our view that this wind farm brings more benefits than harm to our local area. All of the above consultee advice and representations have been considered, as well as the Applicant’s rebuttal to the advice of the Council’s landscape consultant. Officers concur with the expert advice of NatureScot and the Council’s landscape consultant in respect to landscape and visual impacts (including cumulative). Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will have adverse landscape and visual impacts (including cumulative) and is therefore inconsistent with the provisions of: SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality; SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape; SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design; of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; SPP (2014); and the Onshore wind policy statement, (2017). It is therefore recommended that Argyll & Bute Council object to the proposal on the grounds of adverse: Landscape Impact, Visual Impact, and Cumulative landscape and visual effects. K. EFFECTS ON NATURAL HERITAGE INCLUDING BIRDS (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Page 177
Page 178
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on natural heritage including birds. Designated Sites NatureScot have advised the ECU that at the scoping stage, they considered that the site would have hydrological connectivity with the Glen Ralloch to Baravalla Woods SSSI (designated for its bryophyte and lichen assemblages and upland oak woodland) and the Tarbert Woods SAC (designated for Western acidic oak woodland). A key feature of importance for this woodland habitat is the well-developed Atlantic bryophyte communities it supports. The numerous streams which traverse the SAC have in places cut deep ravines, and together with the sheltered north-east aspect, these provide very humid conditions which support up to 180 species of bryophyte species, many of which are nationally and internationally important. As such, NatureScot asked that the Applicant provide a construction method statement alongside the EIA Report (EIAR) which would set out specific measures to prevent sedimentation and contamination of watercourses within the site. However, this information was not provided when the EIAR was submitted in February 2022. As a result, NatureScot requested further information from the Applicant on the 14th April 2022 to help complete their appraisal of the proposal on the SSSI and SAC. A draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) was received on the 26th May 2022. NatureScot’s advice is that this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the western acidic oak woodland feature of the Tarbert Woods SAC. Consequently, the Energy Consents Unit, as competent authority, is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interest. To help the ECU do this, they advise that on the basis of the information provided to date, if the proposal is carried out strictly in accordance with the mitigation outlined in the draft CEMP, their conclusion is that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. NatureScot also consider that the measures provided in the draft CEMP will also prevent any adverse effects on the objectives of the Glen Ralloch to Baravalla Woods SSSI or the overall integrity of the area. NatureScot also advise that they should be consulted on the final CEMP produced ahead of construction works commencing. Ornithology NatureScot - have advised the ECU that they are generally content with the assessment of the proposal on the key ornithological receptors and the proposed embedded mitigation measures. NatureScot note that survey work was undertaken from 2018 to 2020 whilst the EIAR was not submitted until 2022. This has resulted in no breeding season checks for 2021 which is disappointing given the sensitivity of the site for breeding osprey and red-throated divers in particular. They also note that the vantage points (VP) for flight activity surveys do have significant overlap and that there are some VPs located within the turbine array which is contrary to their guidance. There is some use of overlapping VPs being surveyed at the same time which is also contrary to their guidance and which could mean that the collision risk modelling calculations may not be 100% accurate, however the incidents of this appear to be low level. Golden Eagle - NatureScot welcome the provision of GET modelling provided in support of the application and they agree that the proposal is unlikely to result in a significant loss of suitable golden eagle range. They note that there is a potential deer poaching issue on the site which may be making gralloch more available to eagles. It’s important that poaching is Page 178
Page 179
preventing from within the wind farm site as gralloch could attract eagles into the wind farm area thereby increasing the risk of turbine collision. Osprey - NatureScot are aware of details of a number of osprey collisions to date (10 events), which is surprising as they were largely from wind farm sites with lower osprey activity than this proposal. As a result, there may be some, as yet unexplained, issue whereby ospreys collide more with turbines than expected. In this location, it appears that the ospreys will be feeding in the shallows of West Loch Tarbert in addition to Loch Chaorainn and some of the variation in activity at Loch Chaorainn may be due to weather conditions /fish availability at other feeding sites rather than failed or successful breeding. From the flight activity data, NatureScot are concerned that the main flight paths for ospreys passes T4, T9 and T13 and this, coupled with the greater number of collisions than expected, does cause for some concern. NatureScot consider that T4, in its current location, also poses a likely greater collision risk for red-throated divers (see below), and therefore they strongly suggest that this turbine is either re-sited or removed from the application. Red-Throated Divers - The EIAR indicates that red-throated divers (RTD) predominately fish on larger lochs during the breeding season, and whilst some RTDs will do this, for most birds the majority of feeding, especially when they have chicks, tends to be in the marine environment. In Argyll, it is clear from a number of wind farm proposals that the population fluctuates annually and that there is quite high use of lochs, especially from June/July onwards until early autumn by failed or non-breeding pairs plus a lot of socialising. NatureScot consider that the interpretation made in the EIAR that Loch Chaorainn is an important feeding loch is probably not correct, especially as the consultants have identified two clear flight routes in and out of the wind farm area towards the east coast of Knapdale and to West Loch Tarbert which look typical of other Kintyre wind farm surveys for divers. They are also aware from other wind farm work in Argyll that divers do not always get displaced from lochs close to wind farm sites. They welcome the commitment to provide a raft near the islands in Loch Chaorainn as this may limit the risk of loch abandonment. They note that Canada geese were recorded on Loch Chaorainn in April 2020 and, although no breeding evidence was recorded at that time, these geese do tend to breed on rafts which can deter RTD usage of rafts. As with ospreys, it appears as though T4 is located on the main flight path out of Loch Chaorainn for RTDs and removal or re-siting of this turbine would likely significantly reduce the potential collision risk for these birds. Habitat Management Plan (HMP) - NatureScot welcome the provision of draft HMP and they have a number of comments to make on some of the commitments proposed: Native broadleaved shelter belt at Loch Chaorainn Beag – this loch appears to be quite sheltered already and NatureScot consider that planting a shelter belt may reduce the loch’s attractiveness to RTD as it can make it feel more enclosed, provides cover for predators and can make the shoreline less suitable for nest sites. As such, they do not consider that this measure will be beneficial for RTD. Monitoring and restocking of fish – NatureScot do not consider that Loch Chaorainn is as important a feeding loch for RTDs as the EIAR suggests. However the loch does appear to be important for feeding osprey. The HMP should demonstrate this measure and how feasible it is to achieve. The proposed restocking of fish would need to consider the species and size of fish to be restocked as RTDs would require small fish for their chicks. Restocking with larger fish may negatively impact small fish abundance if they predate them which could have a negative impact on RTDs. Page 179
Page 180
NatureScot welcome the commitment to install a diver raft on Loch Chaorainn, although they note that this loch is outside of the red line boundary and so assurances should be made in the HMP that the raft can be deployed here. One of the main reasons why rafts can fail as a measure of diver mitigation is due to a lack of maintenance and therefore the HMP should commit to a regular programme of maintenance over the lifetime of the wind farm. Control of Canada geese, if using the raft, should also be undertaken over the lifetime of the wind farm. This would involve yearly checks prior to the breeding season. Eagle feeding stations - NatureScot consider that the main aim of any supplementary feeding is to help improve the birds’ condition over the winter, with live prey being much more important for the breeding season and rearing healthy chicks. Some supplementary food in the winter period may be of some benefit but they do not consider that it should be provided all year round. Golden eagles have a wide diet (including a large range of mammals and birds) and the typical view of grouse / lagomorphs and carrion being the main food sources for eagles is outdated. It is important to note that any carcasses provided must be lead free. NatureScot note that a relatively small area of wet heath / blanket bog is proposed for restoration under the draft HMP. They consider that the HMP could look to be more ambitious in its aims for habitat restoration and considers improving the open ground habitats around the west and south-west of the wind farm area within their red line boundary. Curtailment of Turbine 4 – in response to NatureScot’s advice that consideration should be given to moving or deleting turbine 4, the Applicant submitted a Technical Note: Rowan Wind Farm- Curtailment of Turbine 4 (10th July 22) to the ECU. Moving the turbine is not an option as it would introduce unwanted effects elsewhere, and based on the collision risk estimates in the EIA, the Applicant did not feel deletion is a proportionate response. As a compromise solution, the technical note sets out a rationale for curtailment of Turbine 4 during sensitive periods. NatureScot have advised the ECU that they have considered the Technical Note on the proposed curtailment of Turbine 4 (T4) in order to minimise collision risk for ospreys and red- throated divers. NatureScot welcome the Applicant’s commitment to curtail the operation of T4 so that it only operates between sunset and sunrise, thereby avoiding the more sensitive daylight hours when these species are likely to be feeding and commuting between hill lochs and West Loch Tarbert. NatureScot also advise that they would be happy to discuss possible monitoring of the effects of curtailment as part of any post consent discussions. It is considered that the curtailment of T4 should be secured by an appropriate planning condition, and this is reflected in the recommendation for the ECU. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland (RSPB) - has advised the ECU that it does not object to this proposal but provides advice, in relation to biodiversity and habitat management to minimise and ensure any impacts are fully mitigated and that biodiversity benefits are achieved. RSPB ask that conditions to secure: a Bird Protection Plan; Habitat Management Plan; an appropriately qualified and experienced Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW); and, an appropriate programme of post-construction monitoring are attached to any consent. Ecology NatureScot have advised the ECU that they are generally satisfied with the assessment of the impacts of the proposal on non-avian protected species and habitats and the proposed mitigation. They are also content with the proposed compensation and enhancement measures. They also note that a micro-siting allowance of 100 m has been sought by the Page 180
Page 181
Applicant. Micro-siting should be utilised to avoid areas of deep peat whilst maintaining the appropriate buffer distances of sensitive ecological features within the site e.g. watercourses and woodland edges. Bats - It is unclear from the information presented in Technical Appendix 8.4 if bat emergence surveys were undertaken for the seven trees identified as having low – high bat roost potential. These trees are located close to the proposed access to the proposal from the B8024. It’s not clear how many (if any) of these trees will required to be felled, but inspection surveys must be undertaken and bat licences sought if required ahead of any felling works. Invasive Non-Native Species - NatureScot note that the habitat surveys recorded a stand of Japanese knotweed alongside an existing track within the site as well as stands of American skunk cabbage out-with the site boundary. Measures should be included in the CEMP to ensure that these species are managed appropriately and not being allowed to spread in the wild as a result of the construction works. The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer – has no objection to this proposal, advice is provided in relation to biodiversity interest, surveys, mitigation, construction environment management and overseeing, habitat management and restoration protocols. The Local Biodiversity Officer recommends monitoring of the condition of the structures (culverts/bridge), that silt catchment measures are effective and that a log of any incidents of contamination are kept. The Local Biodiversity Officer requests that: an ornithological watching brief is kept and any collisions are recorded and submitted to NatureScot, the planning authority and the RSPB; and the applicant drafts an eradication plan for the following species: Japanese knotweed rhododendron; montbretia; and butterfly bush and submits it to the planning authority as this supports biodiversity enhancements. Fish Fisheries Management Scotland (FMS) - advised the ECU that their remit is confined to alerting the relevant local DSFB/Trust to any proposal. The proposal falls within the catchment relating to the Argyll DSFB and the Argyll Fisheries Trust. The proposals should be conducted in full consultation with the local DSFB & Trust. Due to the potential for such developments to impact on migratory fish species and the fisheries they support, FMS have developed, in conjunction with Marine Scotland Science, advice on terrestrial wind farms for DSFBs and Trusts in dealing with planning applications which should be fully considered. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board - have advised the ECU that they have no objection subject to conditions to ensure: comprehensive pre and post development monitoring (electrofishing surveys of juvenile fish populations) is undertaken to ensure Argyll DSFB that all habitat and fish populations are unaffected by the development; as part of any development, all conifer trees are to be removed from riverbanks and measures taken to regenerate native broadleaf trees; and all stream crossings are conducive to the upstream and downstream movement of all fish. Forestry In Scottish Forestry (SF) consultation response to the Applicant’s clarification they advised the ECU that they are content that the proposal meets the UKFS species diversity requirements and confirm that they have no outstanding issues with the proposal. Planning conditions to secure Compensatory Planting and a Long Term Forest Plan in the event the proposal receives consent are also recommended. Page 181
Page 182
SEPA – Forestry Waste Management – SEPA have advised the ECI that there’s no indication the proposals will involve the felling of forest material to waste at this stage although they understand the method of woodland clearance will be determined at the time of construction (including whether harvesting for the biomass market is possible). As per Chapter 14 of the EIAR, such works should follow SEPA’s guidance on the Management of Forestry Waste and Use of Trees Cleared to Facilitate Development on Afforested Land. Micrositing SEPA advice on Micrositing – SEPA has advised the ECU that they note a 100m micrositing allowance is proposed and request a condition requiring that, unless otherwise confirmed by the determining authority in consultation with SEPA, any proposed micrositing be subject to the following restrictions: no micrositing shall take place within a 50m buffer distance of a watercourse; no micrositing shall take place within areas of peat of greater depth than the original location; and no micrositing shall take place within the buffers identified for PWS. Crown Estate Scotland have advised the ECU that the assets of Crown Estate Scotland are not affected by this proposal and they have no comments. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to the conditions recommended by NatureScot, RSPB, Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board, SEPA, Scottish Forestry and the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer the proposal is acceptable in terms of natural heritage and birds and is consistent with the provisions of SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity); SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment; SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; SPP; Onshore wind policy statement, Scottish Government (January 2017); The Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009); L. IMPACTS ON CARBON RICH SOILS, USING THE CARBON CALCULATOR (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Supplementary Guidance 2 and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator. Spatial Framework (SPP & SG2) – In terms of the Council’s Spatial Framework for wind farms (Supplementary Guidance 2: Wind Farm Map 1 - Figure 1 Spatial Framework for wind turbines over 50 metres to blade tip), the proposal lies predominately within a Group 3 area (area with potential for wind farm development subject to other policy consideration), with its western edge being in a Group 2 area (Area of significant protection) owing to its classification as an area of Class 2 Carbon Rich Soil and Peat. In Group 2: Areas of significant protection – wind farms may be appropriate in some circumstances. Further consideration will be required to demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation. Group 3: Areas are likely to be acceptable, subject to detailed consideration against identified policy criteria. NatureScot’s advice on Peat – NatureScot have advised the ECU that they are content with the assessment of the proposal on the peat resource and note that efforts have been made in the design of the wind farm to avoid areas of deep peat. They are also content with the Page 182
Page 183
measures detailed in the Outline Peat Management Plan (OHMP) with regards to the storage and reuse of peat on site. SEPA – Disturbance and Re-use of Excavated Peat – SEPA have advised the ECU that they acknowledge and welcome the work undertaken on the peat surveys and planning of the site design to avoid areas of deep peat as reported in the EIAR. They have reviewed the Outline Peat Management Plan (oPMP) and acknowledge this covers everything expected (micrositing, floating tracks, peat storage plans). SEPA are satisfied with the assessment so far and peat management proposals in principle. The oPMP states that details of temporary peat storage locations will be provided. It would be expected that this would include a map showing the peat storage areas, demonstrating that the storage areas are not on high value habitats, or in proximity to waterbodies, or on sloping ground. SEPA request, a condition requiring the preparation and submission of an updated PMP for approval to the determining authority, in consultation with SEPA, prior to commencement of the development. This should demonstrate how also micrositing and other measures have been used to further minimise peat habitat disturbance. Ironside Farrar on behalf of the ECU – have advised the ECU that the PLHRA requires minor revisions: although much of the PLHRA is sound, one or two key elements are considered to be insufficiently robust to support the PLHRA conclusions and minor revisions are required; areas for attention will be advised in the review findings and may be progressed by the developer through either an appendix to the original submission or by clarification letter. Technical Appendix 10.2 Peat Slide Hazard and Risk Assessment was submitted to the ECU by the Applicant on the 8th August to provide the clarification sought by Ironside Farrar in their consultee response (26 April 2022). At time of writing Ironside Farrar have not confirmed to the ECU whether or not this document addresses their comments. A response is anticipated week commencing 26th September 2022. Having due regard to the above, subject to the recommended conditions it is concluded that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator and is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity); SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources; SG 2 Renewable Energy; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; SPP (2014); Onshore wind policy statement, (January 2017). M. PUBLIC ACCESS, INCLUDING IMPACT ON LONG DISTANCE WALKING AND CYCLING ROUTES AND THOSE SCENIC ROUTES IDENTIFIED IN THE NPF (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in the NPF. New pedestrian, cyclist and recreational use of the wind farms tracks are proposed to be provided following commissioning of the wind farm, associated facilities including a10-vehicle informal car park, interpretive boards, benches and bins along with signage. This access is intended to be provided to at least turbines 4 and 9, and would be around a 10km walk or cycle to turbine 9 and back to the car park using the finished turbine delivery tracks. The car park, tracks and bins would be subject to a maintenance contract to be awarded locally if possible. Page 183
Page 184
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse physical impacts on public access, including impacts on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in the NPF and is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; SPP (2014); Onshore wind policy statement, (January 2017). N. IMPACTS ON THE CULTURAL HERITAGE, INCLUDING SCHEDULED MONUMENTS, LISTED BUILDINGS AND THEIR SETTINGS (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) – have advised the ECU that they have no objection to the proposal. The West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) – have advised that they have no objection subject to condition to secure the approval of a written scheme of archaeological investigation, to be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that based on the advice of Historic Environment Scotland and the West of Scotland Archaeology Service that, subject to a condition to secure a scheme of archaeological investigation that this proposal is consistent with the provisions of SG LDP ENV 15 – Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes; SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Development Impact on Listed Buildings; SG LDP ENV 19 –Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments; SG LDP ENV 20 – Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; and SG 2 Renewable Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan; SPP (2014); the Onshore Wind Policy Statement and Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (April 2019) in this respect. O. IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on tourism and recreation. The Council also regards landscape as being a particularly valued asset both in terms of its intrinsic qualities and in terms of its value to the tourism economy. For all types of development the maintenance of landscape character is an important facet of decision-making in the countryside in Argyll & Bute, regardless of the scale of development proposed. The Council’s LDP Policy LDP 6 identifies impacts on tourism and recreation as a material consideration in the assessment of renewable energy developments on the basis that inappropriate developments with significant adverse effects which contribute to the degradation of landscape character are unlikely to be in the interests of the Argyll tourism economy. Page 184
Page 185
West Kintyre Community Council (WKCC) – have advised the ECU that they object on the grounds of Tourism Impact. East Kintyre Community Council – have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the following grounds of Community Development Amenity due to the wholesale harmful impacts to a designated Tourism development area. Tarbert & Skipness Community Council have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds that the proposal will have an adverse tourism impact. Representations have been received by the ECU objecting to the proposal in this regard, including: adverse Impact on Tourism & Recreation and associated economic impact - this application would be directly in front of Tarbert Holiday Park which extends to 50 acres. It is also close to West loch Shores and Escart Farm and Bay (200 acres approx). We are the biggest accommodation provider in Kintyre and the landscape is what attracts people to this particular area close to Tarbert. There seems to be a lot of further Wind farms proposed but I feel this one is one too many and too close to us. It will also significantly financially affect the future income of the businesses. The concerns expressed in regard to the adverse landscape and visual impact this proposal will have on tourism have been taken into account. As these two matters are intrinsically linked, and there is little evidence to demonstrate whether or not wind farms adversely affect tourism, it is considered that such impacts are covered in the landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal and recommended reason for objection. Having due regard to the above, in terms of the impacts on tourism and recreation the proposal is considered to be consistent with the provisions of: SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors; LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zone; LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape; and SG 2 Renewable Energy of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect. P. AVIATION, DEFENCE AND SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on Aviation, Defence and Seismological Recording. Defence Infrastructure Organisation/ Ministry of Defence (MOD) – have advised the ECU that they have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to secure: aviation lighting and aviation charting & safety management. Civil Aviation Authority – have advised the ECU that the proposed development has 13 turbines, with turbine heights at 200m ground to tip. This brings them into scope of the Air Navigation Order Article 222 requirements for obstacle lighting at night. Based on the information, the CAA is satisfied with the proposed lighting scheme, Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL) have advised the ECU that at the given position, this development is in the vicinity of the Instrument Flight Procedures of both Islay and Campbeltown Airports. However, their calculations show that there is no impact to the safeguarding criteria for Islay and Campbeltown Airports. If the proposed layout of the wind farm does not significantly change and the maximum height, 200m, of the proposed wind Page 185
Page 186
turbines does not increase; Highlands and Islands Airports Limited has no objections to this proposal. However, if the layout changes significantly and the turbine height increases then Highlands and Islands Ltd would object until it is determined that there is no impact to the IFPs of Islay and Campbeltown Airport. National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) – have advised the ECU that the proposed development has been examined by their technical safeguarding teams and conflicts with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) plc objects to the proposal. The reasons for NAT’s objection is that a technical impact is anticipated, which has been deemed to be unacceptable. On the 22nd August the Applicant advised the ECU that the NATS aviation contract is in progress, and that a letter saying ‘no objection’ should arrive within the next few months. Furthermore, that the Council should be in a position to say that mitigation is possible (Lowther hill blanking and Tiree infill), negotiations are underway, but that contracts are unlikely to be finalised before committee. This is not a hurdle to the Council providing its response. This is a technical matter for the ECU to resolve. Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) – have advised the ECU that the development raises aviation safety concerns which have an operational impact on the Airport as an air navigation services provider. Until all technical and operational aviation safety matters are addressed to the satisfaction of the Airport, and a mitigation agreement is put in place for the life of the windfarm, the Airport must object to this proposed development Applicant’s response to Glasgow Prestwick Airport’s objection (12th May 22) – the Applicant has submitted a response to this objection to the ECU, which provides comments on: Aviation Lighting; the Airport’s Windfarm Safeguarding Assessment Process; and Cumulative Impact. At time of writing it is understood that this has been sent to Glasgow Prestwick Airport by the ECU and a further response confirming whether or not their concerns have been addressed remains outstanding. The ECU have asked if it would be possible to provide a response by the 12th September to enable an update to be provided to the Council in advance of committee and GPA advised that they would try. This is a technical matter for the ECU to resolve. Glasgow Prestwick Airport – further comments in response to Applicant’s 12th May email – advise the ECU that they continue to object to this proposal. They continue to have concern in regard to: airspace, airport surveillance coverage and air traffic service; air space and air traffic control; in the absence of appropriate mitigation the turbines visible to the airport’s primary surveillance will generate clutter and render the airspace above the wind farm unusable to Air Traffic Control; further wind farms without appropriate mitigation will exacerbate this; and the turbines are capable of impacting VHF reception from ATV to aircraft, the airport requires to be satisfied that the proposal will not have an adverse impact upon VHF communication infrastructure (further analysis required). GPA is optimistic that appropriate mitigation of these effects will be possible and that an agreement can be reached with the Applicant in respect of mitigation measures, which would allow GPA to withdraw its objection. Local Development Plan Policy is clear that developments that have an adverse impact on the Safeguarding of Airports should be refused. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that due to the fact that National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport have advised the Energy Consents Unit that they object to the proposal, it will have an adverse impact on aviation is therefore inconsistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and SG LDP TRAN 7 –Safeguarding of Airports of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect. Page 186
Page 187
It is therefore recommended that Argyll & Bute Council object to the proposal due to the adverse impact it would have on Aviation. Furthermore, that the Energy Consents Unit should be advised that in the event that National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Glasgow Prestwick Airport withdraw their objections, then Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. Furthermore, in the event that a Public Inquiry is held that Argyll & Bute Council does not intend to give evidence on this technical matter, and would defer to NATS and GPA in this regard. Q. IMPACTS ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS AND TRANSMISSION LINKS (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links. BT, and the Joint Radio Company have provided confirmation to the ECU that they have no objections to this proposal. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links (including cumulative impacts) and is consistent with the provisions of SG 2, Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect. R. IMPACTS ON ROAD TRAFFIC AND ADJACENT TRUNK ROADS (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, SG 2 Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against any impact they may have on road traffic and adjacent trunk roads. Site Access Junction - Access to the site will be from the B8024 and a new junction bellmouth has been indicatively designed by Pell Frischmann. This will incorporate the grading of the junction to fit the topography and join the existing forestry track. The over-run area would become an informal car park for up to 10 vehicles when operational. Transport Scotland (TS) – have advised the ECU that they have no objection. TS request that conditions are attached in the event that the proposal receives consent relating to: Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Phased Delivery Plan; Road Condition Review/Assessment; Abnormal Indivisible Loads Management Plan; vehicles transporting construction material are sheeted; vehicle wheel cleaning facilities; abnormal load delivery trial-run; approval of the proposed route for abnormal loads and any accommodation measures; details of any additional signing or temporary traffic control measures deemed necessary (by Quality Assured traffic management consultant); and a Decommissioning Plan. The Council’s Roads & Amenity Services have advised that they have no objection subject to conditions to secure: a Traffic Management Plan; a detailed Method Statement; new passing places; carriageway widening; carriageway widening to be soiled and seeded; report identifying vulnerable areas of road to traffic loading (including assessment of culverts or other structures and proposed mitigation); and a detailed roads condition survey; weekly road inspections. Furthermore, the Applicant should be made aware that there will be no financial contributions from Argyll & Bute Council towards the work required to facilitate the works or to make good any damage directly attributable to the construction of the wind farm. The Applicant Page 187
Page 188
should be made aware that they will be responsible for making good any damage to the public roads which is directly attributable to the construction of the wind farm. Transport Scotland should be notified as there may be work to be carried out within the road corridor of the A83 Tarbet – Campbeltown Trunk Road. A section 96 Legal Agreement will be required. The Roads Engineer has also highlighted the following notes for intimation to the Applicant: in terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 a Road Opening Permit (S56) will be required, and no surface water is allowed to discharge onto the public road. The Applicant has been made aware of the requirements of Area Roads and confirmed that they have no issues with these requirements. Having due regard to the above, subject to the relevant conditions being attached to any consent granted by the ECU, it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on road traffic and adjacent trunk roads and the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SG2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect. S. EFFECTS ON HYDROLOGY, THE WATER ENVIRONMENT AND FLOOD RISK (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk. SEPA – Impacts on the Water Environment – SEPA has advised the ECU that they support the adoption of a 50m buffer between proposed infrastructure and watercourses as shown on Figure 10.7. The Watercourse Crossing Schedule (Appendix 10.3) describes ten crossings needed to facilitate the development. Proposals to undertake alterations to, or works on, the bank or bed of a watercourse requires consent under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR). While SEPA have no consentability concerns with the majority of these crossings (which are to be bottomless arch culverts) they request a bridging solution is implemented for Watercourse Crossing 4 as this is approximately 4m wide. To protect the water environment, SEPA therefore request a condition requiring that this crossing be a traditional style bridge unless otherwise agreed with SEPA. Furthermore, a Construction Run Off Licence under CAR will also be required for surface water run off from the construction site. That will require the applicant to have a Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) in place. SEPA are content to consider detailed proposals during the CAR authorisation process SEPA - Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) – SEPA has advised the ECU that they have considered the GWDTE assessment provided in the EIAR, including Technical Appendix 8.1: Habitats, and agree that there are no GWDTEs on site. SEPA acknowledge that justification for this conclusion has been provided and it seems that the habitats present are surface water fed and a result of topography. This has also been supported with water chemistry sampling. Other areas appear to be degraded habitat at the plantation forest margins and these areas have been mentioned in the Habitat Management Plan to restore degraded habitats. The Council’s Flood Risk Assessor – has advised that they have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to ensure that: watercourse crossings not to reduce the capacity of the channel and ideally be designed to convey the 1:200 year plus climate change flow; and Surface water drainage should be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensure that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. Page 188
Page 189
Having due regard to the above, subject to the relevant conditions being attached to any consent granted by the ECU, it is concluded that the water environment and flood risk have been considered and the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and SG LDP SERV 7 – Flooding and Land Erosion – The Risk Framework for Development of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect. T. THE NEED FOR CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE DECOMMISSIONING OF DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SITE RESTORATION (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against the need for conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration. Following construction and commissioning, the proposal would be operational and generating electricity for a period of approximately 35 years, after which it would be decommissioned and removed, or alternatively, a further planning application could be made to extend the period of operation. If a further application is not submitted, decommissioning would involve the total removal of above-ground infrastructure. This would involve retention of existing access tracks for forestry operations. Reinstatement of the site would be carried out in accordance with an approved method statement. It is recommended that this matter is covered by planning conditions or a legal agreement consistent with other projects across Argyll & Bute in the event that the proposal obtains consent from the ECU. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the need for conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration has been considered and the proposal is therefore consistent/inconsistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect. U. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY STORAGE (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against any opportunities for energy storage which exist. The proposal incorporates battery energy storage to store energy from the development or excess electricity from the national grid, providing stability to the electricity supply network, meeting energy demands and providing improved energy security. Having due regard to the above it is recommended that the Council should not object to the proposal on the grounds of opportunities for energy storage (including cumulative impacts) in accordance with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement. V. THE NEED FOR A ROBUST PLANNING OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT OPERATORS ACHIEVE SITE RESTORATION (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) Page 189
Page 190
Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Supplementary Guidance 2: Renewable Energy and SPP require applications for renewable energy developments to be assessed against the need for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration. Following construction and commissioning, the proposal would be operational and generating electricity for a period of approximately 35 years, after which it would be decommissioned and removed, or alternatively, a further planning application could be made to extend the period of operation. If a further application is not submitted, decommissioning would involve the total removal of above-ground infrastructure. This would involve retention of existing access tracks for forestry operations. Reinstatement of the site would be carried out in accordance with an approved method statement. It is recommended that this matter is covered by planning conditions or a legal agreement consistent with other projects across Argyll & Bute in the event that the proposal obtains consent from the ECU. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that opportunities for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration have been considered and the proposal is therefore consistent with the provisions of SG 2 Renewable Energy, Policy LDP 6 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, SPP (2014) and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement in this respect. W. CLIMATE CHANGE (EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS) (SCOTLAND) ACT 2019, THE SCOTTISH ENERGY STRATEGY & ONSHORE WIND POLICY STATEMENT 2017 The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 - The Scottish Government is committed to increasing the supply of renewable energy within Scotland. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 sets out stringent targets for Scotland. The primary objective of the Act is to raise the ambition of the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act sets a legally-binding “net-zero” target of all greenhouse gases by 2045. The “net-zero” target for Scotland is five years ahead of the date set for the whole of the UK. The Scottish Energy Strategy (SES) (2017) and SES Position Statement (2021) – The SES was published in December 2017 and sets out the Scottish Government’s strategy through to 2050, marking a ‘major transition’ over the next 3 decades in terms of energy management, demand reduction and generation. The SES sets 2 new targets for the Scottish energy system by 2030: The equivalent of 50% of the energy for Scotland’s heat, transport and electricity consumption to be supplied from renewable sources; and, an increase by 30% in the productivity of energy use across the Scottish economy. The SES recognises that reaching the 50% target by 2030 ‘will be challenging’ but the target demonstrates ‘the SG’s commitment to a low carbon energy system and to the continued growth of the renewable energy sector in Scotland’. These energy and climate change goals mean that onshore wind must continue to play a vital role in Scotland’s future – helping to decarbonise our electricity, heat and transport systems, boosting our economy, and meeting local and national demand. The Statement goes on to state that: ‘This means that Scotland will continue to need more onshore wind development and capacity, in locations across our landscapes “where it can be accommodated”’. The 2021 Position Statement states that: “The Scottish Government is committed to supporting the increase of onshore wind in the right places to help meet the target of Net Zero.” ‘Onshore Wind Policy Statement’ (2017) – the onshore wind policy statement sets out the Scottish Government’s position on onshore wind and supports the aims of the Scottish Energy Strategy. Paragraph 74 states that: “The Scottish Government believes that our ambitious Page 190
Page 191
renewable energy goals are very much in the interests of Scotland’s citizens and environment. We also believe that developments can and must strike the right balance between utilising Scotland's significant renewable energy resources whilst protecting our finest scenic landscapes and natural heritage”. SPP, NPF3 and NPF4 Despite now being seven years old, NPF3 and SPP are extant statements of Scottish Government planning policy and will remain in place until such time as NPF4 is adopted. The status of NPF3 and SPP has not changed and they are significant material considerations in the determination of the present application. The SPP introduced a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. Paragraph 28 states: “The planning system should support economically, environmentally and socially sustainable places by enabling development that balances the costs and benefits of a proposal over the longer term. The aim is to achieve the right development in the right place; it is not to allow development at any cost” Renewable energy generation targets are supported by NPF3 but that support is qualified as mirrored in SPP. It is stated at paragraph 4.7: “The pressing challenge of climate change means that our action on the environment must continue to evolve, strengthening our longer- term resilience. A planned approach to development helps to strike the right balance between safeguarding assets which are irreplaceable, and facilitating change in a sustainable way.” Paragraph 4.4 of NPF 3 recognises that Scotland’s landscapes are spectacular, contributing to our quality of life, national identity and visitor economy. Landscape quality is found across Scotland and all landscapes support place-making. Having due regard to the above subject to the recommended advice and conditions it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of: SPP, NPF3, the Scottish Energy Strategy 2017 and Onshore Wind Policy Statement 2017, in this regard, which represent the Scottish Governments most up to date position on this type of development. X. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION Both SPP and the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan support renewable energy developments provided it has been adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects. The determining issues in relation to this case are: Landscape & Visual Impact (including cumulative), and Aviation. It is accepted that the proposal would make an important contribution to the Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and these matters are important benefits which have been carefully considered. However, taking all of the above into account, overall it is considered that the unacceptable: Landscape & Visual Impact (including cumulative), and outstanding Aviation technical issues would outweigh the benefits of the proposal. Officers therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the Scottish Planning Policy and the Argyll & Bute local development plan and that there are no material considerations which would justify anything other than the Council objecting to this proposal for the reasons detailed in this report. Should the objections raised by National Air Traffic Services and Glasgow Prestwick Airport be withdrawn, then it is also recommended that Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds, and that the Energy Consents Unit should treat these aspects of the Councils overall objection as withdrawn. Page 191
Page 192
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 193
Page 193
Page 194
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 195
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling relating to application for consent to the Scottish Ministers under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 along with a request for a direction that planning permission be deemed to be granted under section 57 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 22/01298/S37 (ECU000002199) Planning Hierarchy: Major Application (Section 37 Consultation) Applicant: Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc Proposal: Construction of approximately13.3 km of 275 kV Over Head Line (OHL ) from between a proposed substation at Creag Dhubh to the existing Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) 275 kV OHL that runs from Dalmally to Inverarnan. Site Address: Land South Of Dalmally and East of Cladich ____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE (i) Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 ____________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 Application for consent to construct and operate a 13.3 kilometre (km), 275 kilovolt (kV), double circuit overhead line (OHL), supported by some 48 lattice steel towers between a proposed substation at Creag Dhubh to the existing Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) 275 kV OHL that runs from Dalmally to Inverarnan, near Succoth Glen, via a Tie-In connection. Members are requested to note that in Scotland, any proposal to install and keep installed an overhead electric line, requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under sections 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. Such applications are processed on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Energy Consents Unit (“ECU”) Scottish Government - Energy Consents. Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 also allows the Scottish Ministers, on granting consent under Section 37, to direct that planning permission for that development shall be deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction. The proposed development would primarily comprise; • A 13.3 km double circuit 275 kV OHL, supported by lattice steel towers between a proposed substation at Creag Dhubh to the existing SPEN 275 kV OHL that runs from Dalmally to Inverarnan, near Glen Lochy (Succoth Glen); (ii) Other associated works Page 195 Agenda Item 9
Page 196
Formation of new and upgraded vehicular access points to public roads Formation of new and upgrading of access tracks Construction of temporary and permanent water crossings Formation of tower working areas Other ancillary and associated operations An EIA has been submitted in support of the application which will be referenced in the Officer Report. The applicants clarify in their submissions that the overall project will also involve the following separate application submissions: A Tie-In connection involving the proposed OHL being connected to the existing Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) 275 kV OHL, known as the YW route, via a new terminal tower (T48/YW17R) located between existing SPEN Towers YW17 and YW18, from the proposed T47.( this is subject to a separate S37 Application to the Scottish Ministers REF: ECU00004493 and consultation to the Planning Authority REF:22/01329/S37). This application is subject to a separate report presented to PPSL at this meeting (REF: 22/01329/S37), however it is intrinsically linked to the current proposals as it facilitates the connection of the proposed 13.3km high voltage line into the wider high voltage transmission network. For clarity a separate S37 application by Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) been required as SSEN has no remit to apply for any works SPEN infrastructure. The proposed Creag Dhubh substation, referenced in the submissions, and to which the line is proposed to connect at its southern end, is the subject of a separate application for planning permission. (Ref 22/00782/PP. Valid 19.8.22). This will be determined by the Planning Authority and not the Scottish Ministers. ____________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that no objection to the proposals be raised. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: Yes. Scoping response submitted to Energy Consents Unit under S37 process. Full details of these procedures and submissions from all consultees are contained on the ECU website with the Council’s Scoping response available to view under REF 21/00286/SCOPE. For clarity, this is a procedure to advise the ECU on matters which the Planning Authority (and other consultees) considers should be included in the EIA submissions and not the expression of any opinion by the Planning Authority on whether future S37 proposals would be considered acceptable or not. ____________________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: Members are requested to note that as this is a Section 37 proposal the consultation responses are required to be sent to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) who undertake this exercise as the determining authority and not to the Planning Authority as this is not an application for Planning Permission. A link to the ECU website is set out below which will provide a reference for all submissions by third parties and other external consultees: Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details Page 196
Page 197
Officers also take this opportunity to clarify some of the external consultees have responded to both this and the associated single link tower S37 application by SPEN as a single response. A summary of the responses sent to the ECU to the overall project by other external consultees is set out below. Nature Scot (Dated 22.8.22). No Objection. We note and welcome the various mitigation and compensation proposed which will help reduce impacts on protected species and priority habitats. We would welcome further discussion on the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), mitigation, species protection plans or habitat management plans, as appropriate, post determination. We would also be happy to advise further on protected mammal licencing if required. The proposed development would not result in significant effects on the qualities of the Loch Etive Mountains and Ben Lui Wild Land Areas (WLA 09 and WLA 06) and therefore would not raise issues of National Importance. Glen Etive and Glen Fyne Special Protection Area (SPA) - Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), breeding The site’s status means that the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended (the “Habitats Regulations”) apply. Consequently, the Scottish Government, as the competent authority is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SPA before it can be consented (commonly known as Habitats Regulations Appraisal). To help you do this we advise that, in our view, based on the information provided and our current knowledge, the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. The appraisal we carried out considered the impact of the proposals on the following factors: We note that there was no flight activity very close to or crossing the line route. However, T18-T23 approximately follows the edge of the SPA. This leads us to a Natura appraisal conclusion of ‘likely significant effect but no adverse effect on site integrity’. We agree with the assessments made in relation to other designations in the area and are satisfied that no significant impacts on designated sites is likely to occur. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (Dated 02.8.22) – No Objection This is a joint response for ECU references: ECU00002199 and ECU00004493 Sufficient information is provided in the EIA Reports for us to come to a conclusion as to the level of impact on heritage assets covered by our interests. Whilst the proposals will have an adverse impact on the settings of SM4019 Auchtermally or Uachdar Mhaluidh, deserted township and SM5149 Dychlie, deserted crofts in particular, we have concluded that the development proposal does not raise issues of national interest sufficient to warrant an objection for our historic environment interests. RSPB (Dated 22.07.22) – No Objection RSPB Scotland does not object to the above application, and consider that most mitigation measures proposed in Environmental Impact assessment Report (EIAR) Volume 2, Page 197
Page 198
Chapter 7 (to be delivered via Species Protection Plans, and monitored by the Ecological Clark of Works (ECoW)) and the Outline Habitat Management Plan are broadly satisfactory. However, we ask that additional mitigation is considered to further reduce the Proposed Development’s impact on protected species and habitats, and to secure net biodiversity gain; notably for Schedule 1/1A and A1 White-tailed eagles Haliaeetus albicilla, UK Biodiversity Action Plan Black grouse Lyrurus tetrix and Ancient/native woodland with associated lichen assemblages. SEPA (Dated 13.7.22) - No Objection. A condition should be applied requiring a finalised detailed Peat Management Plan (PMP), to be agreed with the planning authority in consultation with SEPA prior to the commencement of development. The finalised plan should be update as a result of any further post-consent survey work and detailed design and should include further information relating to peat disturbance and reuse from permanent tracks and proposals for temporary peat storage. To minimise impacts on the water environment the finalised route of the proposed access track should be amended from that shown in the application at the following locations, which should be reflected in the finalised PMP: • Between T19 and T20, where the track should not run along the side of the watercourse and a larger buffer should be observed and then a more perpendicular crossing of the watercourse made. • Near T25, where the configuration of the track should be amended so that the junction is not on top of a water feature. • Between T23 and T24, where the track should not run along the side of the watercourse, a larger buffer should be observed and then a more perpendicular crossing of the watercourse made. • At the spur to T20, where the track should be moved further away from the watercourse. • Between T28 and T29, where the track should be realigned to avoid crossing the same watercourse twice. 2. A condition should be applied requiring the works to be carried out in line with the Schedule of Mitigation, outline Construction Environmental Management Plan and General Environmental Management Plans A condition should be applied requiring the development and implementation of a finalised Habitat Management Plan. It should be based on the outline version submitted with the application and deliver at least 9.26 ha of peatland habitat restoration in the areas identified in section 4.4 of the Outline Peat Management Plan. 4. A condition requiring watercourse crossings 7, 11, 17 and 18 to be of single-span bridge design; all other permanent new or replacement crossings shall be oversized bottomless arched culverts unless there is a small undefined channel where an oversized closed culvert is acceptable. A condition should be applied requiring site reinstatement and removal of temporary works within a given timeframe of the works being completed. Transport Scotland (Dated 14.7.22) - No Objection. Notwithstanding the issues noted, following a review of Transport Scotland’s data and noting the assessment approach adopted, the traffic data applied is considered to be sufficient for the purposes of this assessment Scottish Forestry (Dated 29.6.22) - No Objection. Page 198
Page 199
As with previous projects, forest design and wider felling need to be taken into account, with similar landscape work being completed as per Inveraray Crossaig. In addition, the hydrology of development felling in context with the normal forest activity needs to be considered in relation to any sensitive waters, including Loch Awe. Specific Comments: 1. LT29 alignment options. I am content with the description of GL5 diversion decision, which, despite a slightly increased impact on coniferous woodland, does minimise the effect on the Ancient Woodland. 2. Glen Lochy Switching Station 3. Creag Dhubh Substation The minor alterations proposed at Glen Lochy and Creag Dhubh, do not appear to have any additional impacts on woodlands than the previous proposals, and so I have no further comments to make. Scottish Water (Dated 15.7.22) - No Objection A review of our records indicates that there are no Scottish Water drinking water catchments or water abstraction sources, which are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas under the Water Framework Directive, in the area that may be affected by the proposed activity. Internal Consultation Responses: Biodiversity Officer (Dated 5.8.22) - No Objection. “I note that the CEMP will be overseen by an ECoW, I ask that Toolbox Talks are included along with the Habitat Management and Restoration Plans. I also note that Pre- Start ecological surveys are to be conducted along with mitigation for species including ornithological interest. I look forward to having sight of the Biodiversity Net Gain assessment report when it becomes available” Area Roads Engineer (Dated 23.8.22) - No objection I confirm that Roads have no objection to the proposed, subject to submission and approval, of the documents listed, prior to construction/ extraction works are undertaken. A Timber Transport Management Plan (TTMP) The Construction Transport Management Plan (CTMP) & control measures therein Furthermore, all access roads should be constructed in accordance with the appropriate vehicle speed/ visibility splay. All access road works undertaken should be in accordance with Standard Construction Details 001 & 004, for access roads adjoining adopted roads. Drainage and Flooding Advisor (Dated19.8.22) – No Objection. It is recommended that planning conditions to the effect of the following be attached to any consent granted for this application: 1. Watercourse crossings should be designed such that post-development channel capacity is the same or greater than pre-development channel capacity. 2. Surface water drainage should be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensure that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface Page 199
Page 200
water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. Conservation Officer (Dated 9.9.22) - No Objection. On the basis of the information provided the pylons will be visible from the listed McIntyre monument and will have an adverse impact on its setting. However the proposed siting of the pylons are at a sufficient distance from the listed monument and are set within a valley so would not be visible on a skyline. Overall I would not consider the impact to be significant and I would not object to the proposal. ____________________________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: N/A Section 37 Consultation ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Yes All representations in respect of S37 Consent applications require to be submitted to the ECU and not the Council who are only a consultee and not the determining authority. However members are requested to note the following information from the ECU and Council website. (A link to the ECU website has been previously provided in this report). At time of preparing this report Objections have been submitted to the ECU by the following parties; Sue Rawcliffe, (E-mail address) Dated 18.8.22, 08.09.22 and 9.9.22. Members are requested to note that this objector refers to a petition of 215 signatures which now been submitted to the ECU. This has also been provided to Officers on 9.9.22 as there are some delays with the ECU website making objections visible. It was requested by Ms Rawcliffe that this not be put on the Council public access website for data protection reasons and the fact that it was a submission for the ECU. Officers have agreed to this and can confirm a list of 215 individuals has been provided objecting to the proposals on the following criteria. We, the undersigned wish to make representation in relation to the Section 37 applications ECU00002199 Creag Dhubh to Dalmally 275kV Overhead Line Connection and EC00004493 North Argyll Tie-in on the following grounds: 1. The applicant, SSEN, has failed to adequately consider alternatives. 2. The applicant has failed to engage in any meaningful way with the local community. 3. There will be significant environmental impacts. 4. The cumulative impact of this alongside other developments will seriously impact on our community's future sustainability. A separate letter of objection has also been provided on 9.9.22 sent to the ECU which is also on the Councils Public Access system. It was agreed this could be placed on public access. Mr John Strickland, Cladich More, Cladich, Dalmally Dated 21.8.22 Richard Field, Colluska House Dalmally Page 200
Page 201
A link to the public representations on the ECU website is provided below to allow Members to view any representations received after the writing of this report. These are found in “Documents- Public Representations” Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details (i) Summary of issues raised by Objectors 1. Failure to underground OHL not acceptable/ alternatives not considered appropriately 2. Impact of huge pylons unacceptable on attractive and important landscape. Will result in industrial scale development in the landscape 3. Proposals will cause significant environmental damage. 4. The area should be a national park and is targeted as it lacks this designation 5. Pylons widely believed to cause cancer 6. The pylons will have an adverse impact on tourism and the local economy In respect of the visual impact of the pylons and related matters, these are addressed within the Officer report and in consultation responses. In respect of the other matters raised Officers would comment as follows. Point 1 – The EIA Report at Chapter 2, 3.1 – 3.4.5 provides a comprehensive summary of the design evolution and alternatives considered in reaching the current routing proposal. Officers are content that the proposal represents an acceptable network solution when balanced against wider Planning Policy Priorities as set out in more detail elsewhere within this report and the routing limitations set out on the EIA. Point 4 - The area is, as a matter of fact, not within a designated National Park and therefore this Statutory Designation and the tests required in respect of development within national parks is not material to this determination. Point 5 - Health concerns associated with pylons is not considered by Officer to be a matter which has any substantive materiality to the consideration of the application under planning considerations and is a matter for Scottish Ministers and appropriate health experts to consider whether there is any merit in these medical allegations. Point.6 -There is no provided or referenced evidence to support the contention that the construction of pylons adversely impacts upon tourism within an area. Glenorchy and Innishail Community Council (Dated 2.8.22) – Object to proposals for the following reasons; Environmental Statement is flawed The Community council accept and understand the need to upgrade the SSEN infrastructure but SSEN have not looked sufficiently at alternative routes and options to reduce environmental impacts contrary to LDP2 policies, Single Outcome agreement and Community Plan. Proposals will industrialise the landscape of Argyll and Bute No meaningful Community Consultation has been undertaken Aarhouse Convertion has not been followed by SSEN Page 201
Page 202
This was initially submitted to the Planning Authority and not the Scottish Ministers as should have been the case. It has however been passed on by Officers and the ECU has acknowledged receipt and confirmed to the Community Council that its objections will be considered by the Scottish Ministers before reaching a decision. All of the above objections are matters for the Scottish Ministers to consider in reaching a decision under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 and to give such weight as they consider appropriate to all the issues raised. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: Yes. The following matters are addressed in the EIA: • Biodiversity; • Ornithology; • Landscape Character and Visual Impact; • Cultural Heritage; • Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Geology and Soils; • Forestry; • Noise and Vibration; and • Traffic and Transport; The EIA has also considered the potential for cumulative environmental impacts arising as a result of the Proposed Development in-combination with other reasonably foreseeable schemes (inter cumulative effects), as well as the combined or synergistic effects caused by the combination of a number of effects from the Proposed Development on a particular receptor (intra cumulative effects). This is primarily in respect of potential Landscape Impacts and also potential cumulative traffic impacts in respect of the Roads Network. The EIA report evaluates potential impacts and proposed mitigation with reference made to a number of supporting technical appendices which provide further detail on all of the above matters. (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (This is a matter for the ECU to address) (iii) A design or design/access statement: Refer to EIA Report and Planning Statement (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Refer to EIA Report, Technical Appendices and Figures. Page 202
Page 203
___________________________________________________________________________ (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (i) Is a Section 75 agreement required: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact of Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity) 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 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources SG LDP ENV 13 –Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Development Impact on Listed Buildings SG LDP ENV 19 –Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments SG LDP ENV 20 – Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance SG LDP REN 3 – Other (Non-Wind) Forms of Renewable Energy Related Development SG LDP SERV 6 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 5 – Off-Site Highway Improvements (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 4/2009. NPP3 (Draft NPP4) Page 203
Page 204
Argyll and Bute Energy Action Plan Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (Capacity Study 2017); SNH (1996) Landscape Assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde (Review No78) SNH (2009) Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Landscape Character Assessment. Argyll and Bute Woodland and Forestry Strategy Scottish Government Policy Document on Control of Woodland Removal Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan 2 (November 2019) – The unchallenged policies and proposals within LDP2 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 LDP2 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 LDP2 that may be afforded significant weighting in the determination of this application are listed below: Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access Policy 41 – Off Site Highway Improvements Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation ____________________________________________________________________________ (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No. EIA required and submitted (Schedule 1 Development) ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 (PAN41 or other): No ____________________________________________________________________________ (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The EIA submitted with the application examines landscape and other impacts associated with the proposals and concludes that some significant landscape impact will occur, these Page 204
Page 205
are however localised in nature and the overall development proposals will not have a significant landscape impact and is therefore acceptable. It is accepted in the submission that some localised significant visual impact will occur, and in particular from VP 11 looking south from the Duncan Ban Monument. Officers agree with the applicant’s view that the extent and level of impact is not sufficient to raise objection to the overall proposals as the supportive National and Local policy framework, which are supportive of such major grid infrastructure development necessary for renewable energy transmission and the nationally important benefits these will bring to meeting climate change targets and in promoting sustainable development. Although some significant localised landscape effects will take place as identified in the EIA, these are considered largely unavoidable with an infrastructure project of this scale. The Council is supportive of delivering this renewable energy related infrastructure upgrade within its Renewable Energy Action Plan under TC1 and the proposals represent essential National Infrastructure supported in NPP3 and draft NPP4. Importantly, NatureScot have not raised objection on landscape, ornithology or ecological grounds and have expressed that they are in general agreement with the EIA evaluation and conclusions. Officers can identify no reasons to depart from the findings and conclusions of NatureScot, and therefore consider that the overall proposals are considered acceptable in respect of landscape, ornithology and ecological impacts. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer also raises no objections. In respect of potential impacts upon cultural and historic assets, and the acknowledged impacts within the EIA documents, HES have raised no objection to the proposals. Again Officers can identify no reason to depart from the views of the expert consultee on such matters. The Council’s Conservation Advisor has raised no objections to the impact of the proposed towers on the setting of the Category B Listed Duncan Bann monument. Transport Scotland raises no objection to the proposals, (including evaluating potential cumulative impacts on the Trunk Roads Network) The Area Roads manager also raises no objections to the proposals. Officers consider that overall the landscape, ecological, historic environment, Transportation and other potential effects have been appropriately addressed and mitigated in defining the proposed route, where a balanced judgement on competing interests must be reached. Appropriate mitigation can be secured through the imposition of conditions by the Scottish Ministers in line with the proposals set out within the EIA, and within the consultation responses submitted to the ECU by other consultees set out in this Report (and on the ECU website) as is normal practice for S37 applications. In conclusion, it is therefore considered that the proposals are in accordance with the overall LDP policies and objectives and it is recommended that no objection be raised to the current S37 proposal. ____________________________________________________________________________ (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes ____________________________________________________________________________ (R) Reasons why no objection to the proposal should be raised The EIA submitted with the application examines landscape and other impacts associated with the proposals and concludes that some significant landscape impact will occur, these are however localised in nature and the overall development proposals will not have a significant landscape impact and is therefore acceptable. Page 205
Page 206
It is agreed by Officers that the overall scheme is acceptable in terms of landscape impact. In respect of the localised significant impacts identified in the EIA, it is the opinion of Officers that these are not sufficiently harmful to justify objecting to the current proposals, and do not outweigh the economic and sustainability benefits associated with the delivery of this nationally important infrastructure project which will transfer renewably generated energy to the grid. Although some significant localised landscape effects will take place as identified in the EIA, these are considered largely unavoidable with an infrastructure project of this scale. The Council is supportive of delivering this renewable energy related infrastructure upgrade within its Renewable Energy Action Plan under TC1 and the proposals represent important National Infrastructure supported in NPP3 and draft NPP4. Officers consider that overall the landscape, ecological, historic environment, transportation and other effects have been appropriately mitigated in defining the proposed route, where a balanced judgement on competing interests must be reached. Appropriate mitigation can be secured through the imposition of conditions by the Scottish Ministers in line with the proposals set out within the EIA, or within the consultation responses submitted to the ECU by other consultees set out in this Report and on the ECU website. In conclusion, it is therefore recommended that no objection be raised to the current S37 proposals ____________________________________________________________________________ (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: S37 Consultation Author of Report: David Moore Date: 12.9.22 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 13.9.22 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 206
Page 207
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO S37 CONSULTATION REF. NO.22/01298/S37 Suggested Planning Conditions 1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the submitted Section 37 Application and associated Environmental Impact Assessment unless as otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. No development shall commence unless and until the Planning Authority has approved in writing the terms of appointment by the company of an independent and suitably qualified environmental consultant to assist the planning authority in monitoring compliance with the terms of the deemed permission and conditions attached to this consent, The terms of appointment shall: Impose a duty to monitor compliance with the terms of the deemed planning permission and conditions attached to this consent Require the environmental consultant to submit a monthly report to the planning authority summarising the works undertaken on site; and Require the environmental consultant to report to the Planning Authority any incidences of non-compliance with the terms of the deemed planning permission and conditions attached to this consent at the earliest practical opportunity The environmental consultant shall be appointed on the approved terms throughout the period of commencement of development to completion of post construction restoration works. Reason: To enable the development to be suitably monitored to ensure compliance with the consent issued. 3. There shall be no transmission of electricity through the 275kV line until a woodland planting scheme to compensate for the removal of existing woodland (“the Replanting Scheme”) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Scottish Ministers in consultation with Forestry Commission Scotland and the Planning Authority. The Replanting Scheme submitted for approval must include; a. details of the location of the area to be planted; b. details of land owners and occupiers of the land to be planted; c. the nature, design and specification of the proposed woodland to be planted; d. details of all Necessary Consents for the Replanting Scheme and timescales within which each shall be obtained; e. the phasing and associated timescales for implementing the Replanting Scheme; f. proposals for the maintenance and establishment of the Replanting Scheme, including; annual checks; replacement planting; fencing; ground preparation; and drainage; and proposals for reporting to the Scottish Ministers on compliance with timescales for obtaining the Necessary Consents and thereafter implementation of the Replanting Scheme. The approved Replanting Scheme (or, as the case may be, an amended Replanting Scheme as approved in accordance with paragraph 5) shall thereafter be implemented in full and in accordance with the phasing and timescales set out therein, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Scottish Ministers after consultation with Forestry Commission Scotland and the Planning Authority. Page 207
Page 208
Reason: To ensure appropriate compensatory re-planting is secured in accordance with the requirements of SG LDP ENV 6 4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Scottish Ministers, the development will not be commissioned to supply electricity on a commercial basis until all relevant necessary consents for implementation of the Replanting Scheme in accordance with the phasing and timescales set out therein have been obtained. The Company shall submit details of any amended Replanting Scheme to the Scottish Ministers for approval and in this case- (a)The development will not be commissioned to supply electricity on a commercial basis until a Compensatory Replanting Scheme has been approved in writing by the Scottish Ministers in consultation with Forestry Scotland and the Planning Authority; (b) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Scottish Ministers, the development will not be commissioned to supply electricity on a commercial basis until all necessary consents for the compensatory replanting scheme have been obtained. Reason: To ensure appropriate compensatory re-planting is secured in accordance with the requirements of SG LDP ENV 6 5. No development shall be commenced on site until an updated Species Protection Plan has been submitted to and has been approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with NatureScot. This shall provide for updated pre- construction surveys to identify any presence of European Protected Species on or adjacent to the construction site, shall detail any mitigation required in terms of the timing of construction works and shall detail any other avoidance or mitigation proposed in response to any protected species likely to be affected by construction activities. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the duly approved Species Protection Plan. Reason: in the interests of nature conservation and to ensure updated surveys are provided. 6. No development shall be commenced until a full site specific Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and has been approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. This shall address requirements arising from the construction and reinstatement phases of the development, shall inform the production of construction method statements, and shall specify the siting of working areas, soil management practices, measures to prevent pollution of watercourses, environmental site monitoring and noise mitigation measures where identified to be required. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the requirements of any approved Construction Procedures Handbook, copies of which shall be maintained available on site for the duration of construction works. Reason: In the interests of pollution and noise control. 7. For the duration of construction and dismantling works, cultural heritage assets falling within the construction corridor, as identified within the Environmental Appraisal, shall be temporarily fenced off from construction activities. Where such assets are specifically protected by designation as Scheduled Ancient Monuments, the fencing in that event shall enclose a 20 metre buffer around the extent of the Page 208
Page 209
scheduled area. Details of such measures shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval in consultation with Historic Environment Scotland. Reason: In order to prevent damage to the historic environment. 8. No development shall take place within the development site as outlined in red on the approved plan until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service”. Reason: In the interests of archaeology. 9. Prior to development commencing, a Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted for the written approval of the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s roads engineers. This 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) and shall provide for the provision of an appropriate Code of Practice to drivers of construction and delivery vehicles. This Traffic Management plan shall also evaluate and include potential cumulative impacts associated with other consented developments in the area to ensure cumulative traffic impacts are considered and also that the use and/or sharing of borrow pit locations to reduce traffic impacts are properly considered. Any traffic management plan shall include the evaluation of cumulative impact analysis of consented or reasonably foreseeable proposals which could also impact upon the capacity and safety of the road network. This shall be subject to consideration by both the Planning Authority and Transport Scotland The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with any approved Traffic Management Plan unless with the written agreement of the appropriate roads authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety and the integrity and functioning of the roads network. 10. Prior to development commencing details of the layout and construction of the access points proposed to facilitate access for construction on all roads shall be agreed with the Council’s roads engineers and Transport Scotland where the access is to a trunk road. All construction will require to be in accordance with the Council’s standard junction details; the required standard detail in each case being dictated by the proposed usage of the access point. Minor accesses where the existing roadside fence is closer to the carriageway than 2m will require a bound surface extending to a point 2m back from the carriageway edge. Where the existing roadside fence is 2m or further from the edge of the carriageway, the bound surface shall extend to 5m back from the edge of carriageway. All accesses will be a minimum of 3m wide. Where accesses are proposed to be used more extensively they shall be 4.5m wide, and for the main compounds and depots they shall be 6m wide. Accesses serving main compounds and depots shall be constructed in accordance with roads engineers drawing SD08/001a. All new and extended passing places will be constructed to a minimum standard of roads engineers drawing SD08/003a, and where longer passing places are necessary, SD08/003a will be used for extrapolation. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Page 209
Page 210
11. Details and/or compliance with the following matters/actions require to be submitted and approved in consultation with the Area Roads Engineer prior to the commencement of development or as otherwise may be agreed in writing with the planning authority through an approved Traffic Management Plan; a. All bridges, culverts and walls along the route to be inspected and the condition recorded before and after the project. b. The routes used to be inspected and the condition recorded prior to use. Video recording is required. Survey to be submitted to Roads & Amenity Services prior to any work starting on site. c. Any use of temporary signage to be approved by Roads & Amenity Services. d. All access points from the public road to be constructed in accordance with the Council's standard details. The required standard detail will be relevant to the proposed usage. e. All accesses to be surfaced in a bound material. f. Minor accesses where the roadside fence is closer to the public road than 2.00 metres the bound surface will extend to a point 2.00 metres back from the carriageway edge. Where the existing roadside fence is 2.00 metres or further from the edge of public road the bound surface will extend 5.00 metres from edge of public road. g. All accesses will be 3.00 metres wide. Where accesses are used more extensively they will be 5.50 metres wide and for main compounds and depots they will be 6.00 metres wide. Main compounds and depots will be constructed in accordance with standard detail drawing ref: SD 08/001 Rev a. h. All new and extended passing places shall be constructed to the required standard. The minimum required standard will be SD 08/003 Rev a. Where longer passing places are necessary SD 08/003 Rev a will be used for extrapolation. i. Where it is necessary to culvert the roadside ditches the minimum pipe size will be 450 mm diameter. All roadside culverts to be agreed in writing with Roads & Amenity Services prior to installation. All pipes to be twin wall polypropylene or similar approved. Headwall details to be agreed with Roads & Amenity Services. j. A code of practice for drivers both on the site and for delivery drivers. The code of practice will detail how drivers should proceed at passing places, how they should allow following traffic to pass, avoid running in convoy, keep away from verges, locations where turning is possible, report verge damage they have caused so that it can be repaired, no parking on verges which cause obstructions; these are the minimum contents of the code of practice, further development will be required. All deliveries to the site will have instruction provided to the drivers relating to the Code of Practice, specific routes to follow etc. k. Should any Argyll & Bute Council road suffer unacceptable damage, the Council will consider imposing restrictions to preserve the route. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Page 210
Page 211
12. The applicant shall demonstrate that the wholesomeness and sufficiency of the private water supplies in the vicinity of the development shall not be compromised by the proposed development prior to the commencement of the development. If during, or on completion of the works, surrounding private water supplies are effected or deemed not suitable, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that any damage to said water supplies is rectified and addressed to ensure that the water supplies to the properties meet at least the standards which were in place prior to works of this S37 consent being implemented. Reason: In order to provide adequate protection of the private water supplies in the vicinity of the proposed development. 13 Watercourse crossings should be designed such that post-development channel capacity is the same or greater than pre-development channel capacity. Surface water drainage should be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensure that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre- development surface water runoff. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. Reason: To ensure flooding and drainage matters are properly addressed in the implementation of the scheme. Page 211
Page 212
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 22/01298/S37 PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT A. Settlement Strategy The Proposed Development forms part of this strategy and aims to reinforce the existing transmission network connections in the Argyll region, to enable renewable energy projects to connect to the GB transmission network and to ensure security of supply. Infrastructure for the transportation of low carbon electricity is essential to delivering the Scottish Government target for the equivalent of 50% of Scotland’s heat, transport, and electricity consumption to be supplied from renewable sources. This is why enabling the transition to a low carbon economy remains the applicant’s main strategic purpose The original transmission network in Argyll and Bute was constructed over 60 years ago and designed to transmit electricity to consumers in rural areas of low-density population. As the UK strives for Net Zero (achieving a balance between the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere and those taken out), the applicant has seen a significant increase in generator connection applications in Argyll and Kintyre in the last 18 months, predominantly in renewable generation. In terms of this renewable generation, there are infrastructure requirements needed to connect generators to the applicant’s transmission network. Officers are content that the principle of large scale infrastructure of this type is in accordance with Plan policy as point of principle in terms of scale and location of development for the reasons set out below. The applicants clarify in their supporting Planning Statement, at para 1.3.1 that: The Proposed Development is identified within Annex A of National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3) as a National Development under the class of development noted as “new and / or upgraded onshore electricity transmission cabling of or in excess of 132 kilovolts and supporting pylons”. The Proposed Development is for an extension to the OHL infrastructure in the region enabling increased capacity from 132kV to 275kV and connection to the wider SPEN network to enable renewable connections and transmission of energy to the wider GB network. The Proposed Development will contribute to security of supply and provide increased and more resilient infrastructure capacity to facilitate renewable energy connections in the wider area – all of which forms vital elements to deliver network and grid infrastructure required to deliver the Government’s legally binding targets for net zero emissions and renewable energy electricity generation objectives. The Proposed Development will be delivered in such a way that it is environmentally acceptable and will include a co-ordinated and scheme of landscaping and screening to the site. The proposals are accepted by Officers to represent major and nationally important infrastructure proposals as recognised in NPF3. The routing of the proposal through countryside locations is in accordance with normal land-use associated with such essential energy infrastructure and therefore the location of the proposals outside settlements in countryside locations is in accordance with the objectives of LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM1 and Policy LDP 11. B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development Page 212
Page 213
The proposed towers are designed to safely carry the necessary energy loadings and are of a similar design to those used throughout the UK for such a function. The new OHL will not only provide electricity to town and settlements in Argyll but also export electrical energy associated with the many renewable energy generators in the area. Paragraph 2.3.4 of the Planning Statement confirms that the key components of the application re for 48 self-supporting fabricated galvanised steel lattice towers, L8(C) series that are on average 50 m high and separated by an average distance of 280 m. The spacing (span length) between towers and the tower height would vary depending on environment and engineering constraints with maximum height of 60 m and maximum span length of 350. In respect of the design of the proposed towers, there are the approved and commonly used towers throughout the UK to undertake high voltage transmission upgrades and reflect those previously approved under 18/01700/S7 for the Inveraray to Crossaig high Voltage upgrade. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with the general requirements of policies LDP3 and LDP 9 in respect of their design and appearance as these are commonly found structures throughout the UK in countryside locations. C. Landscape Character and Potential Impact on Settlements The landscape encompassing the proposed development is typified by a complex series of irregular dramatic topographical mountains with rocky outcrops to low-lying hollows and glens. Loch Awe is a key water feature and in the south east, the northern shores of Loch Fyne extend partially into the study area. Areas of broadleaved woodland are present across lower hill sides and along the shoreline of Loch Awe. Commercial forestry is a dominant feature in the landscape and a main land use. Visual receptors. Including residents of Dalmally and Cladich, which will have full or partial views of the OHL, individual properties, tourists, walkers and cyclists. Designated landscapes: Including the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (LLTNP), and Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs). Non-designated landscapes: Including Wild Land Areas (WLAs) and Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDLs). The applicant’s contend in their submission that: The main source of impact would be from the proposed towers and construction of new temporary and permanent access tracks. These require the removal of commercial forestry, heather moorland, and other vegetation. Careful routeing of the Proposed Development during the design stage mitigated these effects by endeavouring to avoid the most sensitive landscape and visual receptors to minimise potential significant landscape and visual effects. There would be direct, significant residual effects on the fabric and host landscape character within the immediate area of the OHL steel lattice towers during construction and operation. These significant effects would be highly localised, and the level of effect would reduce substantially over a short distance from the proposed development. Officers agree that this is fair summary of the operations proposed and the main elements of potential landscape and visual impacts which will be associated with the towers and any permanent access tracks retained for maintenance. The EIA concludes that although significant localised effects occur, the overall OHL will not have significant environmental or landscape effects, subject to suggested mitigation Page 213
Page 214
as set out within the EIA. However, the applicants clarify in submissions that: Significant adverse residual visual effects were identified at one VP location which relates directly to Historic Environment/Cultural Heritage matters. (This is VP11 and relates to vies from and potential impact upon the Duncan Ban Monument) The applicants also identify and list the following locations where visual impacts will occur as set out in Figure 11.7 of the submissions visual impact will also be significant for cars driving alongside the northern boundary, on the B840. The wayleave will be visible to car travellers for a moderate period of time. The visual impact will be most important where the powerline crosses the A819 as the wayleave will be directly perpendicular to the road. The sight of the wayleave will however only be visible for a short period of time, reducing the significance of the visual impact. The A819 crosses the property from north to south and will cross the wayleave. The wayleave will be visible for a moderate period of time to cars driving south, increasing the significance of the visual impact. The power line will be visually prominent in this rolling landscape Management felling for the sub-station will be visible for cars driving north on the A819 and for cars driving alongside the B840. Officers are in agreement with this overall conclusion in considering the OHL proposal in its entirety and the most likely viewpoints where it will be most prominent in the landscape. Clearly the power line will also be visible from surrounding high points to a greater or lesser degree and the ZTV information provided in the EIA at Figure 8.1b. However in many of these longer views Officers are of the opinion that the receiving landscape is of a scale and nature to successfully absorb the impacts of the towers without significant adverse impact occurring. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with SG LDP ENV 14 Officers consider in respect of impact on settlements that the towers, although they will clearly be visible from some residential properties and areas around settlements, any likely impacts will be acceptable. In respect of Dalmally the new towers will integrate with the existing power lines where the proposed new line and existing line will connect. Members should note that previous proposals to construct a switching station at this location no longer form part of the S37 application proposals. Towers of this type and scale are not unusual on the periphery of rural settlements where high voltage grid is required and therefore the proposals are considered to be acceptable. Potential Cumulative Impacts Throughout the discussions associated with this, and other projects that Officers are aware of, there has been a clear requirement for potential cumulative impacts of the proposals to be considered as part of any evaluation. The applicants have taken this on board and provided cumulative impact evaluation as part of the EIA submission. This evaluates not only the potential impact of this development in isolation, but also other proposals either existing or proposed which could cumulatively lead to the current proposals having an unacceptable and significant impact on the landscape. At 8.4.75 the applicants confirm that: Page 214
Page 215
For the purposes of the LVIA, and in order to keep the assessment proportionate, only those cumulative developments associated with electricity transmission, and which are considered likely to contribute to significant cumulative effects when the Proposed Development is introduced have been taken forward in the cumulative assessment. This is accepted by Officer as a reasonable basis to evaluate potential cumulative impacts. Table 8.7 Lists those other developments which have been considered as part of the evaluation exercise. Cumulative impacts associated with commercial forestry felling have also been incorporated in this exercise. Paragraph 8.6.39 clarifies that “The location and geographical extent of LCTs within the Study Area are presented on Figure 8.3a (EIAR Volume 3a). A detailed description of each of these LCTs is presented in TA 8.2 and a detailed residual effects assessment is presented in TA 8.4 (EIAR Volume 4)” Detailed commentary and evaluation on such matters is contained within the EIA in Volume 2- Chapter 8. In respect of the evaluation of these matters NatureScot, who advise on such Landscape Impact matters, has not raised objections to the proposals in respect of cumulative impacts. Officers consider that the evaluation contained within the EIA document at Vol 2 Ch 8 represents a fair evaluation of the nature of potential impacts, their potential significance having regard to the permanent nature of the proposal, the sensitivity and characteristics of the receiving landscape. Of perhaps most significance in terms of potential Landscape Impacts for A&B is the fact that the proposals is set within an identified APQ. The full alignment of the Proposed Development, and the majority of the central and northern portions of the study area are located within the North Argyll APQ. The applicants accept that; The landscape within the APQ is sparsely settled. Where settlement occurs, it is mainly concentrated along the edges of Loch Awe and within glens, as the uplands and high tops are relatively inaccessible, rugged and in some places relatively wild. These contrasts between landscape types and scales are some of the characteristics that add to the scenic quality of the area…. The sensitivity of the landscape designation is considered high as it has a high value and a high susceptibility to the type of development proposed. The EIA evaluates construction effects and also potential phasing crossover. However in Officers opinion the most important matter is the operational cumulative visual impacts of the proposals and not the construction phase of the development where these would be temporary. Chapter 2, Paragraphs 8.6.40 to 8.6.87 clarifies the LVIA evaluation which has been undertaken by the applicants which seeks to identify those areas and interests who would be to some degree impacted by the visual appearance of the proposals, and in combination with other potential developments in the area. The applicants fairly conclude at para 8.7.3 that: There would be direct, significant effects on the fabric and host landscape character area within the immediate area of the OHL steel lattice towers during construction and operation. The removal of vegetation cover, modest changes to the landform (OHL tower foundations) and the direct loss of coniferous forestry to facilitate the construction and operation of the Proposed Development would alter the landscape within close proximity Page 215
Page 216
to the proposed alignment and increase the presence of transmission infrastructure within the landscape. Significant effects associated with these aspects of the Proposed Development would be highly localised, and would reduce substantially over a short distance from the alignment route. The localised removal of vegetation cover, whilst directly impacting on the fabric of the landscape within the alignment corridor, would not detract from, or significantly alter, the distinct pattern of landscape structure that characterises the wider landscape. Operational effects would be mitigated through the implementation of the mitigation specified in Section 8.5.11: Mitigation and the measures recorded in Chapter 15: Schedule of Mitigation (EIAR Volume 2). Continuing at para 8.7.5; The Argyll and Bute Area of Panoramic Quality would be directly affected by the Proposed Development; however, these impacts would be highly localised, quickly reducing with distance, due to intervening forestry and woodland. The Proposed Development would be visible from Ardanaiseig House GDL. However, given the extent of backclothing and intervening elements such as forestry it would result in a discernible change within the view, and is not anticipated to exert such an influence upon the qualifying features of the GDL to the extent they would be impacted, or their enjoyment diminished. The Proposed Development would be visible from isolated parts of the Loch Etive Mountains and Ben Lui WLAs; however the development would not be out of character with the existing view from these locations. Therefore, the magnitude of impact would be Negligible and the residual effect would be Moderate/Minor and not significant. They continue at para 8.7.7: The views towards the Proposed Development from several scattered residential properties would be seen at varying distances, and within the context of an expansive diverse landscape. As the Proposed Development routes through dense commercial forestry, a large proportion of the Proposed Developments towers would be screened in views, particularly those provided from the A819 and at Cladich. From more distant locations along the western extent of Loch Awe, properties would have long distance views of the Proposed Development, those properties situated at lower elevations would be subjected to filtered/restricted views. However, those properties at a higher elevation would view the Proposed Development as a new notable element within the hillside, albeit at a distance and backclothed by the surrounding topography and land cover. In respect of views the surrounding roads network para 8.7.8 states: The main routes (A85, A819 and B8077) and other minor transport routes were included within the detailed assessment process. No significant residual effects were identified. Of the many recreational routes within the LVIA Study Area, only one Duncan Ban MacIntyre core path (C450) would be subjected to locally significant effects as a result of the Proposed Development. Significant effects are not predicted on the amenity of any other core path due to a combination over distance and intervening landscape features, such as coniferous forestry and woodland vegetation and the generally backclothed appearance of the Proposed Development. At para 8.7.12 the applicants fairly accept that Any development of the scale and type proposed has potential to cause some significant landscape and visual effects. The Proposed Development is no different in this regard. However, it is apparent from the limited number of significant effects identified in respect of the Proposed Development in Section 8.5.20: Residual Construction Effects and Section 8.5.34: Residual Operational Effect, and the preceding summary, that the siting and design of the Proposed Development has proven to be effective in minimising such significant effects. Page 216
Page 217
Officers and NatureScot are in agreement with these overall conclusions in respect of potential landscape impacts associated with the proposals and therefore although some localised significant impacts will occur, these are not considered to outweigh the policy support for such necessary and nationally important infrastructure development. D. Natural Environment (Biodiversity and Ornithology) The submitted EIA has considered potential impacts and their associated effects on ecological features (including designated nature conservation sites, habitats, and protected species) as well as on birds and bird related features (including sites designated for breeding birds and other protected bird species) in line with Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) guidance. Baseline conditions have been collected through desk-based review of existing information, consultation with relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies and habitat and protected species surveys been collected through desk-based review of existing information, consultation with relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies and habitat and protected species surveys. The EIA confirms that: The dominant habitats are coniferous woodland plantation, wet modified bog and semi- improved acid grassland. Potential Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) were recorded throughout the field survey area. Protected species surveys identified the presence of Bat Roost Potential (BRP) trees, badger meles, water vole amphibius, otter Lutra lutra, pine marten Martes martes, red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris, common lizard Zootoca vivipara, common frog Rana temporaria, and common toad Bufo bufo. The EIA acknowledges that significant impacts will occur, but concludes that the proposed mitigation measures proposed satisfactorily address these. The applicants state that: Without the application of mitigation, significant effects would likely include, felling approximately 12.62 ha of Ancient Woodland, degradation of peatland habitats (wet heath and flushes), removal of trees with BRP, degradation of water vole and otter habitat. Following the application of mitigation, such as native woodland retention measures, on- site and offsite compensatory planting, peatland restoration, habitat reinstatement, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), pollution prevention measures, and inspection of BRP trees to be felled, no significant residual effects are predicted. Following completion of the Proposed Development (including reinstatement work), residual adverse effects are anticipated for the long term (approximately 10 to 20 years) until woodland has re-established. Woodland planting for Ancient Woodland is not a like- for-like replacement as Ancient Woodland is an irreplaceable resource. Compensatory planting areas are likely to establish as functional young woodland over at least 50 years. However, it would take far longer to provide a comparable offset for the loss of Ancient Woodland. As a result, a long-term significant adverse residual effect would remain for the loss of Ancient Woodland until such time as the replacement woodland areas are fully established and functional (from 80-100 years). Significant cumulative adverse effects are also predicted on Ancient Woodland between the surrounding cumulative developments and the Proposed Development. In respect of Ornithology the submission confirms that the Glen Etive and Glen Fyne Special Protection Area (SPA), which is designated for Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), borders the proposed development, for approximately 1 km, between towers 18 and 23 near Achlian Farm. The closest point to the SPA is 40 m, between Towers 20 and 21. The EIA confirms that the proposed development runs between two golden eagle territories, one with an active nest location to the north and another with an active nest to Page 217
Page 218
the south east. These territories have potential connectivity with the Proposed Development. Surveys recorded low levels of golden eagle flight activity and no significant impacts on the species, or the SPA are predicted. Field surveys recorded black grouse leks at five locations within the Ornithological Field Survey Area and territories were identified of white tailed eagle and hen harrier as well as likely territories of goshawk and honey buzzard. (Members are requested to note that detailed information in respect of these matters has been submitted to the Council on a confidential basis to protect the nest locations of the eagles. This is in accordance with established practice on such sensitive information). In respect of Ornithology the applicants conclude in their non-technical summary that Impacts on these features would be mitigated by adhering to Species Protection Plans and monitoring to be undertaken by the Ecological Clerk of Works. A section of line marking is required to avoid collision risk on white-tailed eagle. No significant residual impacts or cumulative impacts on ornithological features are predicted. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer raises no objections to the proposals and comments as follows: I note that no Invasive Non-Native Species have been recorded, I am aware that Rhododendron ponticum is present in the wider area, along the main road and in some areas of the surrounding land, I ask that applicant includes INNS in their pre-start checks and if found create exclusion zones whilst implementing an eradication plan. She continues; “I note that the CEMP will be overseen by an ECoW, I ask that Toolbox Talks are included along with the Habitat Management and Restoration Plans. I also note that Pre- Start ecological surveys are to be conducted along with mitigation for species including ornithological interest. I look forward to having sight of the Biodiversity Net Gain assessment report when it becomes available” NatureScot have also raised no objection to the proposals with their full consultation response available on the ECU website. It is considered that all ecological and biodiversity and ornithology related considerations have been appropriately addressed within the submitted EIA and can adequately addressed by the imposition of appropriate conditions by the Scottish Ministers on any grant of consent E. Impact on Woodland The EIA forestry assessment has considered potential impacts and their associated effects on the forestry resource, forest management and forest access during construction and operation. The applicants have confirmed that a desk study has been undertaken comprised consultation with Scottish Forestry and landowners and review of existing forest data provided by the landowners on woodland type (species/age class) and the existing woodland management regime. Field surveys were undertaken to confirm the extent of woodland areas affected by the Proposed Development and assess the current woodland characteristics. In total, approximately 7.92 km of the 13.3 km Proposed Development is within woodland and associated open ground, where tree clearance is required to form an Operational Corridor. Page 218
Page 219
The EIA submission confirms that three woodland habitat types were identified during surveys (areas provided in brackets show the identified woodland areas e.g. areas to be felled): • Broadleaved semi natural woodland (12.62 ha) • Broadleaved plantation woodland (0.36 ha) • Coniferous plantation woodland (51.19 ha) The native broadleaved woodland areas are identified on the Scottish Government’s Ancient Woodland Inventory. The routeing and alignment process sought to avoid woodland where possible, while taking account of other environmental, technical and cost constraints. The Proposed Development would pass through 7.92 km of woodland, and potentially impact on up to 64.17 ha of woodland. The applicants submit that; The loss of predominately low sensitivity coniferous woodland (51.19 ha) equates to approximately 0.03% of the regional resource (Argyll & Bute Council area). The Proposed Development would result in an impact on up to 12.98 ha of more sensitive ancient semi- natural woodland, of which 12.62 ha is categorised as semi-natural woodland. In the context of the regional resource, 12.62 ha would equate 0.04% loss. The effects of woodland removal, in forestry terms, were assessed as not significant, due to the low magnitude of change in the context of the regional resource, and the low to medium sensitivity of the types of woodland present in the study area. The effect on the ancient semi-natural woodland of mixed native broadleaves classification were assessed as significant based on the impact of a noticeable change over a limited area. No mitigation is deemed necessary to address the direct woodland loss in forestry terms. The felling of this amount of woodland with no compensatory planting would be considered contrary to Supplementary policy LDP ENV 6 which clarifies that: Argyll and Bute Council will also resist development likely to have an adverse impact on trees by ensuring through the development management process that adequate provision is made for the preservation of and where appropriate the planting of new woodland/trees, including compensatory planting and management agreements. To address these matters the applicants have confirmed that: …SSEN Transmission is committed to seeking to reduce the ecological effects that would arise through the loss of ancient semi-natural woodland through the sensitive management of the Operational Corridor. No significant effects on forest access were identified. The development of compensatory planting scheme agreements will be progressed with landowners within the regional land boundary of Argyll & Bute Council. This is to mitigate the woodland removal of the Proposed Development to meet the Scottish Government’s CoWRP objective of no net loss of woodland. On this basis the Applicant will replant the area quantity (64.17 ha) of woodland that will be removed for the Proposed Development. Scottish Forestry , in their consultation response to the ECU dated 31.8.22 have confirmed that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure compensatory planting, and the provision of Overhead Line Woodland Reports to minimise impacts on woodlands through best practice in respect of tree removal is provided they raise no objections to the proposals. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has also confirmed that she has no objection to the proposals. F. Historic Environment and Archaeological Matters Page 219
Page 220
As this is a S37 application the ECU has also consulted Historic Environment Scotland (HES) in respect of the proposals in a similar manner to consulting the Planning Authority. As HES are the statutory advisor in respect of such matters their views on the application are substantive material consideration in respect of evaluating the current proposals. In their consultation response dated 2.8.22 found on the ECU website (Application - HES Consultation Response - 02 August 2022 - Creag Dhubh to Dalmally.pdf) they comment that: Whilst the proposals will have an adverse impact on the settings of SM4019 Auchtermally or Uachdar Mhaluidh, deserted township and SM5149 Dychlie, deserted crofts in particular, we have concluded that the development proposal does not raise issues of national interest sufficient to warrant an objection for our historic environment interests …. Our view is that the proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance and therefore we do not object. Our decision not to object should not be taken as our support for the proposals. This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy on development affecting the historic environment, together with related policy guidance Officers see no reason to depart from the conclusions of HES as set out in their consultation response. It is clarified that from VP11 Duncan Ban McIntyre monument, the proposed development would be visible in views to the south/ southeast. The full Title of this Category B listed Building is Duncan Ban Mcintyre Monument Beacon Hill and the Listed building reference is LB12167. Officers agree with the evaluation of the applicants advisors that the scale and proximity of the line to views from this Category B Listed Building bring potential adverse impacts both in views from the monument outwards to the SW in terms of landscape impacts as this is a dominant view westward towards Loch Awe, but also, for the purposes of Cultural Heritage evaluation, as being potentially viewed as being within the setting of the Listed Building. HES have not referenced the potential impact on the Duncan Ban Monument in their response and have clarified that the potential impact on the setting of a category B Listed Building is not within their remit on such applications and is a matter for the Planning Authority Although officers consider there will be some adverse impact upon the setting of the Duncan Ban monument, this is considered not to be of such significance as to merit recommending an objection be raised to the proposals. The Council’s Conservation Advisor has commented that: On the basis of the information provided the pylons will be visible from the listed McIntyre monument and will have an adverse impact on its setting. However the proposed siting of the pylons are at a sufficient distance from the listed monument and are set within a valley so would not be visible on a skyline. Overall I would not consider the impact to be significant and I would not object to the proposal. In respect of archaeological matters further more detailed consideration of the actual works required within specific locations will be necessary to ensure any requests for Archaeological access is proportionate and reasonable to the circumstances of the location. This will be informed by the CEMP, where details of the exact location, and construction details of the proposals will be clarified. A standard condition can therefore address these matters ensuring that WOSAS approve necessary investigatory works in advance of any development commencing. Page 220
Page 221
G. Water Environment No consultees have raised objection to the proposals and SEPA, Scottish Water and the Council’s Flooding advisor are all content that subject to appropriate conditions and mitigation measures that the proposals are acceptable. It is not considered that the proposal raises any significant issues in respect of the water environment. H Potential Noise impacts on Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSR) It is considered that the use of appropriate noise control and mitigation measures can be used to ensure that no unacceptable impact would occur to sensitive receptors. These should be incorporated into the CEMP in respect of the details of construction proposals and identified mitigation requirements as is normal practice in respect of such development over such a long length with multiple construction sites. The primary concern in respect of the proposals is related to the construction phase which represents a temporary period and therefore further discussions and agreement on these matters will be undertaken through the CEMP and site specific construction procedures to be approved. Some tower locations will be sufficiently distant from a NSR to not require specific limitation, where others, and depending on whether rock breaking is required, may require the imposition of more stringent limitations and specific mitigation measures. All noise controls and mitigation measures will be included in the CEMP, including agreed hours of construction. These controls will be determined in consultation with Environmental Protection Officers. However given the scale of the proposals, the length of the new OHL, and the extensive works to form access tracks, the Energy Consents Unit is requested to seek further input from WOSAS before making any favourable determination of this application to ensure Archaeological matters are properly addressed, and if considered necessary an appropriate condition is imposed. I. Road Network and Associated Transport Matters. The Area Roads Engineer has raised no objection to the proposals subject to the imposition of conditions requiring the submission and approval of Traffic Assessment in respect of both woodland removal and also the construction phase of the project to include details of junction designs to ensure road safety. Transport Scotland have also not raised any objection to the proposals provided a detailed evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposals on the Trunk Road Network as set out below: OBSERVATION 9: The estimated construction trips do not exceed the applied IEMA thresholds of a 10% increase in general traffic or a 30% increase in HGV traffic on either the A83(T) or A85(T). It is noted that both of these thresholds are forecast to be exceeded on the A819, however, this is regarded as a matter for consideration by the Local Authority. OBSERVATION 10: Should the volume of construction material required to be transported to site exceed that assessed, where this would alter assessment conclusions, the assessment is required to be updated and outcomes issued for consideration by Transport Scotland The EIAR notes that “the source of construction materials is unconfirmed at this stage”. However, it is assumed that construction traffic (HGVs and staff) will approach the sites from the north and south via the A85(T) and A83(T) respectively, to route onto the A819. Page 221
Page 222
Cumulative Impacts The EIAR includes analysis of the cumulative effects of the following consented and proposed developments which would use the same public roads as the Proposed Development during construction: • Blarghour Wind Farm (Consented) – The EIAR advises that construction of the wind farm is anticipated to begin well ahead of construction for the Proposed Development. Therefore, the peak traffic generating months will not coincide with those for the Proposed Development. Consequently, any cumulative traffic impact will remain below the worst- case scenario assessed within the EIAR. It is highlighted that a CTMP will be implemented for the wind farm to minimise and manage effects within the study area and communication will take place between the construction sites to minimise effects and ensure that larger traffic generating activities…are phased to avoid overlap where practicable. • Meteorological Mast, Ladyfield Cottage (Consented) – The EIAR advises that the traffic impact associated with the construction of the meteorological mast is anticipated be negligible and the construction programme is not anticipated to overlap with the Proposed Development. Therefore, cumulative traffic impacts are not anticipated. • Creag Dhubh to Inveraray 275 kV OHL (Proposed) – The EIAR advises that no details on the predicted traffic generation for the Creag Dhubh to Inveraray OHL are available as this is only at pre-application stage. However, it is the same Applicant as for the Proposed Development and it is advised that the potential cumulative effects would be managed collectively in accordance with each project’s Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and CTMP to ensure no significant traffic and transport related effects arise. • Creag Dhubh 132 / 275 kV Substation (Proposed) – The EIAR advises that construction of the Creag Dhubh Substation would be undertaken in parallel with the construction of the Proposed Development and that there will be potential in-combination effects as a result of increased traffic movements in the study area. The substation construction phase will take 30 months and peak traffic generation month will occur in months 4 to 6, with 54 two-way daily HGV trips. The cumulative peak month will occur in months 1 to 3 of the Proposed Development construction phase (months 7 to 9 of the substation construction phase) with 111 daily two-way HGVs within the study area. Cumulative staff trips will equate to a maximum of 300 two-way car trips per day within the study area (assuming no car sharing). The cumulative impact of the two simultaneous developments is anticipated to result in an increase in total traffic levels along the A85(T) and A83(T) of more than 10% at the sensitive receptors of Dalmally and Inveraray respectively, and an increase of over 30% in HGV levels on the A83(T). Increases in total traffic and HGV traffic would also exceed the IEMA 10% and 30% thresholds respectively on the A819 and B840. As such, the EIAR presents a full assessment of environmental effects for the cumulative impact on the A83(T) and A85(T), as well as the local road links. Severance impacts are not considered to be significant, given the layout and topography of Dalmally and Inveraray. The study area is approximately 40km in length. Assuming a two-way 40km trip for each of the construction vehicles during the two construction phases, an increased accident risk of 0.67 Personal Injury Accidents per year has been estimated. This is considered to be both minor and significant. Other effects are considered to be negligible or minor and not significant. OBSERVATION 11: The estimated cumulative construction trips exceed the IEMA thresholds of a 10% increase in general traffic on both the A83(T) and A85(T) and a 30% increase in HGV traffic on the A83(T). From the perspective of Transport Scotland, the results of the full assessment of effects are considered to be acceptable. Noting the observations set out in this response, based on the information provided, Transport Scotland would offer no objections to Application ECU00002199, subject to the application of the following conditions to any consent that may be awarded: 1. No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Page 222
Page 223
Phased Delivery Plan have been prepared and approved in writing by the Local Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland as the trunk roads authority. - Reason: To minimise interference with the safety and free flow of the traffic on the trunk road, to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cycle users using the trunk road and adjacent facilities, and to be consistent with current guidance and best practice. 2. All vehicles transporting construction material to and from the proposed development shall be sheeted. - Reason: To ensure that material from the site is not deposited on the trunk road to the detriment of road safety. 3. The development shall not become operational until vehicle wheel cleansing facilities have been installed and brought into operation on the site, the design and siting of which shall be subject to the prior approval of the Local Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland as the trunk roads authority. - Reason: To ensure that material from the site is not deposited on the trunk road to the detriment of road safety. 4. Prior to any decommissioning of the development, a Decommissioning Plan shall be prepared and approved in writing by the Local Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland as the trunk roads authority. - Reason: To minimise interference with the safety and free flow of the traffic on the trunk road. As there are a number of other developments which could potentially be granted permission in addition to those listed in the cumulative assessment (i.e. Cruachan 2 - S36) Officers are aware that potential cumulative impact upon the road network is an important issue. Officers therefore consider that in granting any permissions for further major infrastructure development in the Dalmally/Inveraray/Crossaig areas there is a need to understand potential roads impacts and the potential construction stage overlap which could place demand on the roads network. A condition requiring the submission of an updated cumulative impact assessment as part of any Transportation Assessment submission is required and a condition to this effect has been proposed. Members are requested to note for their general information that Roads and Planning Officers are currently commencing discussions on this matte with SSEN, and also with Transport Scotland and the Energy Consents Unit to ensure that co-ordinated Transportation Assessments are produced, and at an appropriate stage in the application process, which accurately reflect any potential cumulative impacts on the trunk and local road network. j. Other Key Policy Matters It is considered material to note that the current proposal is not a planning application but an application under S37 of the 1989 Electricity Act. This is an important matter due to the fact that Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act makes clear that the following determining factors are paramount to the S37 determination and in determining whether objection should be raised by the Planning Authority. The requirements when formulating Schedule 9 ‘relevant proposals’ are that it: “(a) shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geographical or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what [it] reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects.” (Electricity Act, 1989, Schedule 9 (1(1)). Under Schedule 9 ‘relevant proposals’, in the case of electricity distribution, mean any proposals: Page 223
Page 224
“… b) for the installation (whether above or below ground) of an electric line; or (c) for the execution of any other works for or in connection with the transmission or supply of electricity.” (Schedule 9, 1(3)) The proposed development in facilitating the provision of a high voltage line to transmit energy created by renewable development is nationally important as recognised in NPPG 3 which clarifies that: 4. An Enhanced High Voltage Energy Transmission Network is needed to facilitate renewable electricity development and its export. The specific projects required for this network are set out in the Electricity Networks Strategy Group, and will continue to evolve as new opportunities emerge. ….Improvements to the distribution network are also important to many remote rural areas. We support the provision of new infrastructure, whilst acknowledging that full consideration of routes and development components will be required at the consenting stage. ….As part of this national development, we want to see planning enabling development of onshore links to support offshore renewable energy development. A strategy for the marine grid, connecting with the onshore network, will help to provide greater clarity on the offshore projects required. In addition the Argyll and Bute Renewable Energy Action Plan clarifies that: This Renewable Energy Action Plan has been developed to assist Argyll and Bute realise its vision for the development of renewable energy:….Argyll and the Islands will be at the heart of renewable energy development in Scotland by taking full advantage of its unique and significant mix of indigenous renewable resources and maximising the opportunities for sustainable economic growth for the benefits of its communities and Scotland. More specifically the Action Plan under Ref TC1 specifically supports the current proposals and seeks to: Ensure the grid is fit for purpose to meet renewable energy opportunities – Inveraray- Crossaig overhead line replacement, Northern Argyll substation, overhead line to Taynuilt and submarine cable replacement programme Although none of the above would make an unacceptable development acceptable, it is recognised by officers that essential major infrastructure projects such as is proposed cannot be delivered without some impacts, including some significant localised impacts, for particular areas. However, in reaching a determination on such matters it is essential that the wider policy support for such proposals are taken into consideration and “weighed in the balance” in determining whether an objection to the current proposals is appropriate. National Policy Framework As this is an application under S37 of the Electricity Act related to NPP3 delivery and Nationally Important objectives in respect of the energy transmission network there are a number of policy documents material to the consideration of the proposal. Officers are content that the Planning Statement submitted with the application gives a fair and comprehensive summary of the overall policy context and therefore it is not proposed to repeat this in detail. However Officers would wish to highlight the following main points set out in the submissions and agreed by officers: o The Proposed Development is identified within Annex A of National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3) as a National Development under the class of development noted as “new and / or upgraded onshore electricity transmission cabling of or in excess of 132 kilovolts and supporting pylons”. o The Proposed Development is for an extension to the OHL infrastructure in the region enabling increased capacity from 132kV to 275kV and connection to the Page 224
Page 225
wider SPEN network to enable renewable connections and transmission of energy to the wider GB network. o The Proposed Development will contribute to security of supply and provide increased and more resilient infrastructure capacity to facilitate renewable energy connections in the wider area – all of which forms vital elements to deliver network and grid infrastructure required to deliver the Government’s legally binding targets for net zero emissions and renewable energy electricity generation objectives. o The Proposed Development will be delivered in such a way that it is environmentally acceptable and will include a co-ordinated and scheme of landscaping and screening to the site. It is considered that this “high level” national policy support for renewable infrastructure and the Council’s policy support for such necessary, renewable energy related infrastructure is a significant material consideration in reaching a determination in this instance. K. Conclusion Although some significant localised landscape effects will take place as identified in the EIA, these are considered largely unavoidable with an infrastructure project of this scale. The Council is supportive of delivering this renewable energy related infrastructure upgrade within its Renewable Energy Action Plan under TC1 and the proposals represent important National Infrastructure supported in NPP3. The EIA submitted with the application examines landscape and other impacts associated with the proposals and concludes that some significant landscape impact will occur, these are however localised in nature and the overall development proposals will not have a significant landscape impact and is therefore acceptable. It is accepted in the submission that some localised significant visual impact will occur, and in particular from VP 11 looking south from the Duncan Ban Monument. Officers agree with the applicants view that the extent and level of impact is not sufficient to raise objection to the overall proposals as the supportive National and Local policy framework, which are supportive of such major grid infrastructure development necessary for renewable energy transmission and the nationally important benefits these will bring to meeting climate change targets and in promoting sustainable development. Although some significant localised landscape effects will take place as identified in the EIA, these are considered largely unavoidable with an infrastructure project of this scale. The Council is supportive of delivering this renewable energy related infrastructure upgrade within its Renewable Energy Action Plan under TC1 and the proposals represent essential National Infrastructure supported in NPP3 and draft NPP4. Importantly, NatureScot have not raised objection on landscape, ornithology or ecological grounds and have expressed that they are in general agreement with the EIA evaluation and conclusions. Officers can identify no reasons to depart from the findings and conclusions of NatureScot, and therefore consider that the overall proposals are considered acceptable in respect of landscape, ornithology and ecological impacts. The Councils Biodiversity Officer also raises no objections. In respect of potential impacts upon cultural and historic assets, and the acknowledged impacts within the EIA documents, HES have raised no objection to the proposals. Again Officers can identify no reason to depart from the views of the expert consultee on such matters. The Councils Conservation Advisor has raised no objections to the impact of the proposed towers on the setting of the Category B Listed Duncan Bann monument. Page 225
Page 226
Transport Scotland raises no objection to the proposals, (including evaluating potential cumulative impacts on the Trunk Roads Network) The Area Roads manager also raises no objections to the proposals. Substantial tree felling is proposed and Officers agree with the Scottish Forestry that appropriate conditions require to be imposed to secure appropriate compensatory planting for the woodland to be felled to facilitate the current proposals, and that this replanting should be within the Argyll and Bute Area. It is noted that the applicants have committed to ensuring that compensatory planting is provided. Should land not be found to accommodate the planting in agreement with landowners, funds should be made available through to ACT to ensure the delivery of Community Woodland initiatives within the Argyll Area has been the implemented solution in respect of 18/01700/S37. Officers consider that overall the landscape, ecological, historic environment, Transportation and other potential effects have been appropriately addressed and mitigated in defining the proposed route, where a balanced judgement on competing interests must be reached. Appropriate mitigation can be secured through the imposition of conditions by the Scottish Ministers in line with the proposals set out within the EIA, or within the consultation responses submitted to the ECU by other consultees set out in this Report (and on the ECU website) as is normal practice for S37 applications. In conclusion, it is therefore recommended that no objection be raised to the current S37 proposal. Page 226
Page 227
Page 227
Page 228
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 229
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling relating to application for consent to the Scottish Ministers under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 along with a request for a direction that planning permission be deemed to be granted under section 57 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 22/01329/S37 (ECU000004493) Planning Hierarchy: Major Application (Section 37 Consultation) Applicant: Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) on behalf of Scottish Power Transmission (SPT) Proposal: Temporary Transmission Line Diversion, Erection of Two Temporary Towers and One Permanent Tower ( Link Tower from proposed SSEN 13.3km Power Line to existing Scottish Power High Voltage Network) Site Address: Land Approx 2km East Of Dalmally ____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE (i) Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 ____________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 This application seeks to erect a link tower between the existing Scottish Power Energy Network (SPEN) and the proposed 13.3 kilometre (km), 275 kilovolt (kV), double circuit overhead line (OHL), between a proposed substation at Creag Dhubh to the existing Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) 275 kV OHL that runs from Dalmally to Inverarnan, SSEN’s proposed OHL from Creag Dhubh to Dalmally is functionally interdependent on SPT’s proposed terminal tower (YW17R). The SPT terminal tower will facilitate connection of the new SSEN OHL to the transmission network and will also form part of SPT’s existing YW route between Dalmally and Windyhill. The legislative framework does not allow the transfer of a Section 37 consent to another electricity operator, hence the requirement for two Section 37 applications. Given the interconnected relationship between the two proposals, the SPEN and SSEN Section 37 applications are accompanied by the same EIA. The proposed development would primarily comprise; • A Tie-In connection involving the proposed OHL being connected to the existing Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) 275 kV OHL, known as the YW route, via a new terminal tower (T48/YW17R) located between existing SPEN Towers YW17 and YW18, from the proposed T47.(this is subject to a separate S37 (ii) Other associated works Page 229 Agenda Item 10
Page 230
Formation of new and upgraded vehicular access points Formation of new and upgrading of access tracks Construction of temporary and permanent water crossings Formation of tower working areas Other ancillary and associated operations An EIA has been submitted in support of the application which is a joint EIA with the main 13.3 Km Line. This has been referenced in the Officer Report for 22/01298/S37 and given that this application is only for a single tower it is not intended to provide extensive commentary within this separate report. ____________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that no objection to the proposals be raised ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: No. However pre application consultation and scoping submitted to Energy Consents Unit under S37 process. Full details of these procedures are contained on the ECU website with the Councils Scoping response available to view under REF 21/00286/SCOPE. For clarity, this is a procedure to advised the ECU on matters which should be included in the EIA submissions in consultation with other external stakeholders and not the expression of any opinion by the Planning Authority on whether the proposals would be acceptable or not. Linking the proposed 13.3km line to the existing SPEN line has always formed part of the overall infrastructure project. A previous option to build a switching Station at Glen Lochy is no longer promoted as a tower link is now proposed. ____________________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: Members are requested to note that as this is a Section 37 proposal the consultation responses have been to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) who undertake this exercise as the determining authority and not to the Planning Authority as this is not an application for Planning Permission. Officers also take this opportunity to clarify that many of the external consultees have responded to both this and the associated S37 application by SSEN as a single response These responses have been set out in the related report 22/01298/S37 which Officers have already presented to Members and therefore it is not considered expedient or necessary to repeat these comments as the single tower proposal has not raised any issues as a separate proposal. ____________________________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: N/A Section 37 Consultation ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Yes Page 230
Page 231
All known representations in respect of S37 Consent applications have been set out in the report for 22/01298/S37 and Officers would refer Members to this. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: Yes. However Members are requested to note that no EIA would be required for the erection of the single link transmission tower and two temporary towers on their own, which is what this S37 relates to. The applicants have sought to ensure details of the overall proposals are included in each application submission. Although an EIA has been submitted for this S37 it is essentially an EIA for 22/01298/S37 previously reported. The EIA report evaluates potential impacts and proposed mitigation with reference made to a number of supporting technical appendices which provide further detail on all of the above matters. (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A design or design/access statement: Refer to EIA Report and 22/01298/S37 (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Refer to EIA Report ___________________________________________________________________________ (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (i) Is a Section 75 agreement required: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No ____________________________________________________________________________ Page 231
Page 232
(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 DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables 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 SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact of Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity) 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 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources SG LDP ENV 12 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs) SG LDP ENV 13 –Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape SG LDP ENV 15 –Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Development Impact on Listed Buildings SG LDP ENV 19 –Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments SG LDP ENV 20 – Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance SG LDP REN 3 – Other (Non-Wind) Forms of Renewable Energy Related Development SG LDP SERV 6 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 5 – Off-Site Highway Improvements (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 4/2009. NPP3 Argyll and Bute Energy Action Plan Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (Capacity Study 2017); SNH (1996) Landscape Assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde (Review No78) SNH (2009) Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Landscape Character Assessment. Argyll and Bute Woodland and Forestry Strategy Page 232
Page 233
Scottish Government Policy Document on Control of Woodland Removal Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan 2 (November 2019) – The unchallenged policies and proposals within LDP2 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 LDP2 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 LDP2 that may be afforded significant weighting in the determination of this application are listed below: Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access Policy 41 – Off Site Highway Improvements Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation ____________________________________________________________________________ (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: EIA submitted (Schedule 1 joint development with 22/01298/S37) ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 (PAN41 or other): No ____________________________________________________________________________ (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Officers consider that overall the landscape, ecological, historic environment and other potential effects have been appropriately mitigated in defining the proposed development, Appropriate mitigation can be secured through the imposition of conditions by the Scottish Ministers in line with the proposals set out within the EIA, or within the consultation responses submitted to the ECU by other consultees set out in this Report and on the ECU website as is normal practice on such applications. In conclusion, it is therefore recommended that no objection be raised to the current S37 proposal. ____________________________________________________________________________ (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes Page 233
Page 234
____________________________________________________________________________ (R) Reasons why no objection to the proposal should be raised The EIA submitted with the application examines landscape and other impacts associated with the overall joint proposals. No specific landscape issues are identified in respect of this single tower and Officers are in agreement with this evaluation. Appropriate mitigation for the proposed link tower can be secured through the imposition of conditions by the Scottish Ministers in line with the proposals set out within the EIA, or within the consultation responses submitted to the ECU by other consultees set out in this Report and on the ECU website as is normal practice on such applications. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with the objectives and policies as set out in the LDP and wider planning policy framework. In conclusion, it is therefore recommended that no objection be raised to the current S37 proposal for the single link tower. ____________________________________________________________________________ (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: S37 Consultation Author of Report: David Moore Date: 12.9.22 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 14.9.22 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 234
Page 235
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO S37 CONSULTATION REF. NO.22/01329/S37 Suggested Planning Conditions 1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the submitted Section 37 Application and associated Environmental Impact Assessment unless as otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. No development shall commence unless and until the Planning Authority has approved in writing the terms of appointment by the company of an independent and suitably qualified environmental consultant to assist the planning authority in monitoring compliance with the terms of the deemed permission and conditions attached to this consent, The terms of appointment shall: Impose a duty to monitor compliance with the terms of the deemed planning permission and conditions attached to this consent Require the environmental consultant to submit a monthly report to the planning authority summarising the works undertaken on site; and Require the environmental consultant to report to the Planning Authority any incidences of non-compliance with the terms of the deemed planning permission and conditions attached to this consent at the earliest practical opportunity The environmental consultant shall be appointed on the approved terms throughout the period of commencement of development to completion of post construction restoration works. Reason: To enable the development to be suitably monitored to ensure compliance with the consent issued. 3. No development shall be commenced on site until an updated Species Protection Plan has been submitted to and has been approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. This shall provide for a pre- construction survey to identify any presence of European Protected Species on or adjacent to the construction site, shall detail any mitigation required in terms of the timing of construction works and shall detail any other avoidance or mitigation proposed in response to any protected species likely to be affected by construction activities. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the duly approved Species Protection Plan. Reason: in the interests of nature conservation and to ensure updated surveys are provided. 4. No development shall be commenced until a full site specific Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and has been approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. This shall address requirements arising from the construction and reinstatement phases of the development, shall inform the production of construction method statements, and shall specify the siting of working areas, soil management practices, measures to prevent pollution of watercourses, environmental site monitoring and noise mitigation measures where identified to be required. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the requirements of any approved Construction Procedures Handbook, copies of which shall be maintained available on site for the duration of construction works. Page 235
Page 236
Reason: In the interests of pollution and noise control. 5. For the duration of construction and dismantling works, cultural heritage assets falling within the construction corridor, as identified within the Environmental Appraisal, shall be temporarily fenced off from construction activities. Where such assets are specifically protected by designation as Scheduled Ancient Monuments, the fencing in that event shall enclose a 20 metre buffer around the extent of the scheduled area. Details of such measures shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval in consultation with Historic Environment Scotland. Reason: In order to prevent damage to the historic environment. 6. No development shall take place within the development site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service”. Reason: In the interests of archaeology. 7. Prior to development commencing, a Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted for the written approval of the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s roads engineers. This 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) and shall provide for the provision of an appropriate Code of Practice to drivers of construction and delivery vehicles. This Traffic Management plan shall also evaluate and include potential cumulative impacts associated with other consented developments in the area to ensure cumulative impacts are considered and also that the sharing of borrow pit locations to reduce traffic impacts are properly considered. Any traffic management plan shall include the consideration and if required evaluation of cumulative impact analysis and borrow pit use to source local materials associated with the construction of the project. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with any approved Traffic Management Plan unless with the written agreement of the appropriate roads authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety and the integrity and functioning of the roads network. 8. Prior to development commencing details of the layout and construction of the access points proposed to facilitate access for construction on all roads shall be agreed with the Council’s roads engineers and Transport Scotland where the access is to a trunk road. All construction will require to be in accordance with the Council’s standard junction details; the required standard detail in each case being dictated by the proposed usage of the access point. Minor accesses where the existing roadside fence is closer to the carriageway than 2m will require a bound surface extending to a point 2m back from the carriageway edge. Where the existing roadside fence is 2m or further from the edge of the carriageway, the bound surface shall extend to 5m back from the edge of carriageway. All accesses will be a minimum of 3m wide. Where accesses are proposed to be used more extensively they shall be 4.5m wide, and for the main compounds and depots they shall be 6m wide. Accesses serving main compounds Page 236
Page 237
and depots shall be constructed in accordance with roads engineers drawing SD08/001a. All new and extended passing places will be constructed to a minimum standard of roads engineers drawing SD08/003a, and where longer passing places are necessary, SD08/003a will be used for extrapolation. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 9. Details and/or compliance with the following matters/actions require to be submitted and approved in consultation with the Area Roads Engineer prior to the commencement of development or as otherwise may be agreed in writing with the planning authority through an approved Traffic Management Plan; a. All bridges, culverts and walls along the route to be inspected and the condition recorded before and after the project. b. The routes used to be inspected and the condition recorded prior to use. Video recording is required. Survey to be submitted to Roads & Amenity Services prior to any work starting on site. c. Any use of temporary signage to be approved by Roads & Amenity Services. d. All access points from the public road to be constructed in accordance with the Council's standard details. The required standard detail will be relevant to the proposed usage. e. All accesses to be surfaced in a bound material. f. Minor accesses where the roadside fence is closer to the public road than 2.00 metres the bound surface will extend to a point 2.00 metres back from the carriageway edge. Where the existing roadside fence is 2.00 metres or further from the edge of public road the bound surface will extend 5.00 metres from edge of public road. g. All accesses will be 3.00 metres wide. Where accesses are used more extensively they will be 5.50 metres wide and for main compounds and depots they will be 6.00 metres wide. Main compounds and depots will be constructed in accordance with standard detail drawing ref: SD 08/001 Rev a. h. All new and extended passing places shall be constructed to the required standard. The minimum required standard will be SD 08/003 Rev a. Where longer passing places are necessary SD 08/003 Rev a will be used for extrapolation. i. Where it is necessary to culvert the roadside ditches the minimum pipe size will be 450 mm diameter. All roadside culverts to be agreed in writing with Roads & Amenity Services prior to installation. All pipes to be twin wall polypropylene or similar approved. Headwall details to be agreed with Roads & Amenity Services. j. A code of practice for drivers both on the site and for delivery drivers. The code of practice will detail how drivers should proceed at passing places, how they should allow following traffic to pass, avoid running in convoy, keep away from verges, locations where turning is possible, report verge damage they have caused so that it can be repaired, no parking on verges which cause obstructions; these are the minimum contents of the code of practice, further development will be required. All deliveries to the site will have instruction provided to the drivers relating to the Code of Practice, specific routes to follow etc. k. Should any Argyll & Bute Council road suffer unacceptable damage, the Council will consider imposing restrictions to preserve the route. Page 237
Page 238
Reason: In the interests of road safety. 10. The applicant shall demonstrate that the wholesomeness and sufficiency of the private water supplies in the vicinity of the development shall not be compromised by the proposed development prior to the commencement of the development. If during, or on completion of the works, surrounding private water supplies are effected or deemed not suitable, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that any damage to said water supplies is rectified and addressed to ensure that the water supplies to the properties meet at least the standards which were in place prior to works of this S37 consent being implemented. Reason: In order to provide adequate protection of the private water supplies in the vicinity of the proposed development. Page 238
Page 239
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 22/01329/S37 PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT This proposal for a single new tower is intrinsically linked to the 13.3km proposed line of 22/1298/S37 for which a detailed Officer report has previously been provided, it has been linked to this through the submitted joint EIA and it will not proceed unless S37 Consent is granted for this larger proposal, Members are directed to the overall evaluation of the proposals set out in Appendix A of the accompanying report for 22/01298/S37 for more detailed evaluation. Officers do not consider that the single permanent link tower proposed as part of this separate application raises any issues not already addressed in the accompanying report for 22/01298/S37 and Officers would refer them to this in respect of evaluating the application against the criteria set out below. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the policy objectives as set out in the LDP and wider policy framework. A. Settlement Strategy B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development C. Landscape Character and Potential Impact on Settlements D. Natural Environment (Biodiversity and Ornithology) E. Impact on Woodland F. Historic Environment and Archaeological Matters G. Water Environment H. Potential Visual and Noise impacts on Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSR) I. Road Network and Associated Transport Matters. J. Other Key Policy Matters K. Conclusion Given the matters set out in report 22/01298/S37, It is therefore recommended that no objection be raised to the current proposals. Page 239
Page 240
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 241
Page 241
Page 242
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 243
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE (PAN) ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference: 22/01023/PAN Applicant: Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc Proposal: Proposal of Application Notice for formation of access tracks/arrangements relating to refurbishment works on existing 33kv overhead lines Site Address: Land Between Sloy Switching Station And Glenmallan ____________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION Proposal of Application Notices only relate to National and Major Applications as defined by the Government’s planning hierarchy and are a statutory requirement prior to the submission of the planning application. The PAN heralds the start of a minimum 12 week period to allow for community consultation before an application can be lodged. In considering this item Members should restrict comments to issues relating to the material considerations which may be relevant in the determination of the proposed development and should refrain from expressing opinion as to the likely acceptability of development in advance of any subsequent application being presented for determination. Any opinions or views expressed by Councillors at the pre-application stage must be made mindful of the overarching requirements of fairness, impartiality and of keeping an open mind. The process provides opportunity for Officers to give feedback to the prospective applicant on issues which Members would wish to see addressed within the planning application submission. Members are requested to note that the Scottish Government has provided additional guidance to Planning Authorities and applicants on appropriate community consultation measures due to current Covid 19 restrictions on the holding of public meetings. These amended procedures apply to all PAN applications submitted before 03.09.22 as is the case in this instance. Therefore there remains the exemption on holding a public meeting in respect of the required community consultation. However Members note that the applicants have committed to holding a public meeting in this instance. In this instance the applicants committed to undertake a series of events between 6.7.22. and 21.7.22 to include; • An in-person event on the 6th of July 2022 running from 1400 and 1900 at Arrochar Village Hall, and; • A virtual consultation event on the 20th of July 2022 between 1700 and 1900, and; • A virtual consultation event on the 21st of July 2022 between 1000 and 1200. Page 243 Agenda Item 11
Page 244
The applicants have further confirmed the following: In terms of additional consultation and publicity, SSEN Transmission propose the following: • Mail drops to local properties. • Newspaper advertisement as required by regulations. Officers are content that the consultations steps set out in the PAN are commensurate with the scale of the development and the likely level of public interest in the proposal thereby meeting the requirements of the PAN process. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development will involve the formation of access tracks associated with the refurbishment of an existing 132kv overhead line. The length of the access tracks and their site area triggers the need for a major planning application. The works that will make up the application will comprise of the following: •The formation of temporary access tracks. •The upgrade of a number existing tracks. •Improvements and permanent enhancements to some sections of existing track. •Improving access points onto main roads at key interface locations. •Reinstatement of temporary access works upon completion of the project. Details of the overall proposals can be found on the SSEN website at the following link: https://www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/projects/sloy-to-windyhill-ohl-refurbishment-project/ This website clarifies that: The Sloy-Windyhill overhead line is a 132kV double circuit running from Sloy switching station towards Windyhill substation with overhead line sections owned by Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) and Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks Transmission. The circuits owned by SSEN Transmission extend over a 14.5km route and were originally constructed in 1951. Reconductoring was performed in 1971 and the earth wire was last replaced in 1995. The ownership boundary between SPEN and SSEN Transmission is defined by Tower 51 on Sloy-Windyhill West line, and Tower 52 on the Sloy- Windyhill East line close to Glenmallan. These overhead lines have been subject to significant steelwork corrosion. This is due mainly to diminished paintwork and is now actively reducing the remaining service life of the structures and the conductors are near to the end of its design life. The solution to this deterioration is to reconductor and refit the overhead line and refurbish the towers, replace and upgrade the earth wire and make upgrades to the tower foundations. SPEN have already refurbished the overhead line between Windyhill substation and SSEN Transmission's boundary. To perform the works on this project in a safe manner we will need to construct and upgrade access tracks both within and just outside of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park. Any temporary tracks formed will be reinstated to their character landscape on the completion of the works. Members are requested to note that this overall application is also partly within the administrative boundary of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (NPA) and therefore a separate planning application will be submitted to the NPA for those proposed access tracks which are within their administrative boundary. Page 244
Page 245
3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ adopted March 2015 Relevant Policies which will require to be considered include: LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity SG LDP ENV 6 – Development Impact on Trees / Woodland SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment SG LDP ENV 10 – Geodiversity SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape SG LDP SERV 3 – Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) SG LDP SERV 7 – Flooding and Land Erosion – The Risk Framework for Development SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes The LDP Policy evaluation will require to address the following general matters: Landscape impact and Visual Amenity evaluation of access tracks Land Use and policy designations material to the proposal; Ecology , Biodiversity and Nature Conservation; Forestry and any associated felling operations Traffic and Transport; (A Transportation Plan will be required for routing of traffic associated with transporting any construction materials for the access tracks) Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Soils: ( Potential disturbance/management of peat) CEMP to ensure proposed working methodologies are acceptable and relate to the sensitivity of the particular element of the scheme. In respect of LDP 2, the unchallenged policies and proposals within LDP2 may now be afforded significant material weighting in the determination of planning applications at this time as they constitute the settled and unopposed view of the Council. Those unchallenged policies which are considered of potential relevance to the proposal are set out 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 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access Policy 41 – Off Site Highway Improvements Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 78 – Woodland Removal The proposal will therefore require to be considered against any material and unchallenged policies of LDP in a dual assessment exercise with the current LDP Policies. 4.0 POTENTIAL MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS In respect of this proposal it is considered that the following matters will be material considerations in the determination of any future planning application; Argyll & Bute Sustainable Design Guidance (2006) Page 245
Page 246
Argyll and Bute Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP 2). A&B Local Biodiversity Action Plan Statutory/Non-Statutory Consultee Comments Landscape and visual Impact Analysis Access Arrangements/design to the public road 5.0 CONCLUSION The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the PAN. Summarised are the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as land use designations and potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. The list is not exhaustive and further matters may arise as and when a planning application is received and in the light of public representations and consultation responses. 6.0 RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of this PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicants in finalising any future planning application submission. Author of Report: David Moore Date: 13.09.2022 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 13.09.2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 246
Page 247
Page 247
Page 248
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 249
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE (PAN) ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference: 22/01516/PAN Applicant: MH Planning Associates Proposal: Proposal of application notice for proposed timber loading facility Site Address: Land North Of Bunnahabhain Isle of Islay ____________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION Proposal of Application Notices only relate to National and Major Applications as defined by the Government’s planning hierarchy and are a statutory requirement prior to the submission of the planning application. The PAN heralds the start of a minimum 12 week period to allow for community consultation before an application can be lodged. In considering this item Members should restrict comments to issues relating to the material considerations which may be relevant in the determination of the proposed development and should refrain from expressing opinion as to the likely acceptability of development in advance of any subsequent application being presented for determination. Any opinions or views expressed by Councillors at the pre-application stage must be made mindful of the overarching requirements of fairness, impartiality and of keeping an open mind. The process provides opportunity for Officers to give feedback to the prospective applicant on issues which Members would wish to see addressed within the planning application submission. Members are requested to note that the Scottish Government has provided additional guidance to Planning Authorities and applicants on appropriate community consultation measures due to current Covid 19 restrictions on the holding of public meetings. This new advice requires applicants to demonstrate that enhanced measures to compensate for the lack of a public meeting are provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. The applicant has set out in detail their proposals to ensure sufficient opportunity is provided for the community to view and comment on the proposals in advance of the submission of a formal planning application. The applicants have confirmed the following consultation steps will be undertaken: Consultation letters to be sent to Community Councils, Public Bodies and Argyll and Bute Councillors A public meeting will also be held. A press notice will be placed in the Oban Times. Officers consider that the steps set out in the PAN are acceptable. Page 249 Agenda Item 12
Page 250
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The applicant has confirmed that the proposed timber loading facility will comprise the following main elements: Construction of a pier, this would extend 223m seaward from the high tide mark and be principally comprised of a 203m long causeway crossing foreshore and seabed built from infill rock and rock armour. The causeway would lead out to a 20m x 38m in plan hammerhead berthing point constructed of precast concrete units. A timber stacking area and associated earthworks. 3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ adopted March 2015 Relevant Policies which will require to be considered include: LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 5 –Supporting the Sustainable Growth of our Economy LDP 6 - LDP 6 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables 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 SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 5 – Off-Site Highway Improvements SG LDP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision SG LDP CST 1 - Coastal Development SG LDP TRAN 8 – Piers and Harbours The LDP Policy evaluation will require to address the following general matters: Landscape and Visual Amenity (an LVIA will be required with appropriate visualisations from agreed VP’s and ZTV identification) Land Use and Marine designations material to the proposal; Potential impacts on the Marine Environment Ecology and Nature Conservation; Traffic and Transport; Amenity and Health Flooding and drainage Recreation and Tourism; Noise Assessment in respect of potential impacts on marine wildlife and noise sensitive receptors associated with both construction and operational activities. In respect of LDP 2. Following the consideration of the emerging LDP 2 on 24.6.21 the unchallenged policies and proposals within LDP2 may now be afforded significant material Page 250
Page 251
weighting in the determination of planning applications at this time as they constitute the settled and unopposed view of the Council. Those unchallenged policies which may be considered relevant to the proposal are set out 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 41 – Off Site Highway Improvements Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Policy 78 – Woodland Removal The proposal will therefore require to be considered against any material and unchallenged policies of LDP2 at point of submission. 4.0 POTENTIAL MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS In respect of this proposal it is considered that the following matters will be material considerations in the determination of any future planning application; Scottish Planning Policy 2014 (and any emerging SPP advice) Argyll & Bute Sustainable Design Guidance (2006) A&B Local Biodiversity Action Plan Statutory/Non-Statutory Consultee Comments 5.0 CONCLUSION The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the PAN. Summarised are the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. The list is not exhaustive and further matters may arise as and when a planning application is received and in the light of public representations and consultation responses. 6.0 RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of this PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicants in finalising any future planning application submission. Author of Report: David Moore Date: 14.09.2022 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 14.09.2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 251
Page 252
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 253
Page 253
Page 254
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 255
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 ARGYLL AND BUTE DESIGN AWARDS 2022/23 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this report is to invite Members to agree the proposal to facilitate the relaunch of built environment Design Awards in 2022 which would run to summer 2023. 1.2 Argyll and Bute Council has successfully held three rounds of Design Awards over the past ten years, the most recent being held in 2015. In January 2020 PPSL agreed the launch of a further round of the competition as previously identified in the Service Plan. The entry period was opened in early 2020 however the competition was subsequently postponed due to Covid 19 restrictions. 1.3 Design and sustainability are both recognised as being of important concerns within Planning at both national level in the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and within the Scottish Government’s Policy Document on Creating Places, and at local level in the Local Development Plan (LDP). The Design Awards seek to raise awareness of these issues and promote successful design in Argyll and Bute. The Awards also recognise the significance of the Climate Change Act and the council’s need to comply with this. 1.4 It is recommended that: Members note and agree the content of this report which sets out the process required to prepare for the postponed 2020 built environment design competition to be relaunched in 2022. Members agree the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair as part of the judging panel Members agree the proposed new Member’s Award as described. Page 255 Agenda Item 13
Page 256
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 ARGYLL AND BUTE DESIGN AWARDS 2022/23 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 The purpose of this report is to invite Members to agree the process required for preparation of built environment Design Awards in 2022 and 2023. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that: Members note and agree the content of this report which sets out the process required to prepare for the postponed 2020 built environment design competition to be relaunched in 2022. Members agree the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair as part of the judging panel Members agree the proposed new Member’s Award as described. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 Design and sustainability are both recognised as being of important concerns within Planning at both national level in the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and within the Scottish Government’s Policy Document on Creating Places, and at local level in the Local Development Plan (LDP). These proposed Design Awards seek to raise awareness of these issues and promote successful design in Argyll and Bute. 4.2 In previous years of this competition sustainability and design have been considered together. However given the prominence of Climate Change as an issue of concern and the Council’s need to comply with the Climate Change Page 256
Page 257
Act, it is proposed that sustainability be considered in its own right separately from other aspects of design in order to ensure due regard is paid to this significant issue. 4.3 In January 2020 PPSL agreed the launch of a further round of the competition as previously identified in the Service Plan. The entry period was opened in early 2020 however the competition was subsequently postponed due to Covid 19 restrictions. Prior to the postponement, 9 entries were received and it is proposed to seek agreement from the applicants to re-enter these without the requirement for further submissions. 4.4 It is proposed that a judging panel be formed of 2 Members from PPSL (suggested that Chair and Vice Chair are appropriate) as well as 2 Council Officers for each category. To ensure the most appropriate expertise in each category Officers with knowledge of energy efficiency and Building Standards will, along with 2 Members, judge the Sustainability category while Officers with knowledge of design will be on the judging panel for the other categories. 4.5 The proposed categories are: Sustainable design Aesthetic design Community Led Regeneration project Built heritage Design for under £100k Members’ award Public Award It is anticipated that, in some cases, projects may be entered into more than one category. 4.6 The proposed timescale for key tasks is: October 2022 - 16 week entry period opens; promotion of Awards February 2023 – shortlisting March 2023 – People’s Choice voting period opens April 2023 – site visits; judging meeting June 2023 – Members’ Choice voting at PPSL TBC - awards ceremony 4.7 The Design Awards will be publicised via the website and a Press Release. In order to ensure the event is widely publicised it is proposed that a mailshot be sent to all Agents currently held in the Development Management database. 4.8 It order to widen the involvement and engagement of Member’s beyond the Page 257
Page 258
proposed judging panel, in a practical manner, it is proposed that a Members’ Award be added to the 2020 Awards. Members would therefore be presented with all the shortlisted entries from each category and allowed to vote for their favorite project. One Members’ Award would be given which may or may not be a project which has won one of the categories judged by the Panel. It is proposed that a presentation of the shortlisted entries and a vote be included as an additional session prior to PPSL Committee in summer 2023. 4.9 In recognition of the importance of community involvement it is proposed that members of the public be presented with the shortlisted entries from each category online and be allowed to vote for their favorite project across the categories. This may or may not be a project which has won one of the categories judged by the Panel. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 Design and sustainability are both recognised as being of important concerns within Planning at both national level in the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and within the Scottish Government’s Policy Document on Creating Places, and at local level in the Local Development Plan (LDP). The proposed Design Awards seek to raise awareness of these issues and promote successful design in Argyll and Bute. The Awards also recognize the significance of the Climate Change Act and the Council’s need to comply with this. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy: None 6.2 Financial: modest costs for travel and trophies 6.3 Legal: None 6.4 HR: Officer and Member time 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: None 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics: None 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty: None 6.5.3 Islands: None 6.6. Risk: None 6.7 Customer Service: None 6.8 Climate Change: None Page 258
Page 259
Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead: Councillor Kieron Green 10th August 2022 For further information contact: Kim de Buiteléir – Design and Conservation Officer Fergus Murray – Head of Development and Economic Growth APPENDICES None Page 259
Page 260
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 261
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL’S SHORT TERM LET LICENSING SCHEME 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This is a briefing report to Committee on the arrangements for the Council’s Short-term Let Licensing scheme. Council will consider the attached report on the 29 September 2022 with recommendations to approve the licensing policy, additional conditions, fees and charges; agree initial priorities; and amend the Council’s Scheme of Delegation giving authority to the Executive Director with responsibility for Regulatory Services, to authorise the environmental health service to deliver the new licensing regime. 1.2 This work has been very challenging and carried out in a very short timescale. The Scottish Government expects each local authority to develop its own scheme, subject to compliance with legislative requirements and guidance, including its own charging and fee structures. As a result, and to ensure the Council has a formal licensing system in place of the 1 October 2022, it has been necessary to take this report to Council on the 29 September 2022 for consideration and approval of the scheme and fees, without the opportunity for early consideration by the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee. 1.3 The licensing scheme was introduced by the Scottish Government under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022, with the aim to ensure short-term lets are safe, address issues faced by neighbours, to facilitate local authorities knowing and understanding what is happening in their area, and handling complaints effectively. It also aims to balance the economic and tourism benefits from short-term lets with the needs and concerns of local communities across Argyll and Bute. This is therefore a statutory obligation of the Council going forward. 1.4 The Council carried out a formal public consultation on initial draft proposals over a three-week period that ended on the 5 August 2022. There was a very healthy and generally positive response and the key outcomes from the consultation have influenced the final scheme and licensing policy 1.5 A new licensing system in ready for Committee consideration and meets the Councils new statutory duty. No additional resources have provided by the Scottish Government to deliver the scheme but recruitment is ongoing to establish a new short-term let licensing team. Page 261 Agenda Item 14
Page 262
1.6 The licensing scheme will be self-financing from fee income. The Council have assessed all relevant information and databases to identify the total number of short-term accommodation premises in Argyll and Bute that fall within this licensing scheme. The Council’s Non-Domestic Rates (NDR) statistics indicate 2,650 properties although the actual numbers are likely to be significantly greater. Unfortunately, despite taking advantage of a number of different databases available to the Council, it is impossible to provide an exact total. A cautious approach has however been taken in setting fees and charges and resourcing for the licensing scheme, and income/expenditure levels will be closely continuously monitored. 1.7 Recommendations: The PPSL Committee is asked to recommend to Council that they: a. note the considerable work undertaken to develop the new licensing regime in a challenging timescale, and without any additional funding or resourcing from the Scottish Government. b. welcome the high level of responses to the public consultation, and recognise that many of the issues raised have been incorporated into the final licensing regime. c. approve the Short-term Let licensing regime, Licensing Policy, additional conditions and fee and charges as set out in sections 5.4 and 5.6 d. note the intention to focus on “New hosts” initially until resources in place. e. amend the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to delegate responsibility for the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022 to the Executive Director with responsibility for Regulatory Services, to enable the Council’s Environmental Health Service to authorise officers to deliver the Short-term Let licensing regime Page 262
Page 263
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL’S SHORT TERM LET LICENSING SCHEME 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 This report seeks approval of the arrangements for the Council’s Short-term Let Licensing scheme. The licensing scheme was brought in by the Scottish Government under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022, with the aim to ensure short-term lets are safe, address issues faced by neighbours, to facilitate local authorities knowing and understanding what is happening in their area, and handling complaints effectively. It also aims to balance the economic and tourism benefits from short-term lets with the needs and concerns of local communities to ensure the people providing short-term lets are suitable. 2.2 Local authorities must introduce a new mandatory licensing system for short-term lets for the 1st October 2022 to receive applications from existing and new “hosts” and thereafter determine them. The scheme will cover a wide range of residential accommodation including, but not exclusively, self-catering properties, B&B’s, guesthouses, glamping pods and yurts. 2.3 Despite the challenging timescale, a licensing system has been developed for Committee consideration and approval. This process has involved considerable work by an Officer Steering Group, formal public consultation on draft proposals, the development of an in-house digital information management system to make and receive applications, a new licensing policy, and a fees and charges structure. The outcomes from public consultation have influenced the final licensing system. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The PPSL Committee is asked to recommend to Council that they: a. note the considerable work undertaken to develop the new licensing regime in a challenging timescale, and without any additional funding or resourcing from the Scottish Government. b. welcome the high level of responses to the public consultation, and recognise that many of the issues raised have been incorporated into the final licensing regime. c. approve the Short-term Let licensing regime, Licensing Policy, additional conditions and fee and charges in sections 5.4 and 5.6. d. note the intention to focus on “New hosts” initially until resources in place. Page 263
Page 264
e. amend the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to delegate responsibility for the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022 to the Executive Director with responsibility for Regulatory Services, to enable the Council’s environmental health service to authorise officers to deliver the Short-term Let licensing regime. 4 DETAIL 4.1 An Officer Steering Group has developed the new Short-term let licensing regime to meet the Councils statutory duty. This work has been challenging and has involved a formal public consultation on draft proposals, the development of an in-house digital information management system to make and receive applications, a new licensing policy, and a fees and charging structure. Subject to approval, the Council will be in a position to receive applications initially from new hosts, until new posts have been recruited which is likely to be December 2022. The scheme is to be managed and delivered by the Councils’ environmental health service as there are synergies with their existing work in private landlord registration, houses in multiple occupation and caravan site licensing. 4.2 The public consultation on the Council’s draft policy statement for short-term let licensing ended on 5th August 2022. In total 552 responses were received, with a significant majority of respondents agreeing with the Council’s proposals. The recommendations in this report have been developed from an analysis of the consultation are detailed in Appendix 1, have been agreed by the Council’s Short-term Let Steering Group and are built into the proposed scheme, namely: i. The consultation supports including children under the age of 10 in setting occupancy levels. ii. The consultation supports the adoption of all of the proposed additional conditions as set out in the draft policy statement with minor modifications. iii. The consultation identifies that the Council should consider providing temporary exemptions from the requirement to hold a licence. This is an important flexibility for island communities and in relation to events such as the Tarbert series and the Cowal Games. There requires to be some protection for the security of tenure of private tenants. iv. The consultation identifies a role for temporary licences to be considered in limited circumstances, for example, to ensure that short-term lets can continue as going concerns when being sold from one operator to another. v. Fees and charges were inevitably controversial and attracted much comment. The setting of differential fees for home letting and home sharing compared with secondary lets was nevertheless generally supported, in line with Scottish Government guidance. vi. The proposed fee structure was more controversial, with most respondents dissatisfied that the actual fee levels could not be included in the consultation. Page 264
Page 265
4.3 Licensing Policy. The licensing policy (Appendix 2) details the key details of the scheme for Council’s approval. This provides the policy against which applications will be considered and specifies arrangements for temporary exemptions, temporary licences planning control areas, conditions and a range of other critical areas. 4.4 Licensing Processes. The processes generally mirror the Council’s existing civic government licensing processes, and are being adapted to meet the short-term let licensing requirements. The draft policy was part of the recent public consultation and amended to reflect public feedback. 4.5 Additional Conditions. All licensed short-term lets will be required to comply with a set of mandatory conditions that apply across all of Scotland. The mandatory conditions are set out in the Order and Councils have a discretionary power to impose additional conditions for short-term let premises. Recognising some of the current issues relating to let accommodation, draft additional conditions covering the areas of antisocial behavior, littering and waste disposal, noise control in flatted properties, and damage to properties, guest safety (hot tubs, swimming pools, barbeques and other equipment) were consulted on. These were amended in light of consultation responses, and legal advice has confirmed that they are not “ultra-vires” and can be defended if challenged. The proposed additional conditions are detailed in Appendix 2. 4.6 Temporary Licences. Whilst not initially intending to issue temporary licences, consultation feedback identified that there would be instances where temporary licences would be appropriate. The main area would be in the sale of a licensed property, where a grant of a temporary licence would allow the property to continue to operate, as the licence is specific to the owner and not the short- term property. The Council’s licensing regime includes temporary licences. 4.7 Temporary Exemptions. The Order provides temporary exemptions to the requirement for a licence for a single continuous period not exceeding 6 weeks in any 12-month period. This could cover major events where accommodation is provided in homes and other properties for a short period. Initially, the Council’s draft scheme did not intend to provide for this exemption, but following public consultation, this has been incorporated into the licensing policy 4.8 Short-term Let Control Areas. The Order permits planning authorities to establish Short-term Let Control Areas requiring a dwellings within the designated areas used for secondary letting on a short-term basis within the designated areas, to obtain planning approval for a “material change of use”. This is not a ban on short-term lets but allows planning policies to assess the use of a dwelling. No Short Term Planning Control Areas will be in place at inception of the Councils’ Short Term Let Licensing regime on the 1st October. Careful consideration on the impact of the scheme on housing supply, tenure and availability is be required and must be “data driven”. This work will commence in 2023. 4.9 There is currently no staffing capacity within the existing licensing, or environmental health teams, to take forward the short-term let licensing Page 265
Page 266
regime and the determination of large volume of applications in the 21 months following the 1st October. This will require a permanent core team of 1 Team Lead, 1 Enforcement Officer and 1 Licensing Assistant with another Licensing Assistant and Licensing Officer employed on a fixed term contract. Additional Temporary Licensing Assistants will be required at busy times, although recruitment of a Modern Apprentice will also assist the team and at the same time offer a job opportunity for a young person. These posts are currently advertised and the team should be in place early December. Prior to recruitment, public expectations will be managed through active communication with the short-term let sector and wider general public. 5 Fees and charges 5.1 The Scottish Government did not provide any additional funding to local authorities to develop and implement this new duty, and consequently the scheme will need to be self-financing through short-term let licensing income. Each local authority is required to set its own fees and charges having regard to Scottish Government Guidance “Short Term Lets in Scotland Licensing Scheme- Part 2 Supplementary Guidance for Licensing Authorities, Letting Agencies and Platforms”. These fees must cover all expenditure associated with delivering and enforcing the short-term let licensing regime. 5.2 There is some uncertainty about the total number of short-term accommodation premises in Argyll and Bute will fall within this licensing scheme. The Council’s Non-Domestic Rates (NDR) statistics indicate 2,650 properties although the actual numbers are likely to be significantly greater. Unfortunately, despite taking advantage of a number of different databases available to the Council, it is impossible to provide an exact total at this time. Consequently, to project expenditure to deliver the new licensing scheme and in develop a charging regime, an estimate was used, informed by all relevant data at our disposal. A cautious approach has also been adopted, assuming 3,500 properties, and the Council’s fees will be revised again once all properties once have been licensed and in advance of the next 3 year licensing regime. Fees will be being increased, or decreased accordingly, subject to income and expenditure levels. 5.3 5.4 The Scottish Government recommend that local authorities establish a fee structure that takes account of the type of licence with lower fees set for home sharing and home letting licences than for secondary letting licences; and guest capacity in terms of the maximum number of guests. Following careful consideration and taking into account the views from the consultation, the weighting and bandings have been reduced. A standard fee was based on the Council’s existing civic government licence fees (£524; £452 and £271) as short term let licensing mirror these processes. The mid- range fee of £452 was adopted to minimise the potential for over recovery of fees based on estimated properties requiring a short-term let licence. Applying a weighting and banding structure (see Appendix 3) consistent with Scottish Government guidance, the following fees are therefore proposed to cover a three year license period for each property: Page 266
Page 267
Guest capacity applied for (including children under the age of 10) Home sharing or home letting licence Secondary letting licence Up to 4 £226 £316 5 to 8 £316 £452 9 to 12 £497 £678 13 to 20 £633 £904 21 and over £814 £1130 For comparison, the House in Multiple Occupation license fee for premises with 10 or more people is £1,101. The lowest fee of £226 under this model is also less than the lowest standard band of other Civic Government license fees of £275. An example of this is a license for a window cleaner. 5.5 Projected costs to deliver the licensing scheme are £1.32M (million) over a three-year period to March 2026, including start-up costs for 22/23. Projected fee income is worst-case scenario (based on the 2,650 properties) is £1.03M with mid-range (based on 3,500 properties) of £1.37M. 5.6 The legislation permits the recovery of enforcement costs where an intervention is required to properties arising from ongoing complaints or whether there is a failure to comply with conditions relating to the premises. The decision to charge will be based on the principles of proportionality in accordance with Councils and Regulatory Services Enforcement Policy and the Scottish Government’s Strategic Enforcement Code. This has been built into the proposed additional charges outlined below. Additional charges Temporary Licence 50% of fee Variation in Licence/change in circumstances £77 Certified copy of licence/duplicate licence £41 Temporary exemption application 50% of fee Enforcement charge (Hourly rate) £94.30 6 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 The short term licensing scheme detailed in this report meets the mandatory duty placed on the Council for short- term let accommodation. The Council carried out a public consultation on the proposed scheme and made changes to the initial proposals. Concerns from the business community have been expressed that fees are likely to be excessive and adversely impact on their ability to continue trading. The fees put forward by this report are designed to simply recover all costs occurred by the Council and in no way considered excessive. The fees proposed equate to £76 annually (licensing fees cover a 3 year period) for a small bed and breakfast with less than 4 guests; and £151 annually for a self-catering property for 6 guests. Page 267
Page 268
6.2 This is only the first stage of the process as we need to recruit staff as detailed in this report and then deliver the licensing scheme. The council as Planning Authority for much of Argyll and Bute together with the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Parks Authority will also require to consider the necessity for any Short-term Let Planning Control Areas to be introduced. 7 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Policy Consistent with the Council’s Corporate Plan and new statutory duty 7.2 Financial The licensing scheme is to be self-financing from income levels. Estimates used to set fees and will be closely monitored. Fees will be reviewed regularly and for the next three year licensing period. 7.3 Legal Meets Councils new mandatory duty under Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022, 7.4 HR New posts are being recruited funded by income. 7.5 Fairer Scotland 7.5.1 Equalities No adverse impact on protected characteristics and scheme impacts on all providers 7.5.2 Socio- economic Ensures that let accommodation is safe, applies consistent standards across all sectors and protects communities 7.5.3 Islands Licensing scheme will be consistently applied across the whole of Argyll and Bute. 7.6 Climate change Conditions support climate change and environment standards 7.7 Risk (1) Councils legal duty will be met on approval of the scheme (2) Inadequate resources are in place to deliver the full scheme as of the 1 October, and situation will be managed to ensure we can receive and determine applications from “new hosts” (3) Income does not fully cover expenditure or over- recovery. This will be monitored 7.8 Customer Service Consistent with customer charter Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Policy Lead: Councillor Kieron Green For further information: Alan Morrison, Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager 20 September 2022. Addendum – Report to Council on 29 September 2022 Page 268
Page 269
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 29 SEPTEMBER 2022 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL’S SHORT TERM LET LICENSING SCHEME 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report seeks approval of the arrangements for the Council’s Short-term Let Licensing Scheme. The licensing scheme was brought in by the Scottish Government under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short- term Lets) Order 2022, with the aim to ensure short-term lets are safe, address issues faced by neighbours, to facilitate local authorities knowing and understanding what is happening in their area, and handling complaints effectively. It also aims to balance the economic and tourism benefits from short-term lets with the needs and concerns of local communities across Argyll and Bute. This is therefore a statutory obligation of the Council. 1.2 To help inform the contents of this report, a formal public consultation was carried out on initial draft proposals. There was a very healthy and positive response. The key outcomes gathered by the consultation have influenced the final scheme and licensing policy proposed within this report. 1.3 A new licensing system in now ready for Committee consideration, comment and approval. This meets the new statutory duty to have a scheme in place to receive and determine applications from new hosts as of the 1st October 2022. It should be noted that no additional resources have been provided by the Scottish Government to deliver the scheme. Recruitment is therefore ongoing for new posts (permanent and fixed term) and a communication strategy is in place to manage expectations until staff are in place. 1.4 The licensing scheme will be self-financing from fee income. The Council have assessed all relevant information and databases to identify the total number of short-term accommodation premises in Argyll and Bute that fall within this licensing scheme. The Council’s Non-Domestic Rates (NDR) statistics indicate 2,650 properties although the actual numbers are likely to be significantly greater. Unfortunately, despite taking advantage of a number of different databases available to the Council, it is impossible to provide an exact total. A cautious approach has however been taken in setting fees and charges and resourcing for the licensing scheme, and Page 269
Page 270
income/expenditure levels will be closely continuously monitored. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Council is asked:- a) To note the considerable work undertaken to develop the new licensing regime in a challenging timescale, and without any additional funding or resourcing provided by the Scottish Government. b) To welcome the high level of responses to the public consultation, and recognise that many of the issues raised have been incorporated into the final licensing regime. c) To approve the Short-term Let licensing regime, Licensing Policy, additional conditions and fee and charges as set out in sections 5.4 and 5.6 d) To note the initial focus on “New hosts” initially until additional staff resources are in place. e) To amend the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to delegate responsibility for the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022 to the Executive Director with responsibility for Regulatory Services, to enable the Council’s Environmental Health Service to authorise officers to deliver the Short-term Let licensing regime. Page 270
Page 271
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 29 SEPTEMBER 2022 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL’S SHORT TERM LET LICENSING SCHEME 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 This report seeks approval of the arrangements for the Council’s Short-term Let Licensing scheme. The licensing scheme was brought in by the Scottish Government under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short- term Lets) Order 2022, with the aim to ensure short-term lets are safe, address issues faced by neighbours, to facilitate local authorities knowing and understanding what is happening in their area, and handling complaints effectively. It also aims to balance the economic and tourism benefits from short-term lets with the needs and concerns of local communities to ensure the people providing short-term lets are suitable. 2.2 Local authorities must introduce a new mandatory licensing system for short-term lets for 1st October 2022 to receive applications from existing and new “hosts” and thereafter determine them. The scheme will cover a wide range of residential accommodation including, but not exclusively, self- catering properties, B&B’s, guesthouses, glamping pods and yurts. 2.3 Despite the challenging timescale, a licensing system has been developed for Committee consideration and approval. This process has involved considerable work by an Officer Steering Group, formal public consultation on draft proposals, the development of an in-house digital information management system to make and receive applications, a new licensing policy, and a fees and charges structure. The outcomes from public consultation have influenced the final licensing system. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Council is asked to consider this report and the following recommendations: a) To note the considerable work undertaken to develop the new licensing regime in a challenging timescale, and without any additional funding or resourcing from the Scottish Government. b) To welcome the high level of responses to the public consultation, and recognise that many of the issues raised have been incorporated into the final licensing regime. c) To approve the Short-term Let licensing regime, Licensing Policy, additional conditions and fee and charges as set out in sections 5.4 and 5.6 Page 271
Page 272
d) To note the initial focus on “New hosts” initially until resources in place. e) To amend the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to delegate responsibility for the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022 to the Executive Director with responsibility for Regulatory Services, to enable the Council’s Environmental Health Service to authorise officers to deliver the Short-term Let licensing regime. 4 DETAIL 4.1 The licensing scheme was brought in by the Scottish Government under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022, with the aim to ensure short-term lets are safe, address issues faced by neighbours, to facilitate local authorities knowing and understanding what is happening in their area, and handling complaints effectively. It also aims to balance the economic and tourism benefits from short-term lets with the needs and concerns of local communities to ensure the people providing short-term lets are suitable. The Council is required to receive and determine applications of short-term lets and issue appropriate licences and conditions. Integral to this will be supporting applicants to ensure compliance and addressing any representations for communities, neighbours or statutory consultees. The Scottish Government expect local authorities to enforce these requirements and to target non- compliance. Licensing Officers will be employed to carry out proportionate regulation. 4.2 An Officer Steering Group has developed the new Short-term let licensing regime to meet the Council’s statutory duty. This work has been challenging and has involved a formal public consultation on draft proposals, the development of an in-house digital information management system to make and receive applications, a new licensing policy, and a fees and charging structure. Subject to approval, the Council will be in a position to receive applications initially from new hosts, until new posts have been recruited which is likely to be December 2022. The scheme is to be managed and delivered by the Council’s Environmental Health Service as there are synergies with their existing work in private landlord registration, houses in multiple occupation and caravan site licensing. 4.3 The public consultation on the Council’s draft policy statement for short-term let licensing ended on 5th August 2022. 552 responses were received, with a significant majority of respondents agreeing with the Council’s proposals. The recommendations arising from analysis of the consultation are detailed in Appendix I, have been agreed by the Council’s Short-term Let Steering Group and are built into the proposed scheme, namely: i. The consultation supports including children under the age of 10 in setting occupancy levels. ii. The consultation supports the adoption of all of the proposed additional conditions as set out in the draft policy statement with minor modifications. iii. The consultation identifies that the Council should consider providing temporary exemptions from the requirement to hold a licence. This is an important flexibility for island communities and in relation to events Page 272
Page 273
such as the Tarbert series and the Cowal Games. There requires to be some protection for the security of tenure of private tenants. iv. The consultation identifies a role for temporary licences to be considered in limited circumstances, for example, to ensure that short-term lets can continue as going concerns when being sold from one operator to another. v. Fees and charges were inevitably controversial and attracted much comment. The setting of differential fees for home letting and home sharing compared with secondary lets was nevertheless generally supported, in line with Scottish Government guidance. vi. The proposed fee structure was more controversial, with most respondents dissatisfied that the actual fee levels could not be included in the consultation. 4.4 Licensing Policy. The licensing policy (Appendix II) details the key details of the scheme for Council’s approval. This provides the policy against which applications will be considered and specifies arrangements for temporary exemptions, temporary licences planning control areas, conditions and and a range of other critical areas. 4.5 Licensing processes. The processes generally mirror the Council’s existing civic government licensing processes, and are being adapted to meet the short- term let licensing requirements. The draft policy was part of the recent public consultation and amended to reflect public feedback. An in-house ICT system is being developed to provide a “digital system” to receive and process applications, including payment of fees, which will go live the next working day after the 1 October 2022. 4.6 Additional Conditions. All licensed short-term lets will be required to comply with a set of mandatory conditions that apply across all of Scotland. The mandatory conditions are set out in the Order and Councils have a discretionary power to impose additional conditions for short-term let premises. Recognising some of the current issues relating to let accommodation, draft additional conditions covering the areas of antisocial behaviour, littering and waste disposal, noise control in flatted properties, damage to properties, guest safety (hot tubs, swimming pools, barbeques and other equipment) were consulted on. These have been amended in light of consultation responses and legal advice has confirmed that they are not “ultra-vires” and can be defended if challenged. The proposed additional conditions are detailed in Appendix 2. 4.7 Temporary Licences. Whilst not initially intending to issue temporary licences, consultation feedback identified that there would be instances where temporary licences would be appropriate. The main area would be in the sale of a licensed property, where grant of a temporary licence would allow the property to continue to operate, as the licence is specific to the owner and not the short- term property. The Council’s licensing regime includes temporary licences. 4.8 Temporary Exemptions. The Order provides temporary exemptions to the requirement for a licence for a single continuous period not exceeding 6 weeks in any 12-month period. This could cover major events where Page 273
Page 274
accommodation is provided in homes and other properties for a short period. Initially, the Council’s draft scheme did not intend to provide for this exemption, but following consultation, this has been incorporated into the licensing policy 4.9 Short-term Let Control Areas. The Order permits planning authorities to establish Short-term Let Control Areas requiring a dwellings within the designated areas used for secondary letting on a short-term basis within the designated areas, to obtain planning approval for a “material change of use”. This is not a ban on short-term lets but allows planning policies to assess the use of a dwelling. No Short Term Planning Control Areas will be in place at inception of the Councils’ Short Term Let Licensing regime on the 1st October. Careful consideration on the impact of the scheme on housing supply, tenure and availability is be required and must be “data driven”. This work will commence in 2023 by the Council and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, as relevant planning authorities. 4.10 There is currently no staff capacity within the existing licensing, or environmental health teams, to take forward the short-term let licensing regime and the determination of large volume of applications in the 21 months following the 1st October. This will require a permanent core team of 1 Team Lead, 1 Enforcement Officer and 1 Licensing Assistant with another Licensing Assistant and Licensing Officer employed on a fixed term contract. Additional Temporary Licensing Assistants will be required at busy times, although recruitment of a Modern Apprentice will also assist the team and at the same time offer a job opportunity for a young person. These posts are currently being advertised and it is hoped that the team will be in place early December. Prior to recruitment, public expectations will be managed through active communication with the short-term let sector and wider general public. 5 Fees and charges 5.1 The Scottish Government did not provide any additional funding to local authorities to develop and implement this new duty, and consequently the scheme will need to be self-financing through short-term let licensing income. Each local authority is required to set its own fees and charges having regard to Scottish Government Guidance “Short Term Lets in Scotland Licensing Scheme- Part 2 Supplementary Guidance for Licensing Authorities, Letting Agencies and Platforms”. These fees must cover all expenditure associated with delivering and enforcing the short-term let licensing regime. 5.2 The Council have assessed all relevant information and databases to identify the total number of short-term accommodation premises in Argyll and Bute which fall within this licensing scheme. The Council’s Non-Domestic Rates (NDR) statistics indicate 2,650 properties although the actual numbers are likely to be significantly greater. Unfortunately, despite taking advantage of a number of different databases available to the Council, it is impossible to provide an exact total. To project expenditure required to deliver the licensing scheme and develop a charging regime, a cautious approach has been adopted, assuming 3,500 properties. The Council’s fees will be revised again once all properties have been licensed and in advance of the next 3 year Page 274
Page 275
licensing regime. Fees will be being increased, or decreased accordingly, subject to income and expenditure levels. 5.3 5.4 The Scottish Government recommend that local authorities establish a fee structure that takes account of the type of licence with lower fees set for home sharing and home letting licences than for secondary letting licences; and guest capacity in terms of the maximum number of guests. Following careful consideration and taking into account the views from the consultation, the weighting and bandings were reduced in number and fee ratios. The standard fee was based on the Council’s existing civic government licence fees (£524; £452 and £271) as short term let licensing mirror these processes. The mid range fee of £452 was adopted to minimise the potential for over recovery of fees based on estimated properties requiring a short-term let licence. Applying a weighting and banding structure (see Appendix 2) consistent with Scottish Government guidance, the following fees are therefore proposed to cover a three year license period for each property: Guest capacity applied for (including children under the age of 10) Home sharing or home letting licence Secondary letting licence Up to 4 £226 £316 5 to 8 £316 £452 9 to 12 £497 £678 13 to 20 £633 £904 21 and over £814 £1130 For comparison, the House in Multiple Occupation licence fee for premises with 10 or more people is £1,101. The lowest fee of £226 under this model is also less than the lowest standard band of other Civic Government license fees of £275. An example of this is a license for a window cleaner. 5.5 Projected costs to deliver the licensing scheme are £1.32M (million), which includes permanent, fixed term and temporary staffing over a three-year period to March 2026, including start-up costs for 22/23. Projected fee income is worst-case scenario (based on the 2,650 properties) is £1.03M with mid-range (based on 3,500 properties) of £1.37M. 5.6 The legislation permits the recovery of enforcement costs where an intervention is required to properties arising from ongoing complaints or whether there is a failure to comply with conditions relating to the premises. The decision to charge will be based on the principles of proportionality in accordance with Councils and Regulatory Services Enforcement Policy and the Scottish Government’s Strategic Enforcement Code. This has been built into the proposed additional charges outlined below. Additional charges Temporary Licence 50% of fee Variation in Licence/change in circumstances £77 Page 275
Page 276
Certified copy of licence/duplicate licence £41 Temporary exemption application 50% of fee Enforcement charge (Hourly rate) £94.30 6 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 The short term licensing scheme detailed in this report meets the mandatory duty placed on the Council for short-term let accommodation. The Council carried out a public consultation on the proposed scheme and made changes to the initial proposals. Concerns from the business community have been expressed that fees are likely to be excessive and adversely impact on their ability to continue trading. The fees put forward by this report are designed to simply recover all costs incurred by the Council and in no way considered excessive. The fees proposed equate to £76 annually (licensing fees cover a 3 year period) for a small bed and breakfast with less than 4 guests; and £151 annually for a self-catering property for 6 guests. 6.2 This is only the first stage of the process as we need to recruit staff as detailed in this report and then deliver the licensing scheme. The Planning Authority for much of Argyll and Bute, together with the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Parks Authority, require to consider the necessity for any Short-term Let Planning Control Areas to be introduced. 7 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Policy Consistent with the Council’s Corporate Plan and new statutory duty 7.2 Financial The licensing scheme is to be self-financing from income levels. Estimates used to set fees and will be closely monitored. Fees will be reviewed regularly and for the next three year licensing period. 7.3 Legal Meets Councils new mandatory duty under Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022, 7.4 HR New posts are being recruited funded by income. 7.5 Fairer Scotland 7.5.1 Equalities No adverse impact on protected characteristics and scheme impacts on all providers 7.5.2 Socio- economic Ensures that let accommodation is safe, applies consistent standards across all sectors and protects communities 7.5.3 Islands Licensing scheme will be consistently applied across the whole of Argyll and Bute. 7.6 Climate change Conditions support climate change and environment standards 7.7 Risk (1) Councils legal duty will be met on approval of the scheme (2) Inadequate resources are in place to deliver the full scheme as of the 1 October, as the team is unlikely to be recruited until early December. This situation will be managed to ensure we can receive and determine Page 276
Page 277
applications from “new hosts” (3) Income does not fully cover expenditure or over- recovery. This will be monitored 7.8 Customer Service Consistent with customer charter Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Policy Lead: Councillor Kieron Green For further information: Alan Morrison, Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager 20 September 2022 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Report on the consultation for a short-term lets licensing policy – August 2022 Appendix 2 - Short-term Lets Licensing Draft Policy Statement Appendix 3 - Post-consultation review of proposed fee structure for short-term lets Page 277
Page 278
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 279
Page 1 of 29 Argyll and Bute Council Report on the consultation for a short-term lets licensing policy – August 2022 Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Type of respondent ................................................................................................................................. 3 Draft licensing policy ............................................................................................................................... 4 Occupancy levels and children ................................................................................................................ 4 Additional conditions .............................................................................................................................. 5 Proposed additional conditions ........................................................................................................... 5 Antisocial behaviour (link to condition) .......................................................................................... 5 Noise control in flatted premises (link to condition) ....................................................................... 6 Littering and waste disposal (link to condition) .............................................................................. 8 Damage to property (link to condition) ........................................................................................... 9 Additional conditions for guest safety .......................................................................................... 10 Temporary exemptions ......................................................................................................................... 11 Proposal not to grant temporary exemptions ................................................................................... 11 Should additional conditions apply to temporary exemptions ......................................................... 13 Temporary licences ............................................................................................................................... 13 Should the Council introduce temporary licences ............................................................................ 13 If temporary licences are introduced, should additional local conditions apply............................... 14 Fees and charges ................................................................................................................................... 14 Different scales of fees for home sharing and home letting licences compared with secondary letting licences ................................................................................................................................... 14 Other comments received in the course of the consultation ................................................................ 18 Appendix 1 – Summary of recommendations ....................................................................................... 21 Appendix 2 – Consultation questionnaire ............................................................................................. 22 Appendix 3 – Proposed additional conditions ....................................................................................... 25 Additional conditions based on Part 2 Guidance .............................................................................. 25 Additional Conditions for Guest Safety ............................................................................................. 26 Appendix 1 Page 279
Page 280
Page 2 of 29 Executive summary The Council’s draft policy statement for short-term let licensing was put to public consultation through the Council’s website for a period of three weeks ending on 5th August 2022. 552 responses were received, with a significant majority of respondents agreeing with the Council’s proposals. The recommendations arising from analysis of the consultation are summarised at Appendix 1. The consultation supports including children under the age of 10 in setting occupancy levels. The consultation supports the adoption of all of the proposed additional conditions as set out in the draft policy statement with minor modifications. However, work is required to determine in what form a condition should be worded to protect residents from impact noise in flatted premises. The consultation identifies that the Council should consider providing temporary exemptions from the requirement to hold a licence. This is an important flexibility for island communities and in relation to events such as the Tarbert series and the Cowal Games. However, any temporary exemptions policy should be drafted in such a way as to protect the security of tenure of private tenants. The consultation identifies a role for temporary licences to be considered in limited circumstances, for example to ensure that short-term lets can continue as going concerns when being sold from one operator to another. Fees and charges are, inevitably, controversial and attracted much comment. The setting of differential fees for home letting and home sharing compared with secondary lets was generally approved, in line with Scottish Government guidance. The proposed fee structure was more controversial, with most respondents dissatisfied that the actual fees could not be included in the consultation. More work is required to refine the bandings and the weightings to be used in setting fees. Other comments received in the course of the consultation are reviewed. Page 280
Page 281
Page 3 of 29 343 Introduction The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 20221 establishes for the first time a mandatory licensing scheme for short-term let accommodation across Scotland. From 1st October, each licensing authority is required to be able to receive applications. Licensing authorities must develop a policy on temporary exemption from the requirement to hold a licence. They are also expected to develop policies on: licence duration and renewal, temporary licences, additional conditions, and compliance and enforcement. In accordance with Scottish Government guidance2, Argyll and Bute Council put a draft licensing policy statement to public consultation through its website for three weeks, with the consultation closing on 5th August. 552 responses were received. A copy of the consultation questionnaire is reproduced at Appendix 2. This report reviews the responses to the consultation and makes recommendations for the revision of the draft licensing policy. In this report, comments from respondents are selected to show the full range of views on a topic, are reproduced verbatim, and are formatted as follows: Type of respondent Respondents were asked to indicate in what capacity they were answering the consultation questionnaire. Other (please specify) 28 Trade association (please specify) 2 Community Council 6 Short-term let neighbour 80 Other member of the public 80 Short-term let host/operator Short-term let guest 13 Figure 1 Type of respondent 1 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2022/9780111052396/contents 2 https://www.gov.scot/publications/short-term-lets/ This needs to be a fair system and proportionate to the issue. Vast majority of holiday lets are ran well with no issues. Page 281
Page 282
Page 4 of 29 343 (80%) of responses were from hosts and operators. 160 (28%) of responses were from the neighbours of short-term lets and from other members of the public. Six community councils responded, as did two trade associations: the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, and Isle of Mull Cottages, a letting agency. All comments have been given equal weighting in this report. Draft licensing policy Respondents were asked whether they had read the draft policy. 95% indicated that they had. Respondents were asked whether there were any other areas of the draft policy statement or the proposed additional conditions that they wished to make comments on. 214 responses were made, covering a wide range of topics. This question duplicated the final question about any other comments and these responses will be included in the analysis of that section. Occupancy levels and children It is a mandatory condition of a short-term let licence that hosts and operators ensure they do not exceed the maximum number of guests for their premises. The Council may choose to specify on an individual licence that guests may bring children under a specified age and these children would not count towards the occupancy of the premises. Scottish Government guidance states that licensing authorities may wish to set the age limit as ‘under 10 years’. The Council had not taken a prior position on this question. Respondents were asked whether children under the age of 10 should count towards the occupancy of a premises. 71.3% of respondents considered that they should; 28.7% thought they should not. Comments in favour of including children in occupancy limits included: Comments opposing the inclusion of children in occupancy limits included: Existing insurance policies specifying occupancy and including all ages. Fire safety risk assessments do not differentiate occupancy on the basis of age. Additional noise from children in flatted premises. The sleeping accommodation provided should match the number of occupants. We have statutory rules for overcrowding for adults and children in social housing in Scotland. Very young children often sleep with their parents and don’t occupy sleeping accommodation. I think as a host we should be able to allow extra children if we feel our homes are not overly occupied. I think age 10 is too high and the age should be more like 3 or 4. I think 2 adults bringing a baby that will be sleeping in a travel cot (which we can provide) in their bedroom should be counted as 2 people. Recommendation: 1. That children under the age of 10 should be included in the occupancy limits for a premises. Page 282
Page 283
Page 5 of 29 Additional conditions All short-term lets which are granted a licence will be required to comply with a set of mandatory conditions which apply across all of Scotland. The mandatory conditions are set out in the Order. The Council has a discretionary power to impose additional conditions for short-term let premises. Proposed additional conditions A number of additional conditions were proposed in the draft policy covering specific areas. These are detailed at Appendix 3. Respondents were asked whether they agreed with the proposed additional conditions. The responses received were as follows: Agree Disagree Antisocial behaviour 487 (89%) 60 (11%) Noise 474 (87%) 73 (13%) Waste collection / disposal 453 (84%) 89 (16%) Failure to maintain common areas 461 (86%) 74 (13%) Guest safety (bicycles/boat safety/hot tubs/barbecue huts/outdoor play equipment etc.) 448 (83%) 95 (17%) Figure 2 Agreement with proposed additional conditions Respondents were 4:1 in favour of the proposed additional conditions. Respondents were asked to provide comments if they disagreed with any of the above points. Comments included: Antisocial behaviour (link to condition) The following comments represent the range of responses received. Antisocial behaviour is NOT within the control of the owner, who is not present during the guests' stay at the premises, and may live a great distance from the premises. Making the owner responsible for the control of guests is unreasonable. Should the host 'vet' each guest to ensure they are of an acceptable standard? Whose prejudices decide what is acceptable? I don't see this as workable, and there are laws in place already to deal with antisocial behaviour. For noise and antisocial behaviour I think it will be vital for the council to provide clear advisory steps about what to actually do if guests are accused of this. If a host is not in the premises or in the area they would value knowing the practical steps, endorsed by the council and perhaps even the police, about how to proceed. I agree with them all. It is important that guests are not anti-social or noisy, whilst the their safety should be paramount to the landlord. In principle I would agree with anti social behaviour and noise, though it may be difficult to truly control behaviour of others. The additional conditions should specifically include the use hot tubs and decking as they present a very real noise and antisocial behaviour issue for neighbours when used in residential areas throughout the day and night. This is about the wellbeing of neighbours and neighbourhoods as well as guest safety. Page 283
Page 284
Page 6 of 29 Commentary: 1. This condition is based upon the template additional condition set out in the Part 2 Supplementary Guidance for Licensing Authorities, Letting Agencies and Platforms3 issued by the Scottish Government. 2. One of the stated policy objectives set by the Scottish Government in introducing the licensing of short-term lets is “to address issues faced by neighbours effectively”. The Part 1 Guidance for Hosts and Operators4 includes, at Section 6 “Staying compliant”, a definition of antisocial behaviour and the measures a licence-holder might wish to take to minimise the risk of antisocial behaviour from the use of the premises as a short-term let. 3. It should be noted that, in the opinion of the Scottish Government, taking reasonable steps to minimise the risk of antisocial behaviour is the action of a person who is fit and proper to provide short-term lets. Noise control in flatted premises (link to condition) The following comments represent the range of responses received. 3 https://www.gov.scot/publications/short-term-lets-scotland-licensing-scheme-part-2-supplementary- guidance-licensing-authorities-letting-agencies-platforms-2/ 4 https://www.gov.scot/publications/short-term-lets-scotland-licensing-scheme-part-1-guidance-hosts- operators-2/ Incidents of anti-social behaviour in self-catering premises are rare. Last year, the ASSC submitted Freedom of Information requests to all thirty-two local authorities in Scotland and the results of this show that there is a mismatch between perception and reality: the number of ASB complaints against holiday lets in Scotland over the past five years is minimal. The language attached to the additional conditions by Argyll and Bute Council that the licence holder must “ensure” that no disturbance or nuisance arises within or from the premises, or indeed ensure vehicles belonging to guests are parked lawfully, is unreasonable. First, many operators will not always be on site at their property. Second, while operators can reasonably ask that their guests comply with the two aforementioned examples but they cannot compel them to do so. In addition, we are very concerned at the cost implications for Argyll and Bute Council to enforce this – will the Council have officers patrolling near self-catering units to check that guest vehicles are parked in an appropriate fashion? Recommendation: 2. That the additional condition on antisocial behaviour be included in the Council’s short- term lets licensing scheme, subject to amendment to include specific reference to noise from amplified music in gardens and external areas. Whilst carpets do in some instances provide better sound insulation then cheap laminate flooring, wooden floors are far more effective at providing a sound proof layer. Our floors cost over £6000, they have sound proof underlay, over-boarding in ply and solid wood parquet blocks. The floor will last well over 100 years as is far more environmentally and sustainable friendly than carpet. Design decisions such as this should be consulted via design professionals and architects. Effectively you would be asking us to lower the standard of our apartment both in terms of sound protection and cleanliness. The requirement should state ‘appropriate sound proofing’ and not state ‘carpet’ as a choice of material. Page 284
Page 285
Page 7 of 29 Although I agree with the noise condition I think the requirement for properties above other dwellings to have carpets does not take account of modern floor coverings such as luxury vinyl tile which also reduce noise but are much easier to keep clean than carpets. From an infection control point which is essential following the pandemic I believe options for other floor coverings should be permitted. The flat immediately above our ground-floor flat has been let on a short-term basis. When refurbishing the flat they removed all carpeting so that noise can be a significant problem, especially when young children are running around late at night. The use of kitchen and laundry equipment at night is also magnified. 0700 departure is too late to connect with certain ferry sailings. I agree with added conditions but 23.00 hours is far too late to impose restrictions on garden noise, 22.00 at latest. The additional conditions should specifically include the use hot tubs and decking as they present a very real noise and antisocial behaviour issue for neighbours when used in residential areas throughout the day and night. This is about the wellbeing of neighbours and neighbourhoods as well as guest safety. The few flatted properties [on Mull] would find it difficult to prevent guests leaving before 7am, as many guests leave on early ferries to either return home or catch a connecting ferry to a second island destination. We are living in a ground floor flat and suffer badly from noise (footfall and voice) from the flat above who let it out on short term lets already. I hope that when these owners apply for a licence, somebody will check that appropriate floor coverings are in place. Should not be permitted in flats where poor insulation is present. Noise is ever present and occupancy is unpredictable. I personally experience a very poor quality of life when an upstairs flat is occupied. The configuration of our building means that their kitchen is above my bedroom. I get no sleep if they’re not sleeping. Commentary: Impact noise 1. Consultation responses make it clear that impact noise in flatted premises causes considerable disturbance to residential occupiers beneath short-term lets. 2. The draft additional condition including a requirement for carpeting in flatted premises is based upon a template condition in the Part 2 Guidance. The purpose of the condition is to reduce “tapping” impact noise from people moving around on hard-surfaced floors, typically floorboards or poorly-installed laminate flooring. This is a known cause of annoyance between dwellings that have a party floor or ceiling. 3. The components of impact noise can be characterised as “thumping” and “tapping”. Thumping noises are typically from heavy impacts such as dropping items or persons running or jumping, as children in play might do. Tapping noises are generated typically by the impact of hard objects on hard floors, such as stiletto heels on tiles or floorboards. 4. Although there are performance standards for impact noise specified in the Building Standards Technical Handbook, Part 5.1, it is expensive and complex to carry out acoustic testing in accordance with BS EN ISO 140-7: 1998 and BS EN ISO 717-2: 1997, the standards for impact sound transmission. In addition, testing requires the co-operation of the occupiers of the premises below the premises in question. Note that testing to these Page 285
Page 286
Page 8 of 29 standards requires the removal of carpets to assess the performance of the underlying floor structures. 5. It is not generally practicable to achieve the performance standards set out in Part 5.1 of the Technical Handbook by only treating the floor in one premises; the whole party floor/ceiling structure requires to be constructed in accordance with the Part to achieve the necessary performance. 6. Some short-term let premises will have been provided by conversion into flats of pre- existing dwellinghouses or as new constructions. In these cases, compliance with the standards in Part 5.1 will have been required in order to obtain a building warrant and completion certificate. There is a case for accepting a completion certificate in respect of these premises as an alternative to requiring carpeting in specified areas of the premises. 7. A suggested exception to the requirement to carpet floors in accordance with the template additional condition is “any flatted property that can demonstrate that they have been built to or been converted to Domestic Technical Standard 5.1, may be exempt the requirement to carpet floors”. 8. The simple alternatives to excepting premises built to Domestic Technical Standard 5.1 are: (a)don’t include the additional condition and deal with complaints or objections on their own merit; or (b) include the condition and require carpets in all relevant cases. Guest arrival and departure 9. The comments regarding early and late ferry travel are noted. The Council fully understands the realities of island travel and will apply a reasonable interpretation of this condition in the event of complaints being received. The Council does not consider that people leaving premises before 0700 in order to catch an early ferry for their onward travel would be in breach of this condition. Antisocial noise from gardens 10. The comments on garden noise and noise from the use of hot tubs are noted. The Council considers that these issues should be addressed by the host’s house rules for the prevention of antisocial behaviour rather than a generally-applied additional condition. Littering and waste disposal (link to condition) The following comments represent the range of responses received. Recommendations: 3. Give further consideration to the need for the impact noise condition and, should it be considered necessary, whether an exception should be made for constructions which are compliant with the Domestic Technical Standard 5.1. 4. Amend the antisocial behaviour condition to make specific reference to the avoidance of disturbance from the playing of amplified music in gardens or external areas. Experience has shown varying standards by guests with regard to recycling. Our policy is to go through waste material to ensure correct segregation of items Waste/recycling bin presentation for collection should not be a guest responsibility, it should be managed by permanent owners/tenants in the building. Page 286
Page 287
Page 9 of 29 Commentary: 1. The draft additional condition is taken from the template condition in the Part 2 Guidance. 2. It is noted that waste from secondary letting premises should be treated as commercial waste and have commercial waste contracts in place. Where commercial waste receptacles are provided in common areas, guests will require to know which are the correct receptacles for the premises they occupy. 3. The condition is worded to place an onus on a licence holder to provide advice and information to guests. The condition does not require guests to put waste receptacles out for collection, only that the licence holder shall make arrangements for that to happen; in some cases, it may be appropriate to ask the guest to make sure the bins are presented for collection. Damage to property (link to condition) The following comments represent the range of responses received. Commentary: 1. This is a template condition taken from the Part 2 Guidance. 2. This condition does not prohibit keyboxes, nor other devices, and the sole owner of a property requires nobody else’s permission to affix one. I agree with waste disposal and recycling notices but I find the guests sometime put everything in the green bins which I then take out and put in the blue . I don’t think it should be the guests onus to put the bins out , that’s the owners . The Council again state the licence holder shall “ensure” – while operators can advise guests of refuse collection day, they cannot compel them to comply. On a more practical point, we are dealing with individuals in the region for a holiday and who will not wish to spend a large amount of time familiarising themselves with waste management and recycling issues. Recommendation: 5. That the additional condition on littering and waste control be included in the Council’s short-term lets licensing scheme. Prohibiting the use of keyboxes or other related devices would be an arbitrary approach. First, it should be recognised that keyboxes are used for a variety of different purposes, not just to facilitate entry to a short-term let – for example, they are readily utilised by carers. We would presume that Argyll and Bute Council have no issue with keyboxes for this purpose but why should it be any different for short-term lets? It is the same device affixed to a door used to enable entry. Securing the agreement of all owners within a property will be near impossible to achieve. Unanimity of agreement for any change to a property (e.g., repairs) is difficult to secure in other contexts but would be especially so for keyboxes used by short-term let operators. We therefore ask the following: will this become a general policy for all keyboxes within the local authority area, or do Argyll and Bute Council intend to solely discriminate against their use by short-term let operators? The flat immediately above our ground-floor flat has been let on a short-term basis. the owners installed a key safe outside our secure block without permission. Page 287
Page 288
Page 10 of 29 3. No one person has the right to cause damage to public infrastructure or jointly-owned property without the consent of the owner(s). Additional conditions for guest safety Comments were received in relation to the various proposed additional conditions for guest safety as set out below. A fit and proper person should be attending to these items as a matter of course, I think more compliance is unnecessary Additional moveable facilities are beyond what this policy should be covering. All of this kind of gear should be used at own risk and if there is an issue either parties’ insurance should be the first port of call. Bicycles should be at the users own risk, as should boats... Guest safety is the concern of th guest and they would or should have insurance to cover thsi. this should only apply if the equipment is provided by the host. I absolutely agree ! I am sure I am out of step with would prefer that our own equipment/facilities can be provided to guests at no additional cost, when done so explicitly at those guests own risk. Our property is very remote and a requirement to inspect bikes between each guests, supervise inflatable play equipment (why can't guests do this themselves?), etc. is especially burdensome when we have to pay travel costs for someone to do it. The end result will be that we do not allow guests to use such things, which is not what guests would want so it's hard to see who this benefits. I believe the additional conditions are unnecessary as cabin owners such as myself are already responsible and liable for health and safety issues within our properties, eg hot tubs. I somewhat disagree with the guest safety - boats, bbqs etc need to be safe. Some however is user responsibility. It is the responsibility of the person renting to make sure they are safe These Sports items in Guest Safety are supplied with "at your own risk" on the site. None of these examples are a genuine problem in this area. This will be difficult to monitor regarding things like bikes but appropriate for hot tubs etc Very well thought out Commentary: 1. All of the matters addressed in the additional conditions for guest safety represent topics which have required enforcement intervention from the Environmental Health service in the holiday let sector. 2. Anyone providing facilities for the use of other persons will be liable at common law if injury results from their use if they have failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure the safety and proper maintenance of those facilities. 3. Additionally, the operation of a holiday accommodation business is an undertaking for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, with statutory duties imposed upon the operator to conduct the undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is Recommendation: 6. That the additional condition on damage to property be included in the Council’s short- term lets licensing scheme. Page 288
Page 289
Page 11 of 29 reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety. 4. A licence holder cannot contract out of their health and safety or common law duties using unfair contract terms such as “use at your own risk”. 5. The mandatory conditions include requirements to evidence compliance with other statutory duties such as gas safety. 6. Guests are entitled to assume that short-term let accommodation and the facilities provided for them are safe. This is a policy aim of the licensing scheme. 7. Overall, 83% of respondents who indicated a preference supported the inclusion of additional conditions for guest safety. Temporary exemptions Proposal not to grant temporary exemptions 543 responses were received to this question. 425 respondents,78% of the total, agreed with the Council’s position not to grant temporary exemptions. 118 respondents, 22% of the total, disagreed. The following comments represent the range of responses received. Recommendation: 7. That all of the proposed additional conditions for guest safety should be included in the Council’s short-term lets licensing scheme and applied to the premises which offer the specific facilities to guests. Why should other short term let hosts be given special dispensation when they could be just wanting to make some quick cash from a one off event and in the process not have to follow the rules of safety etc that other hosts have to abide by..? I do not agree with this. What about music festivals on the islands, where there is a need for short term accommodation with an influx of visitors for a few days. This attempt to 'maintain standards' will kill local flexibility and initiative. We live on a small island and sometimes there is simply not enough accommodation for visitors during major events. We rely heavily on tourists to support the local economy. During these events, I think temporary exemptions would be valuable for the community. However, 6 weeks could be reduced to 3 weeks as I'm sure that would be enough to cover popular events on Mull. we live in a remote and rural area with limited accommodation - there will be events, festivals, weddings, emergencies etc. in the community which generate extra temporary accommodation requirements that cant be met if there is no facility for temporary exemptions - need to keep the doors open and the economy functioning as well as communities flourishing so havingsome leeway with a temp exemption is a necessity. There may be times when temporary extensions are vital for locally run events such as Tiree Music Festival. In a region where lots of places don't have hotels the need to be able to offer flexible accommodation for short periods is vital. Prices at the moment are THROUGH THE ROOF - I know lots of people who want to visit Scotland at the moment who are put off by the costs and not coming. That hurts us all. Page 289
Page 290
Page 12 of 29 The Scottish Series is TARBERT’s sole nationally significant Tuscan sailing fixture. If you proceed, you will prevent it continuing. QED The fees charges and the red tape that goes with it could be seen to be too great , that it would discourage home owners in sharing their home. For short periods up to 6 weeks better to advertise , what is expected of home owners for 'Home sharing'. There are not many events in Argyll I can immediately think of, perhaps the Cowal games in Dunoon or any large sporting event that may come into Argyll eg 'Tour of Britain'. We do not agree with the Council’s approach to not grant any temporary exemptions. This approach is said to be because “the licensing regime is intended to ensure that premises are safe to let, and exemptions may reduce standards”. For the Council to conclude at this stage that a temporary exemption “may” reduce standards is entirely premature. In enacting the 2022 Order, the Scottish Government put in place the licensing scheme to ensure basic safety standards are in place across all short-term lets operating in Scotland. In allowing for the principle of temporary exemptions, the Scottish Government must have been satisfied that a temporary exemption would not reduce basic safety standards (since, were it otherwise, the Scottish Government would not have permitted local authorities to grant temporary exemptions). In terms of paragraph 1A(3) of Schedule 1 to the 1982 Act, it will also be open to the Council to attach conditions to any exemption granted, and which would permit the Council to attach such conditions as it felt necessary in connection with safety matters. We believe that the Council should enable temporary exemptions to cover major sporting events, major international events, festivals and first-time operators trying out short-term letting for the first time. Short-term lets provide additional accommodation during important times of the year, e.g. the summer festivals. Argyll and Bute Council need only look to a nearby local authority in Glasgow to see how short-term lets allow a city to tackle capacity issues and host a major event. 30,000 delegates, officials, and observers were expected at COP26 in the city; yet Glasgow’s hotel capacity is only 15,000. To ease the supply of accommodation, Airbnb offered first-time hosts a £100 bonus to welcome delegates. I think they should have to apply for a full licence for the correct fee instead of a temporary licence for what will probably be a reduced fee. I also think this would give short-term let owners the opportunity to rent out the property in quieter seasons to locals then evict the renters from their home in order to set up a short-term let for the busier seasons which I consider immoral. Commentary 1. The responses from small island communities in particular highlight the role that local people have in taking guests into their homes during significant local events, such as the Jura Fell Race, the Tarbert Series or the Cowal Games, where the normal supply of accommodation cannot meet the demands. Many of these events are of considerable economic, social and cultural significance, not only to the individual islands or towns, but to the wider Argyll and Bute economy. 2. Temporary exemptions would meet the need for one-off home-letting or home-sharing arrangements, but could not meet the need for accommodation to be provided outwith a single specified period of six weeks in any 12 month period. This is a feature of the law and is not a matter for discretion on the part of the Council. 3. Temporary exemptions clearly have a role to play in supporting local events and local economies, particularly on the islands. However, they have structural limitations. Page 290
Page 291
Page 13 of 29 4. There is a risk to the stability of the residential letting market if landlords are able to evict tenants for the summer season simply to extract greater income from tourists and visitors. This is widely considered to be an economic and social vice in Edinburgh with its summer festivals and St Andrews with the annual golfing tournament. Should additional conditions apply to temporary exemptions 417 respondents, 82% of the total, considered that the additional local conditions should apply to any temporary exemptions. 94 respondents, 18% of the total, considered that they should not. The following comments represent the range of responses received. Temporary licences Should the Council introduce temporary licences 329 respondents, 62% of the total, agreed that the Council should introduce temporary licences. 204 respondents, 38% of the total, disagreed. Reasons why they should not be introduced included: Recommendations: 8. That the Council provides for temporary exemptions to be made available within Argyll and Bute. 9. That a temporary exemptions policy statement be developed and published in accordance with the Part 2 Guidance. 10. That any temporary exemptions policy shall protect private tenants from eviction, disruption and abuse. Would be totally impractical - could use a small number of common sense provisions. You either have a licence or you don't. Short term exemptions will be difficult to manage, and open to abuse. Yes if its possible to implement, but this might not be practical if the exemption is just for a short amount of time Why wouldn’t you make them comply to the same standards etc Keep the licences as simple as possible. To ensure that premises are safe to let, standards are maintained and local residents are protected from unregulated lettings. If there is an exemption then it makes no sense that any licence conditions should be applied. Those letting such premises for whatever reason or length are still benefitting by receiving an income from their business therefore they should havecto comply at all times to the regulations I don’t think additional local conditions should apply to either exemptions, a full licence or a temporary one. Recommendation: 11. That further consideration should be given to which, if any, additional local conditions are applied to temporary exemptions. Why would anybody need a temporary licence Why is there a need for a temporary licence. Just wait until you get a licence Page 291
Page 292
Page 14 of 29 Commentary: 1. Many respondents conflated the issues with temporary exemptions with this question about temporary licences. 2. A temporary licence cannot be used to circumvent the application process for a new host, who cannot let the premises until their full licence has been granted. 3. It has been brought to the Council’s attention that the sale of letting property on an ongoing concern basis requires a transitional arrangement to ensure the continuity of the business and to protect guests’ previously-booked accommodation and travel arrangements. The law provides that a licence is specific to a licence holder and a premises – it is not transferrable. Therefore, there is a role for a purchaser to apply for and hold a temporary licence to ensure the continuity of a letting business whilst the purchase of a property is completed and until a full licence application can be determined. If temporary licences are introduced, should additional local conditions apply Respondents who answered this question were 80% in favour of applying the additional local conditions to any temporary licence. Fees and charges Different scales of fees for home sharing and home letting licences compared with secondary letting licences 365 respondents, 67% of the total, agreed that there should be a lower fee for home sharing or home letting licences compared with secondary letting licences. 176 respondents, 33% of the total, disagreed. The following comments represent the range of responses received. Temporary licences would not be subject to full scrutiny as a full licence application would, and properties may not meet the health and safety requirements that are expected of fully licenced properties. Temporary licences may be used to test the viability of commercial letting, potentially prematurely removing a property from permanent occupation. Temporary licences can provide a way for licensing authorities to allow new hosts and operators to both trial the concept of short-term letting for up to six weeks as well as to start taking guests whilst their licensing application is being considered. There is no risk to the Council in proceeding in this manner for temporary licences given that hosts and operators must still comply with all of the mandatory conditions. Recommendation: 12. That the Council develop a temporary licences policy, setting out the specific circumstances to be considered and the criteria to be applied to any temporary licence. You have not detailed what the fees are going to be, so I cannot give an objective answer to say whether this banding is a fair reflection of the fees. The UK Government's Code of Practice on Consultation states under Citerion 3: Clarity of scope and impact Consultation documents should be clear about the consultation process, what is being proposed, the scope to influence and the expected costs and benefits of the proposals. Page 292
Page 293
Page 15 of 29 While the weightings are in in the right direction, A&B Council should work to mitigate the myriad negative impacts of the STL order through minimised/progressive fee structure (free for home share applicants, much higher for commercial operators of multiple secondary lets) and a ultra light handed approach to applications and compliance (approve most applications automatically with rudimentary checking to minimise administration burden on the council – there is no significant STL problem in A&B now so there is no problem to fix). The council must publish its proposed fees as part of this consultation as other authorities have and extend the consultation period accordingly Weighting is too lenient on secondary lets. I would suggest a secondary, short term let be weighted at least 4x more than home sharing or letting due to the impact that secondary lets have on availability of accommodation for people who wish to live and work on Mull Usually I let my chalet to groups of 4 people but, occasionally, a group of 5 wants to stay - this is usually families with 3 children. To keep my costs reasonable I allow the 5th guest at a nominal charge. If I’m going to pay extra for having 5 guests rather then than 4, I’m going to have to pass this cost on to all my guest groups which will be unfair to the majority. I think the second category should be 3 - 5 guests. You have to realise that guests love to get together under one roof in a lovely area and share happy times and create happy memories. It seems to me that when considering holiday lets the happiness they create for guests is not part of the consideration. If the fees are too high then hosts will close down the property or certainly restrict the number of guests. please also understand that although a property can cater for 6 many times there are two or four people as guests. If you make the fees too high then I would just reduce my capacity to 4 and tbh probably earn the same amount of money per week. There are too many bandings and they do not account for the typical family size of 2 adults and 2 or 3 children (and multiples where families might holiday together). A simpler set would be 1-2, 2-5, 5-10, >10. Moving to more that 2x is excessive, and becomes a tax rather than an administration charge. Fees – the licence fee should be proportionate to/capped against the average weekly letting rent (as advertised) of the premises (to avoid unfairly penalising low cost locations). There appears to be a bit of a ramp here. I don’t accept that there is more work per head for most applications. The aim of this exercise needs to be to improve standards for users and promote better neighbourliness. As it stands it looks like something the council has been forced to do and is determined to make money out of. Most, if not all of the checks required can be addressed by the provision of documentation signed by competent people - which can be checked by sample if required. The fees for home sharing in respect of two to four guest accommodation should be materially lower than for other types of licence as this size of business already suffers disproportionately from high running costs as a percentage of revenue. It is also unlikely that small home sharing businesses will be a cause of the issues this legislation is aimed at controlling. the differential between an average let of 3-4 people and 1-2 is too high - it is a reduction of only 20% when the next uplift to 5-8 is 50% - puts increased pressure on very small business in 1-2 market where there is not the same opportunity to recoup costs through a higher rental income - additional costs are being incurred not just through licence fee but also various testing certificates, and increased energy and cost of living prices. the 1-2 market is often the pensioner market and this licensing regime is going to make the costs of holidays much more expensive for a segment of the market on which Argyll is highly reliant. Page 293
Page 294
Page 16 of 29 The band 5-8 covers 3 and 4 bedroom houses. 3 bed with 6 people is a totally different impact on the community than 8 people in one house. There should be a band that covers 5 - 6 at maybe 1.25 times (Secondary let) and then 7-8. You are grouping this wrongly and tarring a 3 bed with a capacity for 6 people in the same group as a large property with 8 people. Should be higher for secondary let license. Holiday let's should be small houses or part of a house like an annex etc. Put high fees to stop people buying a 4 bed house and letting it out to tourists. Someone with a property sleeping 4 on band 3-4 may have 4 adults plus two children under 10, if children are not counted it still takes the occupancy up to 6 are the children sleeping on a sofa bed? Whereas someone on band 5-8 (but with a maximum occupancy of 6) may also have 4 adults and two children. How will the council differentiate between the two bands if children are not counted? Properties sleeping 4-6 are the most suitable for families.Therefore I think the banding should be 1 to 3, 4 to 6, 7 to 8 then 9 to 12 and so on for fairness. Should be based on SAA business rates which is number of usable beds. Max occupancy has to be for usable beds in bedrooms. No sofa bed’s allowed Secondary letting is more of an issue when it comes to availability of housing. If you live in a house that is your home and let a couple of bedrooms, you are not affecting the housing situation in any way as you're already occupying the property. Secondary letting (a) makes far more money so owners can afford a higher fee; (b) adversely affects availability and affordability of housing in rural/island areas; (c) is far more likely to cause anti-social behaviour as the owner isn't on the property (and is sometimes hundreds of miles away, relying on an agency to do the paperwork). Therefore, secondary let licences should be charged at a much higher rate. Noise and antisocial behaviour escalates steeply the larger the group. I would suggest the starting point for a fee structure should be 1 with the tariff increasing geometrically for each capacity grouping. No. I am a home-share with 3-4 guest capacity and there's no way I should be paying almost the same as a second home or 'investment property' of the same size. 1-2ppl 0.5 and 3-4ppl 0.6 is fair. I can understand the logic of large properties - eg 20 plus - but i dont agree that say an 8 bed property (4 bedrooms) will entail more work and enquiries than a 4 bed (2 room) property. home sharing/home letting should not be treated differently than secondary letting, the same rules apply to each home sharing, home letting and secondary letting should all be weighted in the same way, there should be no reduction for home letting and home sharing, Currently any B&B / Guest House which accommodates 6 or less people does not / cannot apply to be treated under the business rate regime, therefore the banding should reflect this, potentially 1 to 6 guest capacity should weighted 0.6 - 0.7 with capacity 6 - 8? weighted 1 with higher capacities weighted according to the proposed table - Secondary letting; I think the bands are too narrow and therefore adding to the costs of running the scheme - I would advocate multiple of 6's. Commentary: 1. This part of the consultation attracted the most comments. Many respondents expressed concern that the actual level of fees were not indicated. Whilst this is regrettable, and the Council recognises that this information is very important to the sector, the costs of Page 294
Page 295
Page 17 of 29 delivering the function were not available at the time of issuing the consultation and therefore indicative fee levels could not be provided. 2. The principles of fee-setting are laid out in Section 3 of the Part 2 Guidance. These are: that fees are set on a cost-recovery basis considering the overall cost of delivering the function; that local authorities’ areas vary considerably and that that the costs of delivering the function, and therefore the fees determined, will vary from local authority to local authority; and that local authorities review their fees from time-to-time to ensure that the revenue from fees remains in line with the running costs of the licensing scheme. 3. The Scottish Government expects local authorities to seek to minimise costs through economies of scale, integrated service delivery where possible, minimising visits to conduct enquiries as part of the licensing process, and taking a proportionate approach to the use of visits as part of the checking and verification process. 4. It is clear that the costs of travel to remote parts of the Council’s area and the islands is greater than travel in smaller, mainland, authorities. The Part 2 Guidance permits local authorities to determine a fee structure that would charge the costs of visits for routine licensing purposes over and above the basic application fee. The Council does not propose to do this because (a) this could lead to disputes about the necessity of visits and (b) would disproportionately disadvantage hosts and operators on islands where the actual costs of visiting a site could be considerably more than the cost of the licence, particularly when travel delays would have to be costed and recovered. For these reasons, and to conform to the Council’s policy of delivering the same standard of service to all parts of its area, the cost of necessary visits to check and verify licence applications is intended to be recovered across all licence applications as part of the cost of the function. 5. Some respondents raised the question of whether renewal fees could be nominal. At present, the proposed fees for renewing a licence are the same as for a new application, on the basis that the applicant requires to provide similar information as for a new licence and the processing demands are equivalent. It is open to local authorities to consider a subscription in place of the renewal fee, should they wish to do so. This is an option that will be considered when fees are reviewed in three years’ time, ahead of the first renewal cycle. Differential fees for home letting or home sharing compared with secondary letting 6. Note that The Scottish Government recommend that local authorities, at a minimum, establish a licence fee structure that takes account of the following: the type of licence with lower fees set for home sharing and home letting licences than for secondary letting licences; and guest capacity in terms of the maximum number of guests, as requested by the host or operator on their application form. Note that some licences will be for premises including significant numbers of unconventional accommodation, such as pods or lodges on the same site where a caravan site licence is not otherwise required. Page 295
Page 296
Page 18 of 29 7. There was general agreement with this proposed approach, although concerns were raised specifically about the bandings and the weightings to be applied to fees. These points are discussed in more detail below. The proposed fee structure Bandings 8. The bandings proposed were based upon the Scottish Government’s example banded fee structure set out in the Part 2 Guidance, with two bands merged. 9. It is clear from the consultation responses that: a. The bands are too narrow, and b. The “standard” secondary let premises should be regarded as a three-bedroom property that can sleep 6 persons, including children under the age of 10 years. Weightings 10. There was broad support from respondents for the weighted approach to setting fees, although there was a wide range of opinion on the actual applied weighting values. 11. Respondents challenged the Council’s assertion in the draft policy statement that larger secondary letting premises would necessarily attract more objections and representations, or require more work to process their applications. The Council considers that larger premises are more likely to require physical site inspections as part of the application determination process compared with smaller, more conventional, premises and therefore an increased fee is proportionate and appropriate. 12. The assessment of larger premises, accommodating more than, say, 12 persons will probably bear comparison with the assessment of similar-sized houses in multiple occupation. Other comments received in the course of the consultation Other comments received in the course of the consultation were focussed on the following areas: 1. That the licensing scheme was unnecessary. Comment: This is a statutory scheme which the Council is required to implement in accordance with the Order and the guidance issued by the Scottish Government. 2. That the financial circumstances of many short-term let business were fragile and that the licensing scheme would drive some operators out of business. Recommendations: 13. That home letting and home sharing licences should generally attract a lower application fee than applications for secondary letting licences. 14. That the proposed bandings be reviewed to reduce them in number and to standardise against a three-bedroom, six-person-accommodating premises. 15. That a further review of the weightings be conducted to prepare a final banding and weighting model, based upon best evidence and reasonable assumptions. Page 296
Page 297
Page 19 of 29 Comment: These are policy matters which are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, which introduced the licensing scheme in its present form after wide public consultation and in consultation with the trade and other interested parties. 3. That very small premises should be exempt from the scheme. Comment: The scope of the scheme is defined in stature and the Council is required to implement it in full. 4. That home-share businesses, e.g. guest houses which pay non-domestic rates, should be exempt from fees. Comment: The guidance from the Scottish Government already advises that home share and home letting businesses should be charged a lesser fee than secondary letting businesses. Additionally, premises accommodating fewer persons are expected to be charged a lesser fee than premises accommodating larger numbers of persons. 5. That the licensing scheme should be used to control the numbers of premises in use as short-term lets in specific locations due the removal of houses from the private rental sector and making housing less affordable for local people seeking to live and work in their home communities. On this point, one respondent commented: Commentary: The licensing scheme per se cannot be used to control the numbers of short-term lets in any particular locality. Excepting objections and representations, every application must be assessed on two grounds only: whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, and whether the applicant can meet the licensing conditions. The control of conversion of dwellinghouses to short-term let use is a planning matter5. Either the Council or the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park may determine in the future to create one or more short-term let control areas under planning legislation. This would require any new applicant to demonstrate that planning permission had been obtained for the use as a short-term let before an application could be considered. At the present moment, neither planning authority has determined to do so within the area of Argyll and Bute Council. 5 Planning Circular 1/2021: Establishing a Short-Term Let Control Area I … believe short-term lets are one of the main causes for Oban's housing crisis and they have been allowed to take advantage and have it easy for too long when there are families and local working professionals struggling to find suitable accommodation because of people (some of whom don't even live in the area) who have bought properties that should be accessible homes and converted them into business opportunities for their own personal gain. I haven't given a postcode because I don't have a home of my own due to the level of short-term let properties there are - it really restricts the accessibility to housing in the area, which I grew up in. While I was growing up, Oban was a community driven town and it appears to have been consumed by tourism to the point that visitors to the area are significantly prioritised more over the people who live here. There should be a fair balance between tourism and community. Page 297
Page 298
Page 20 of 29 Other responses received in the course of the consultation raised technical issues in relation to the application of the licensing scheme, or which type of licence would be required in particular circumstances, the application to caravan sites and chalet parks, and the need for comprehensive guidance to assist applicants in getting their application right first time. Commentary: All of these points are recognised and many are actually addressed in the Part 1 Guidance for hosts and operators. The Council recognises that there are unconventional offers of short-term let accommodation and there will be a facility for applicants to make enquiries of the Regulatory Service Licensing team in advance of completing their application. Licensed caravan parks are exempt from short-term let licensing in respect of the licensed caravan units. The Council considers that the great majority of applicants will be able to identify which licence applies to their business. The Council is committed to making the application process as straightforward as possible; both in the interests of applicants and reducing the costs of dealing with invalid applications. To conclude, in the words of one respondent: “(1) You can’t please everyone. (2) Try to keep it consistent and simple.” Page 298
Page 299
Page 21 of 29 Appendix 1 – Summary of recommendations 1. That children under the age of 10 should be included in the occupancy limits for a premises. 2. That the additional condition on antisocial behaviour be included in the Council’s short-term lets licensing scheme, subject to amendment to include specific reference to noise from amplified music in gardens and external areas. 3. Give further consideration to the need for the impact noise condition and, should it be considered necessary, whether an exception should be made for constructions which are compliant with the Domestic Technical Standard 5.1. 4. Amend the antisocial behaviour condition to make specific reference to the avoidance of disturbance from the playing of amplified music in gardens or external areas. 5. That the additional condition on littering and waste control be included in the Council’s short-term lets licensing scheme. 6. That the additional condition on damage to property be included in the Council’s short-term lets licensing scheme. 7. That all of the proposed additional conditions for guest safety should be included in the Council’s short-term lets licensing scheme and applied to the premises which offer the specific facilities to guests. 8. That the Council provides for temporary exemptions to be made available within Argyll and Bute. 9. That a temporary exemptions policy statement be developed and published in accordance with the Part 2 Guidance. 10. That any temporary exemptions policy shall protect private tenants from eviction, disruption and abuse. 11. That further consideration should be given to which, if any, additional local conditions are applied to temporary exemptions. 12. That the Council develop a temporary licences policy, setting out the specific circumstances to be considered and the criteria to be applied to any temporary licence. 13. That home letting and home sharing licences should generally attract a lower application fee than applications for secondary letting licences. 14. That the proposed bandings be reviewed to reduce them in number and to standardise against a three-bedroom, six-person-accommodating premises. 15. That a further review of the weightings be conducted to prepare a final banding and weighting model, based upon best evidence and reasonable assumptions. Page 299
Page 300
Page 22 of 29 Appendix 2 – Consultation questionnaire Full name Postcode Email address Which of the following apply to you? o Short-term let host/operator o Short-term let guest o Short-term let neighbour o Other member of the public o Community Council o Trade association (please specify) o Other (please specify) Draft Licensing Policy Have you read the draft policy? o Yes o No Are there any other areas of the Draft Policy statement or the proposed additional conditions that you wish to make comments on? o Yes o No Occupancy levels and children It is a mandatory condition of a short-term let licence that hosts and operators ensure they do not exceed the maximum number of guests for their premises. The Council may choose to specify on an individual licence that guests may bring children under a specified age and these children would not count towards the occupancy of the premises. Scottish Government Guidance states that Licensing Authorities may wish to set the age limit as ‘under 10 years’. Should children under the age of 10 count towards the occupancy of a premises? o Yes o No Please state your reasons Additional conditions All short-term lets which are granted a licence will be required to comply with a set of mandatory conditions which apply across all of Scotland. The Council has a discretionary power to impose additional conditions for short-term let properties. The Council has proposed a number of the additional conditions covering a number of specific areas. These are attached in the Appendix to the consultation. Do you agree with the proposed additional conditions? Page 300
Page 301
Page 23 of 29 Agree Disagree Antisocial behaviour ○ ○ Noise ○ ○ Waste collection / disposal ○ ○ Failure to maintain common areas ○ ○ Guest safety (bicycles/boat safety/hot tubs/barbecue huts/outdoor play equipment etc.) ○ ○ If you disagree with any of the above points please state your reasons. Should other areas/issues be covered by additional controls? o Yes o No Should any of the proposed additional conditions be applicable to certain types of short- term licences (i.e. secondary letting, home letting or home sharing or certain types of properties? o Yes o No Please provide details and reasons. Temporary exemptions The Council has the option to grant temporary exemptions to the requirement to have a licence for a period of up to 6 weeks which would need to be applied for. This could be to allow a large influx of visitors over a short period for a particular event. The Council is not proposing to consider applications for temporary exemptions because the licensing regime is intended to ensure that premises are safe to let, and exemptions may reduce standards. Do you agree with the approach to not grant temporary exemptions? o Yes o No If temporary exemptions to a licence are introduced, should the additional local conditions apply? o Yes o No Please provide reasons for your answer. Temporary licences The Council has the ability to grant temporary short-term let Licences for a period of up to 6 weeks, or longer if an application has been made for a full licence. Please note that in applying for a temporary licence full compliance with mandatory conditions is necessary. Do you think the Council should introduce temporary licences? o Yes o No Page 301
Page 302
Page 24 of 29 If temporary licences are introduced, should the additional local conditions apply? o Yes o No Please provide reasons for your answer. Fees and charges Licensing authorities can take account of the size of premises, number of guests and type of premises in setting a banding structure for its fees. The Council are considering the following principles. 1. That there will be a lower fee for home sharing and home letting licenes (e.g. B&B etc.) rather than secondary letting (holiday homes etc.). This reflects the position that the owner lies within the properties for home lets or shares and has a greater degree of control. Do you agree with this position? o Yes o No 2. A fees structure based on the following bandings, increasing with the number of occupants. The fee charged will be weighted according to the following factors, where the unit fee is the cost of dealing with a non-controversial application for a 4-person secondary let licence. Applications for premises with larger number of guests are likely to require more enquiries, or attract more representations, or objections, which require to be dealt with as part of the application. Guest capacity (People) Home sharing and home letting licence Secondary let licence 1 or 2 0.6 0.8 3 or 4 0.8 1.0 5 to 8 1.0 1.5 9 to 12 1.5 2.0 12 to 20 2.0 4.0 21+ 4.0 8.0 Do you agree with the bandings and weightings as presented in the table? o Yes o No Please detail any other comments you have on the short-term let licensing regime. Page 302
Page 303
Page 25 of 29 Appendix 3 – Proposed additional conditions Additional conditions based on Part 2 Guidance Antisocial behaviour 1. The licence holder must take reasonable steps to manage the premises in such a way as to seek to prevent and deal effectively with any antisocial behaviour by guests to anyone else in the short-term let and in the locality of the short-term let. 2. The licence holder must take reasonable steps to: Ensure that no disturbance or nuisance arises within or from the premises, for example by explaining the house rules to the guests; Deal effectively with any disturbance or nuisance arising within or from the premises, as soon as reasonably practicable after the licence holder is made aware of it; and Ensure that any vehicles belonging to guests are parked lawfully, for example explaining where any designated parking spaces are to be found and highlighting any local rules. Privacy and security 1. The licence holder must manage the premises in such a way as to respect and protect the privacy and security of neighbours. 2. The licence holder must ensure: Guests know and understand any particular rules applying to shared areas and entrances; Guests understand that shared doors should be properly and securely closed after use; and The provision of access codes or keys to guests cannot be used by guests to gain access to shared areas after they have finally departed. Noise control in flatted premises 1. Where the premises are a flat above another dwellinghouse, the licence holder must: Fit and maintain carpets (with appropriate underlay) to the floors of bedrooms, living room and any hallway. Take reasonable steps to ensure that guests do not first arrive or finally depart from the property between the hours of 2300 and 0700. The licence holder must advise guests of this condition as part of their booking terms and conditions. 2. Note that “reasonable steps” allows for unavoidable circumstances, such as significantly- delayed transport. 3. The licence holder must take reasonable step to ensure that guests do not play amplified music within the garden or external areas after [23:00 hours] where it would impact neighbouring residents. Page 303
Page 304
Page 26 of 29 Littering and waste disposal 1. The licence holder must provide adequate information on, and the facilities for, the storage, recycling and disposal of waste. 2. The licence holder shall be responsible for advising residents of the refuse collection day and for making arrangements for the presentation of bins for collection at the appropriate time and day. 3 The licence holder must advice guests of: Their responsibilities; The use of the bins etc. provided for the premises; and The location of the nearest recycling area or recycling point. 4. The licence holder must: Clearly label bins as belonging to the premises; Ensure that guests manage their waste in compliance with (2), including when they depart; and Maintain the bins storage area and the exterior of the premises in a clean and tidy condition. Damage to property The licence holder shall not affix a key box, or any other device to facilitate guest entry to the premises, to any public or jointly-owned private structure or infrastructure without the prior written permission of the relevant authority or owner(s). The licence holder must be able to produce the written permission to the licensing authority on demand. Additional Conditions for Guest Safety Legionella risk assessment – spa pools/hot tubs 1. Where a spa pool, including any electric hot tub or wood-fired hot tub, is provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must install, maintain and operate it so it can be safely operated and used by guests. 2. The licence holder shall ensure: That any such spa pool is installed and maintained in accordance with the guidance in HSE publication HSG282 Control of legionella and other infectious agents in spa- pool systems. That there is a risk assessment and written scheme of control for Legionella in respect of any such spa pool. That the risk assessment and written scheme of control are lodged with any application for a licence and are to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. That, prior to any spa pool being brought into use for the first time during the period of the licence, at least 28 days’ notice shall be given to the licensing authority and Page 304
Page 305
Page 27 of 29 the risk assessment and written scheme of control shall be submitted at the time of such notice. 3. The licence holder shall provide guests with information on the safe use of the spa pool in accordance with the written scheme of control. 4. The licence holder shall not provide or install any inflatable hot tub for the use of guests without the prior written approval of the licensing authority. Note that the licensing authority will not give approval in respect of inflatable hot tubs not intended for commercial use and which cannot conform to the requirements of HSG282. Guest safety – swimming pools and ponds 1. Where a swimming pool or swimming pond is installed and provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take reasonable measures to ensure water quality and bather safety. 2. The licence holder shall ensure: In the case of swimming pools, that a pool safety operating plan is prepared and lodged with any application for a licence and is to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. The licence holder shall have regard to the guidance in HSE publication HSG179 Health and safety in swimming pools. In the case of swimming pools and swimming ponds, that a bather safety plan is prepared and lodged with any application for a licence and is to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. The bather safety plan shall include measures to minimise the risk of bathers getting into difficulty, to facilitate the rescue of bathers in difficulty and to call for the assistance of emergency services where necessary. That, prior to any swimming pool or pond being brought into use for the first time during the period of the licence, at least 28 days’ notice shall be given to the licensing authority and the pool safety operating plan and bather safety plan shall be submitted at the time of such notice. 3. In this condition, “swimming pond” means an outdoor body of untreated water in natural ground which has been excavated or modified to provide a facility for swimming. It does not include natural watercourses, fresh-water lochs or coastal waters. 4. This condition does not apply to swimming pools which are staffed and operated with continuous poolside supervision by trained lifeguards. Risk of Carbon monoxide – barbecue huts 1. Where a barbecue hut is installed and provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take reasonable steps to ensure that the risk from Carbon monoxide is minimised. 2. The licence holder shall: Install, maintain and operate the barbecue hut only in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Install and maintain in proper working condition a Carbon monoxide monitor and alarm within the barbecue hut. Page 305
Page 306
Page 28 of 29 Provide guests with instructions on the safe use of the barbecue hut, the symptoms of Carbon monoxide poisoning and the actions to be taken in an emergency. Not permit the use of the barbecue hut by persons under the age of 18 except in the presence of a person over the age of 18. Not permit the use of a barbecue hut as sleeping accommodation. Guest safety – provision and use of watercraft 1. Where any watercraft are provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take reasonable measures to ensure the suitability and safety of the watercraft and the safety of persons using them. 2. The licence holder shall ensure: That any watercraft provided are suitable for the waters upon which they are intended to be used. That any watercraft are operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. That personal flotation devices are provided which are suitable for the use intended and the user, and have regard to the categorisation of any inland waters or standards issued by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. That personal flotation devices are inspected and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. That guests are provided with proportionate safety information about the use of watercraft, including the intended areas of use, local hazards, adverse weather conditions, actions to take in an emergency, and the means of contacting the emergency services. 3. In this condition, “watercraft” means any boat, canoe, kayak, stand-up paddleboard, raft, or similar vessel capable of carrying passengers or being ridden upon, and equipped with sails, or an engine, or capable of being directed or steered using oars or paddles. 4. In complying with this condition, the licence holder shall have regard to advice and guidance issued by authoritative bodies including, where appropriate, MCA, RoSPA and the Scottish Canoe Association. 5. In the area of the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park, the licence holder shall comply with any relevant byelaws issued by the National Park Authority. 6. This condition does not apply to premises where the vessels provided are done so under the terms of a current boat hire licence issued by the licensing authority and operated in compliance with the conditions of such a licence. Guest safety – provision of bicycles 1. Where bicycles are provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of persons using them. 2. The licence holder shall ensure: Page 306
Page 307
Page 29 of 29 That any bicycles provided are suitable for the use intended and for the user. That, where cycle helmets are provided, they are suitable for the use intended and the user. That there is a programme of inspection and maintenance in place to ensure that bicycles and cycle helmets are only made available to guests when they are in a safe condition. 3. In complying with this condition, the licence holder shall have regard to the Cycle Hire Guidelines of the Association of Cycle Traders. Guest safety – outdoor play equipment 1. Where any outdoor play equipment is provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of persons using the play equipment. 2. The licence holder shall ensure: That only equipment which is suitable for the use intended shall be installed and provided for the use of guests. That play equipment is installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. That play equipment is subject to an inspection and checking regime in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. That rules are in place and communicated to guests to ensure the safe use of play equipment and to prevent its abuse. 3. In complying with this condition, the licence holder shall have regard to the RoSPA Code of good practice for play areas and the RoSPA guidance on the safe use of garden trampolines. 4. The provision for the use of guests of inflatable play equipment which is intended for bouncing or climbing on is prohibited. This prohibition does not apply to inflatable play equipment which, at all times when it is use, is directly supervised by the licence-holder or their agent, or an employee of the licence-holder or their agent. Page 307
Page 308
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 309
Appendix 2 Short-term Lets Licensing Final Draft - Policy Statement Page 309
Page 310
2 Contents Foreword 1. Background 2. Timescales for applying 3. Definitions 4. Application and notification 5. Objections and representations 6. Determination of application 7. Right of appeal 8. Licence duration and renewal 9. Licence conditions 10. Temporary exemptions 11. Temporary licences 12. Compliance and enforcement 13. Variation of a licence 14. Suspension and revocation of a licence 15. Planning permission 16. Equality 17. Fees Appendix 1 – Contact details Appendix 2 – Hearing procedure Appendix 3 – Mandatory conditions Appendix 4 – Additional conditions Page 310
Page 311
3 Foreword This policy statement is the first one published by the Argyll and Bute Council. The purpose of the policy is to provide guidance for applicants, licence holders and members of the public on the licensing system for short-term lets. Consultation on the draft policy statement took place during the period from 18th July 2022 to 5th August 2022. A report providing details of the comments received from consultees was considered at the meeting of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee on 28 September 2022 and Council on the 29 September. A copy of the report is available online at Meetings, agendas, and minutes - Argyll and Bute Council (argyll-bute.gov.uk) This policy statement will be reviewed and revised when necessary. Page 311
Page 312
4 1. Background 1.1. On 19th January 2022, The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022 (“the Order”) was approved by the Scottish Parliament. The Order came into force on 1st March 2022 and inserts new legislative provisions into the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (“the Act”). 1.2. The Order introduces a new mandatory licensing system for short-term lets which local authorities are required to establish by 1st October 2022. 1.3. Prior to the introduction of the legislation, there was no requirement to licence short-term lets and, therefore, local authorities did not have the ability to regulate these types of premises. 1.4. The licensing scheme was brought in by the Scottish Government with the aim to ensure short-term lets are safe, address issues faced by neighbours, to facilitate local authorities in knowing and understanding what is happening in their area, and handling complaints effectively. It also enables local authorities to ensure the people providing short-term lets are suitable. The legislation aims to make sure that the economic and tourism benefits from short-term lets are balanced with the needs and concerns of local communities. 2. Timescales for applying 2.1. After 1st October 2022, new hosts and operators will need to have a licence. This means that, if you were not using your premises to provide short-term lets before 1st October 2022, you can advertise but not take bookings or receive guests until you have obtained a licence. 2.2. Existing hosts or operators (those using accommodation to provide short-term lets before 1st October 2022) have until 1st April 2023 to apply for a licence. During this period you can operate without a licence (by continuing to take bookings and receive guests) unless your licence application has been determined and refused. 2.3. After 1st April 2023, existing hosts can only continue to operate if they have submitted an application for a licence on or before 1st April 2023 that has not yet been determined or been granted a short-term let licence. Page 312
Page 313
5 3. Definitions 3.1. A short-term let is defined in the 2022 Order as the use of residential accommodation provided by a host in the course of business to a guest, where all the following criteria are met- (a) the guest does not use the accommodation as their only or principal home, (b) the short-term let is entered into for commercial consideration, (c) the guest is not- (i) an immediate family member of the host, (ii) sharing the accommodation with the host for the principal purpose of advancing the guest’s education as part of an arrangement made or approved by a school, college, or further or higher educational institution, or (iii) an owner or part owner of the accommodation, (d) the accommodation is not provided for the principal purpose of facilitating the provision of work or services by the guest to the host or to another member of the host’s household, (e) the accommodation is not excluded accommodation, (f) the short-term let does not constitute an excluded tenancy. Commercial consideration - this includes money and a benefit in kind (such as a provision of a service or reciprocal use of accommodation). Guest – this means a person who occupies accommodation under a short-term let Host – this means a person who is the owner, tenant or person otherwise in control over occupation and use of the accommodation Immediate family member – a guest is deemed to be an immediate family member of the host if they are- (a) your partner (spouse, civil partner or someone you live with as if you were married to them), (b) you or your partner’s parent, grandparent, child, grandchild or sibling, (c) the partner of one of your parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren or sibling. Page 313
Page 314
6 Excluded accommodation – this means accommodation which is, or is part of- (a) an aparthotel, (b) premises in respect of which a premises licence within the meaning of section 17 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 has effect and where the provision of accommodation is an activity listed in the operating plan as defined in section 20(4) of the 2005 Act, (c) a hotel which has planning permission granted for use as a hotel, (d) a hostel, (e) residential accommodation where personal care is provided to residents, (f) a hospital or nursing home, (g) a residential school, college or training centre, (h) secure residential accommodation (including a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short- term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation, or accommodation used as military barracks), (i) a refuge, (j) student accommodation, (k) accommodation which otherwise requires a licence for use for hire for overnight stays, (l) accommodation which is provided by the guest, (m) accommodation which is capable, without modification, of transporting guests to another location, (n) a bothy, or (o) accommodation owned by an employer and provided to an employee in terms of a contract of employment or for the better performance of the employee’s duties. 3.2. Please note that if you have an HMO licence for your property, you would still need a short-term let licence if it is also to be used for short-term lets. This is the case whether or not you live at the premises covered by your HMO licence. 3.3. Self-catering property in the grounds of a licensed hotel would be excluded. It is recommended that short-term let hosts take their own independent legal advice on whether or not their accommodation would require a short-term let licence. The Licensing Authority cannot provide legal advice on whether or not a premises is excluded from requiring a short-term let licence. Page 314
Page 315
7 Excluded tenancy – an excluded tenancy means a tenancy which falls within any of the following definitions: (a) protected tenancy (within the meaning of section 1 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, (b) an assured tenancy (within the meaning of section 12 of the Housing (Scotland) 1988 Act), (c) a short assured tenancy (within the meaning of section 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988), (d) a tenancy of a croft (within the meaning of section 3 the Crofters (Scotland Act 1993), (e) a tenancy of a holding situated outwith the crofting counties (within the meaning of section 61 of the Crofters (Scotland Act 1993) to which any provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931(8)) applies, (f) a Scottish secure tenancy (within the meaning of section 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001), (g) a short Scottish secure tenancy (within the meaning of section 34 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001), (h) a 1991 Act tenancy (within the meaning of section 1(4) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003), (i) a limited duration tenancy (within the meaning of section 93 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003), (j) a modern limited duration tenancy (within the meaning of section 5A of Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003), (k) a short limited duration tenancy (within the meaning of section 4 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003), (l) a tenancy under a lease under which agricultural land is let for the purpose of its being used only for grazing or mowing during some specified period of the year (as described in section 3 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003), (m) a private residential tenancy (within the meaning of section 1 of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016), (n) a student residential tenancy. 3.4. There are four types of licences for short-term let accommodation. Any licence granted must be for either- (a) Secondary letting, (b) Home letting, Page 315
Page 316
8 (c) Home sharing, or (d) Home letting and home sharing. 3.5. The different types of licences are defined as follows- (a) Secondary letting – this means a short-term let involving the letting of property where you do not normally live, (b) Home letting - this means using all or part of your home for short-term lets whilst you are absent, (c) Home sharing – this means using all or part of your own home for short-term lets whilst you are there. This includes guest houses or bed-and-breakfast accommodation within the host’s principal residence. Page 316
Page 317
9 3.6. A separate licence is required for each of your premises. However, a single licence may be issued in respect of unconventional accommodation where there is more than one separately bookable property on the site. 3.7. Dwellinghouse means for these purposes, an independent dwelling (with its own front door, kitchen and bathroom) such as a house, flat, cottage etc. 3.8. You do not need a separate licence for short-term lets within the same dwellinghouse. For example, if you are letting out two rooms in your home, that would be covered by one licence. 3.9. Unconventional accommodation – this means residential accommodation that is not defined as a dwelling house and would include residential accommodation such as glamping pods and yurts. Page 317
Page 318
10 4. Application and notification 4.1. All applicants must complete an online short-term let licence application form. The application should be submitted online and emailed to shorttermlets@argyll- bute.gov.uk or, alternatively, posted to, Short-Term Lets Licensing, Regulatory Services, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT details of which are available at Appendix 1. 4.2. Applicants will require to pay the application fee as part of the online application process or if submitting a paper application form by making a payment to Argyll and Bute Council by contacting Short-Term Lets on 01546 605519. 4.3. Under the terms of the Act, all applicants who apply for a short-term let licence must display a notice for a period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the application was submitted to the licensing authority, at or near the property to which the application relates, so that it can be conveniently read by the public. 4.4. The notice shall state that an application has been made for a licence, the main facts of the application, that objections and representations in relation to the application may be made to the licensing authority and how to make objections or representations. A template will be provided to the applicant once an application is submitted. 4.5. Applicants are required to certify compliance that they have displayed the site notice as soon as possible after the 21 days has expired. A template will be provided to the applicant once an application is submitted. 4.6. A copy of the application shall be sent to Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service by the local authority. A copy will also be made available to: Argyll and Bute Council’s Planning Department Argyll and Bute Council’s Building Standards service Argyll and Bute Council’s Environmental Health service Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Parks Authority (where the property is within the National Park) 4.7. All personal data will be processed in line with the following privacy notices: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/privacy/civic-government-licensing Page 318
Page 319
11 5. Objections and representations 5.1. The 1982 Act permits any member of the public to submit an objection or representation in relation to an application for a short-term let licence. 5.2. To enable Argyll and Bute Council, as licensing authority (“the Council”) to entertain an objection or representation, it must be: (a) in writing (email is sufficient), (b) specify the grounds of the objection or the nature of the representation, (c) specify the name and address of the person making it, (d) be signed off by them or on their behalf, (e) be received by the Council within 28 days from when the notice of application is displayed. 5.3. Anonymous objections or representations will not be considered. “Anonymous” includes objections or representations where the person making the objection or representation cannot be contacted using the contact information provided. 5.4. Late objections or representations may be considered, entirely at the Council’s discretion, if the Council is satisfied that there is sufficient reason as to why it was not made in the time required. 5.5. The objection should be relevant to the statutory grounds that can be taken into consideration when refusing an application. These are set out in the 1982 Act- (a) the applicant or anyone else detailed in the application form is not a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence, (b) the activity would be carried out by a person other than the applicant who, if he had made the application himself, would have been refused, (c) the premises is not suitable for the conduct of the activity, having regard to- (i) the location, character or condition of the premises, (ii) the nature and extent of the proposed activity, (iii) the kind of persons likely to be in the premises, (iv) the possibility of undue public nuisance, public order; or public safety, (v) where there is other good reason 5.6. It should detail clearly the reasons for the objection/representation and why the applicant and/or the premises are not suitable. 5.7. A copy of the objection or representation will be provided to the applicant and will include your name and address. All personal data will be processed in line with the following privacy notice: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/privacy/civic-government-licensing Page 319
Page 320
12 6. Determination of application 6.1. Everybody named on the application form will be subject to the fit and proper test. Every application form will require consultation with Police Scotland who will carry out background checks. 6.2. Licensing authorities are responsible for determining whether you are a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence for short-term lets. Consideration will be given to a wide range of information including relevant criminal convictions, other relevant information provided by Police Scotland, any previous disqualifications from being a private landlord, previous revocations of a HMO licence and providing false or misleading information in your application form. 6.3. If there are no objections or adverse representations to a short-term let licence application, the application will be determined under delegated powers by the Executive Director with responsibility for Regulatory Services. 6.4. If an objection or adverse representation is submitted in relation to the short- term let licence application and, this cannot otherwise be resolved, the application will be subject to a hearing at a meeting of the Council’s Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee. 6.5. The person submitting the objection or representation will be invited to attend the meeting of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee and speak to their objection/representation. You will be given at least 14 days’ notice of the hearing date. 6.6. The applicant or their representative will also be invited to attend the meeting and given the opportunity to state why the application should be granted. 6.7. The Committee will be able to ask questions of both parties and, thereafter, decide whether to grant or refuse the application. The grounds for refusing an application are set out at paragraph 5.5. 6.8. Applications will be heard in public unless required to be taken privately on the grounds of disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 6.9. A copy of the Council’s hearing procedure can be found at Appendix 2. 6.10. Both the applicant and the person(s) making an objection/representation can request a statement of reasons for the decision within 21 days of the date of the decision. The statement of reasons will be provided within 10 days of that request. Page 320
Page 321
13 6.11. If your application for a licence is refused, you cannot reapply for a licence within 1 year of that decision, unless there has been a material change in your circumstances since then. 7. Right of appeal 7.1. The applicant and the person(s) making an objection/representation have a right of appeal to the Sheriff Court. 7.2. However, they only have this right if they have taken every opportunity to state their case to the Committee as has been made available. 7.3. The Sheriff can uphold an appeal only if the sheriff considers that the licensing authority erred in law, based their determination on any incorrect material fact, acted contrary to natural justice or exercised their discretion in an unreasonable manner. 7.4. Any appeal must be lodged by way of a summary application with the relevant Sheriff Clerk’s office within 28 days of the date of the decision appealed against. 7.5. Parties should seek their own independent legal advice in relation to an appeal. 8. Licence duration and renewal 8.1. The duration of the licence applies from the date on which the licence comes into force. This will be specified on the licence together with the expiry date of the licence. 8.2. When an application is made to renew a licence timeously, the existing licence will continue in effect until such time as a decision is made on the renewal application. 8.3. A licence shall have effect- for a period of 3 years from the date when it comes into force; or for such shorter period as the licensing authority may decide at that time when they grant; or for such longer period as the licensing authority may decide at the time when they renew a short-term let licence Page 321
Page 322
14 8.4. The Scottish Government’s guidance for licensing authorities on short-term lets has made it clear that licensing authorities are encouraged to renew licences for a period of 3 years, unless they have good reasons to do otherwise. 8.5. Whilst each application will be decided on its own merits, it is not anticipated that licences will be renewed for a period of longer than 3 years. 9. Licence conditions 9.1. The Act sets out a number of mandatory licence conditions which apply to all short-term let across Scotland. A list of these conditions can be found at Appendix 3. 9.2. In addition to the mandatory licence conditions which apply to all short-term lets, licensing authorities may impose additional conditions. These enable the licensing authority to respond to local challenges and concerns relative to specific types of short-term letting. 9.3. There are a number of additional conditions which will apply to all short-term let properties. There also some specific additional conditions which may only apply to certain types of short-term let properties or to properties following investigation of concerns. A list of the additional licence conditions which may apply to your short-term let licence can be found at Appendix 4. 10. Temporary exemptions 10.1 The Council may, on application made to it, grant temporary exemptions from the requirement to hold a short-term let licence in relation to a specified property or properties and during a specified period, which must not exceed 6 weeks in any 12 month period. 10.2 Temporary exemption applications from the requirement to hold a short-term let licence which, if granted would destabilise the security of tenure of private tenants, resulting in eviction, will not be considered by the Council. 10.3 The Council will aim to determine temporary exemption applications from the requirement to hold a short-term let licence within a two month period or less. 10.4 The Council will only consider granting a temporary exemption from the requirement to hold a short-term let licence in specific circumstances due to short-term let safety requirements and to minimise the impact on communities and neighbours. For example:- to accommodate a large influx of visitors over a short period to support sports championship competitions and arts festivals, for example, the Mull Rally or Tiree Music Festival. Page 322
Page 323
15 10.5 A temporary exemption from the requirement to hold a short-term let licence does not affect the way planning rules apply. If any temporary changes to planning rules have been made (for example to handle a major international event), the Council will publicise these. 10.6 The Council will also attach conditions to a temporary exemption from the requirement to hold a short-term let licence. Conditions attached to a temporary exemption will include all Mandatory Conditions and if deemed high risk or deemed necessary, further additional conditions may be added. 10.7 The Chief Constable and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service will be consulted in respect of applications for temporary exemptions from the requirement to hold a short-term let licence. 11. Temporary licences 11.1 The Council may consider granting temporary licences in limited circumstances. For example:- to ensure that short-term lets can continue as going concerns when being sold from one operator to another. 11.2 A temporary licence should be made online or where agreed, by way of paper application. Details for the application process are set out in Section 3. 11.3 Temporary licences may be granted for a duration of up to 6 weeks. A temporary licence cannot be renewed. However, if a host or operator applies for a full licence during the period of a temporary licence, the temporary licence duration will extend until their full licence application has been determined. 11.4 A temporary licence number will be given, and conditions attached to the licence must be complied with. 11.5 The Council must consult the Chief Constable and Scottish Fire and Rescue in respect of an application for a temporary licence. 12. Compliance and enforcement 12.1. Unlicensed short-term lets 12.1.1. It is a criminal offence to carry on an activity for which a licence is required without having a licence and without reasonable excuse. 12.1.2. The Scottish Government has set out the following timescales for hosts and operators. Please note the rules are different depending on whether you are a new host/operator or an existing host/operator- New hosts/operators Page 323
Page 324
16 From 1st October 2022 you cannot accept bookings until you have obtained a short-term let licence. From 1st October 2022, you cannot operate while your short-term let application is being determined. Existing hosts/operators Existing hosts/operators must apply for a short-term let licence by 1st April 2023, at the latest. If you have been trading on or before 30th September 2022, you may continue to accept bookings after 1st October 2022 but only if you have made a licence application by 1st April 2023. You can continue to operate for the time it takes for your licence application to be finally determined. A provisional licence number will be provided once the application is duly-made. It will be an offence to offer short-term let accommodation after 1st July 2024 unless you hold a licence. Page 324
Page 325
17 12.1.3. The Council will maintain a public register of short-term let licence applications and licences granted. This will allow members of the public to check the licensing status of a premises being used as a short-term let. 12.1.4. Complaints about suspected unlicensed hosts/operators should be directed to shorttermlets@argyll-bute.gov.uk 12.2. Licensed short-term lets 12.2.1. Hosts and operators must ensure that any advert or listing placed on or after they are granted a licence, or a provisional licence number, includes their licence number. 12.2.2. Hosts and operators must ensure that they comply with all the mandatory and any additional conditions on their licence. It is a criminal offence to fail to comply with a licence condition if a licence holder has not used all due diligence to prevent the offence. 12.2.3. It is also a criminal offence for a licence holder, without reasonable cause, to fail to notify the licensing authority of a material change of circumstances. 12.2.4. The Council may undertake premises site visits as part of the application process and throughout the duration of the licence to ensure compliance with licence conditions. 12.3. Complaints about licensed short-term lets 12.3.1. In the first instance, guests should raise any concerns about their short-term let with their host/operator or letting agent/platform. If the issue is sufficiently severe, then the Council may become involved. 12.3.2. A complaint must be relevant to the matters that the Council can take into consideration. Frivolous or vexatious complaints will not be considered. 12.3.3. The Council can consider matters relating to the suitability of the licence holder, threats to public safety or public order or whether a condition of the licence has been contravened. 12.3.4. These issues would include a host/operator exceeding the number of people staying at the premises, serious disturbance or antisocial Page 325
Page 326
18 behaviour or concerns about the maintenance and safety of the premises. These complaints can be directed to shorttermlets@argyll-bute.gov.uk 12.3.5. Please note that the Council cannot consider complaints in relation to the quality of a guest’s stay or specific contractual matters between the guest and the host/operator as this is outside the scope of the licensing scheme. 12.3.6. Complaints will aim to be acknowledged within 5 working days. A full response advising you of the outcome may take some time if the complaint requires further investigation. The complaint may also need to be directed to other departments within the Council other services such as Police Scotland or Scottish Fire and Rescue Service for input. Complainants will be kept up to date with progress if there is a delay in a full response being provided. 12.3.7. Premises site visits may be undertaken by the Council as part of an investigation into a complaint. 12.4. Enforcement 12.4.1. It is possible that some complaints may require enforcement action from the Council. 12.4.2. The Act provides for several options for enforcement action if justified. This includes additional licence conditions being attached, enforcement notices or variation, suspension or revocation of the licence or in more serious circumstance pursuing a prosecution. 12.4.3. The Council recognises the importance of having compliance issues monitored in order to ensure licensed Short-term lets are complying with licence standards and not causing an unnecessary nuisance to the community, nearby residents or neighbours. As such it will carry out a risk- based approach to enforcement, using a range of escalating informal measures, prior to an Enforcement Notice being issued and subsequently a complaint being made to the Committee in relation to the STL licence. 12.4.4. An enforcement notice will set out the matters constituting a breach or likely breach, the action required to rectify or prevent the breach and the date by which the action must be taken. 12.4.5. If the matter is not addressed satisfactorily by the licence holder, the Council may then consider a variation, suspension or revocation of the licence. 12.4.6. You will not be charged a fee for a routine visit. However, you will be charged if a follow up visit is necessary because you have breached one of your licence conditions.. Page 326
Page 327
19 13. Variation of a licence 13.1. A licensing authority may, at any time, whether or not upon an application made to them by the holder of the licence, vary the terms on any grounds they think fit. 13.2. A variation application cannot, however, be used to substitute a new holder of the licence for the existing one i.e. effectively to transfer a licence. 14. Suspension or revocation of a licence 14.1. A licensing authority may, whether upon a complaint made to them or not, suspend or revoke a licence. 14.2. A licensing authority may order the suspension or revocation of a licence if in their opinion- the holder of the licence is no longer a fit and proper person to hold the licence the licence holder is managing the property on behalf of someone who would have been refused the grant or renewal of the licence the short-term let is causing or is likely to cause undue public nuisance or a threat to public order or public safety; or a condition of the licence has been contravened 14.3. The period of suspension can be the unexpired portion of the duration of the licence, or such shorter period as the licensing authority may fix. The effect of the suspension shall be that the licence shall cease to have effect during the period of suspension. Page 327
Page 328
20 15. Planning permission 15.1. The requirement for planning permission is a separate matter from licencing of short-term lets. Whether or not planning permission is required for the use of a dwelling for short- term let purposes will firstly depend on whether it is located within a Short-Term Letting Control Area. Outwith control areas, the requirement for planning permission would be a matter for the planning authority to determine on a case by case basis, depending on the nature and circumstances of the property and the manner in which it is operated. Hosts and operators must comply with both planning and licensing law. 15.2. The Council is the relevant planning authority for the Argyll and Bute area located outwith the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. The National Park Authority is the planning authority for the full extent of the the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park designation. Short-Term Letting Control Areas: 15.3 There is a separate legislative process from licensing which allows the Council and the National Park Authorities, as planning authorities, to establish short-term let control areas. The purpose of control areas is to help planning authorities manage high concentrations of secondary letting (where it affects the availability of residential housing or the character of a neighbourhood) and to restrict or prevent short-term lets in places or types of buildings where it is not appropriate. 15.4 Within a control area designated by a planning authority, use of a property for short-term letting will always require express planning permission. The host or operator must make an application for planning permission or already have planning permission before they apply for a licence. 15.5 There are currently no Control Areas within Argyll and Bute and the Council and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park does not propose to designate any Short-Term Letting Control Areas at this time, but will review this position in the course of 2023/24. 15.6 Please note that planning authorities could designate control areas after a premises has already obtained a short-term let licence. Licence holders would be given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the mandatory condition by submitting a planning application or application for a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development (CLUD) as soon as possible after the control area is designated. If a CLUD or planning permission is refused, this may result in the licence being refused, varied or revoked as appropriate. Page 328
Page 329
21 Outwith Control Areas: 15.7 Outside of a control area, it is for the planning authority to consider whether any change of use of a dwelling house is material and, therefore, requires planning permission, although you may also require permission where a premises has resulted in the subdivision of a residential plot where it is an annex or garage that has been converted. This is determined on a case by case basis and will depend very much on the nature of the dwelling to be let, its relationship to neighbouring land uses, its servicing arrangements, and the manner in which the property will be operated. 15.8 Hosts and operators are, therefore, encouraged to engage with the relevant planning authority prior to submitting a licence application to confirm whether they require planning permission or a certificate of lawful use of development. Detailed enquiries can be submitted for review and assessment through the Council’s chargeable pre-application advice service: Pre-Application Guidance (argyll-bute.gov.uk) Contact details for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park planning service: Planning - #LetsDoNetZero -Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park (lochlomond-trossachs.org) Page 329
Page 330
22 16 Equality 16.4 The Equality Act 2010 Act introduced a new public sector equality duty which requires public authorities, including the Committee, to try and eliminate discrimination, promote equality and good relations across a range of protected characteristics. 16.5 Prior to the Committee implementing this policy an equality impact assessment was undertaken. This can be viewed using the following link [ Equality and Socio-Economic Impact Assessments (argyll-bute.gov.uk) Page 330
Page 331
23 17 Fees 17.4 Licensing authorities are required to charge fees in respect of processing and determining, the consideration of applications, the issue of duplicate licences and other matters. They must ensure that the fees are sufficient to cover their administrative expenses and are reviewed periodically. 17.5 Licensing fees are non-refundable. Whether or not a licensing application is granted, the Council incurs significant costs in processing the application. 17.6 The Council has considered the following criteria in the process of determining the fees: The size of the premises The number of rooms at the premises The number of guests who can reside at the premises The type of short-term let Application and renewal – full licence Guest capacity applied for (including children under the age of 10) Home sharing or home letting licence Secondary letting licence Up to 4 £226 £316 5 to 8 £316 £452 9 to 12 £497 £678 13 to 20 £633 £904 21 and over £814 £1130 Other types of application Fee Temporary licence application 50% of fee Temporary exemption application] 50% of fee Variation of licence / change in circumstances £77 Duplicate licence £41 Enforcement costs Fee Officer hourly cost in 15 minute intervals (Inspection of a premises where concern is flagged at the application process by a consultee £94.30/hour **Where a fee is charged for such a visit, a report must be provided to the host or operator within 28 days of the inspection, unless otherwise agreed. Otherwise, the fee must be refunded to the licence holder*** Page 331
Page 332
24 18.4 The fee charged will weighted according to the following factors, where the unit fee is the cost of dealing with a non-controversial application for a 4-person secondary let licence. Applications for premises with larger numbers of guests are likely to require more enquiries, or attract more representations, or objections, which require to be dealt with as part of the application. Guest capacity (People) Home sharing and home letting licence Secondary let licence Up to 4 0.5 0.7 5 to 8 0.7 1.0 9 to 12 1.1 1.5 13 to 20 1.4 2.0 21 and over 1.8 2.5 Page 332
Page 333
25 Appendix 1 – Contact details Telephone – 01546 6605519 Email – shorttermlets@argyll-bute.gov.uk Postal Address – Short-Term Lets Licensing, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT Page 333
Page 334
26 Appendix 2 – Hearing procedure DURING THE HEARING 1. The Chair will introduce the Members and Officials present. If the representations/objection(s) were submitted timeously and there are no spent convictions to be considered, then proceed directly to number 4. 2. If the representation/objection (from the Police or any other party) has been received late the Committee must hear details as to why the representation/objection was late and be satisfied that there is sufficient reason why it was not made in the time required. If they agree that then the representation/objection can be heard otherwise it should be disregarded. The process to be followed should be that the objector is invited to provide reasons as to why the submission was late. Members may ask any follow up questions of the objector. The applicant must then be asked if they have any objections to the late submission being accepted. The Committee must take all comments into account when deciding whether to accept the late submission. 3. If spent convictions are to be referred to then the guidance notes for spent convictions should be followed for each conviction. The Committee should resolve to go into private whilst considering spent convictions. 4. The hearing procedure below should now be followed: a The Licensing Officer will present the report to the Committee b The applicant or the party who has initiated the hearing will present their case first c The presenting party shall be entitled to provide information in support of their application, representation or objection (as applicable). d Any other interested party will have the opportunity to ask the presenting party relevant questions. e The Committee Members will have the opportunity to ask the presenting party relevant questions. f Any other interested parties will then present their case in turn and be entitled to provide information in support of their application, representation or objection (as applicable) g Any other interested party will have the opportunity to ask the presenting party relevant questions. h The Committee Members will have the opportunity to ask the presenting party relevant questions Page 334
Page 335
27 i The Chair will invite the applicant, or the party who has initiated the hearing, to briefly summarise their points if they wish. j The Chair will invite the other interested parties to briefly summarise their points if they wish. k The Chair will ask the applicant, or the party who has initiated the hearing, and all parties making representations, that they are satisfied that they have said all they wish to. l At the sole discretion of the Members, the Committee may decide to retire to consider the representations/objections in private. m The Committee will invite the parties to return to the meeting and the Chair will invite Members to take a decision. NOTE: If during private deliberations, the Committee receive advice on a legal submission from the Clerk which is contrary to the view of the party making the submission or the Committee believe additional information would be relevant, then these points should be raised with the parties, in public, prior to any decision being made. DECISION A determination of the case will be made at the conclusion of the hearing and all parties will be notified of the decision in writing within 7 days of the hearing and shall be advised of his/her right to seek written reasons and appeal to the Sheriff Court. If the decision of the Committee is to suspend, refuse or refuse to suspend a licence, a relevant person has a right to request within 28 days of the meeting, the Committee’s reasons for arriving at their decision. Unless the circumstances of the case justify immediate suspension, the suspension shall not take effect for 28 days from the date of the decision. Appeals against the decision of the Committee must be lodged with the Sheriff Clerk within 28 days of the date of the decision. Page 335
Page 336
28 Appendix 3 – Mandatory licence conditions Agents 1. Only those named as a holder of the licence can carry out the day to day management of the short-term let of the premises. Type of licence 2. The holder of the licence may only offer the type of short-term let for which the licence has been granted. Fire safety 3. The holder of the licence must ensure the premises has satisfactory equipment installed for detecting, and for giving warning of— (a) fire or suspected fire, and (b) the presence of carbon monoxide in a concentration that is hazardous to health. 4. The holder of the licence must keep records showing that all upholstered furnishings and mattresses within the parts of the premises which are for guest use, or to which the guests are otherwise permitted to have access, comply with the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988. Gas safety 5. Where the premises has a gas supply— (a) the holder of the licence must arrange for an annual gas safety inspection of all gas pipes, flues and appliances in the premises, (b) if, after an annual inspection, any appliance does not meet the required safety standard, the holder of the licence must not allow a short-term let of the premises until the works necessary to bring the appliance to the required safety standard have been carried out. Electrical safety 6. Where there are electrical fittings or items within the parts of the premises which are for guest use, or to which the guests are permitted to have access, the holder of the licence must— (a) ensure that any electrical fittings and items are in— (i) a reasonable state of repair, and (ii) proper and safe working order, (b) arrange for an electrical safety inspection to be carried out by a competent person at least every five years or more frequently if directed by the competent person, (c) ensure that, following an electrical safety inspection, the competent person produces an Electrical Installation Condition Report on any fixed installations, (d) arrange for a competent person to— Page 336
Page 337
29 (i) produce a Portable Appliance Testing Report on moveable appliances to which a guest has access, and (ii) date label and sign all moveable appliances which have been inspected. 7. In determining who is competent, the holder of the licence must have regard to guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers under section 19B(4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006(2). Water safety: private water supplies 8. Where the premises are served by a private water supply, the licence holder must comply with the requirements on the owners of private dwellings set out in the Water Intended for Human Consumption (Private Supplies) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 Water safety: legionella 9. The holder of the licence must assess the risk from exposure to legionella within the premises, whether or not the premises are served by a private water supply. Safety & repair standards 10.(1) The holder of the licence must take all reasonable steps to ensure the premises are safe for residential use. (2) Where the premises are subject to the requirements of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, the holder of the licence must ensure that the premises meet the repairing standard. Maximum Occupancy 11. The licence holder must ensure that the number of guests residing on the premises does not exceed the number specified in the licence. Information to be displayed 12. The holder of the licence must make the following information available within the premises in a place where it is accessible to all guests— (a) a certified copy of the licence and the licence conditions, (b)fire, gas and electrical safety information, (c) details of how to summon the assistance of emergency services, (d) a copy of the gas safety report, (e) a copy of the Electrical Installation Condition Report, and (f) a copy of the Portable Appliance Testing Report. Planning Permission 13. Where the premises is in a short-term let control area for the purposes of section 26B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”), the holder of the licence must, where the use of the premises for a short-term let requires planning permission under the 1997 Act, ensure that either— (a) an application has been made for planning permission under the 1997 Act and has not yet been determined, or (b) planning permission under the 1997 Act is in force. Page 337
Page 338
30 Listings 14.(1) The holder of the licence must ensure that any listing or advert (whether electronic or otherwise) for the short-term let of the premises includes— (a) the licence number, and (b) a valid Energy Performance Certificate rating if an Energy Performance Certificate is required for the premises, in accordance with the Energy Performance of Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (2) The holder of the licence must ensure that any listing or advert (whether electronic or otherwise) for the short-term let of the premises is consistent with the terms of the short-term let licence. Insurance 15. The holder of the licence must ensure that there is in place for the premises— (a) valid buildings insurance for the duration of the licence, and (b) valid public liability insurance for the duration of each short-term let agreement. Payment of fees 16. The holder of the licence must pay any fees due to the licensing authority in respect of the licence on demand. False or misleading information 17. The holder of the licence must not provide any false or misleading information to the licensing authority. Interpretation 18. In this schedule— “Electrical Installation Condition Report” means a report containing the following information— (a) the date on which the inspection was carried out, (b) the address of the premises inspected, (c) the name, address and relevant qualifications of the person who carried out the inspection, (d) a description, and the location, of each installation, fixture, fitting and appliance inspected, (e) any defect identified, (f) any action taken to remedy a defect, “Energy Performance Certificate” means a certificate which complies with regulation 6 of the Energy Performance of Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2008, “gas safety report” means a report containing the following information— (a) the date on which the appliance or flue was checked, (b) the address of the premises at which the appliance or flue is installed, (c) a description of and the location of each appliance or flue checked, Page 338
Page 339
31 (d) any safety defect identified, (e) any remedial action taken, (f) confirmation that the check undertaken complies with the requirements of an examination of— (i) the effectiveness of any flue, (ii) the supply of combustion air, (iii) subject to head (iv), its operating pressure or heat input or, where necessary, both, (iv) if it is not reasonably practicable to examine its operating pressure or heat input (or, where necessary, both), its combustion performance, (v) its operation so as to ensure its safe functioning, (g) the name and signature of the individual carrying out the check, and (h) the registration number with which that individual, or that individual’s employer, is registered with a body approved by the Health and Safety Executive for the purposes of regulation 3(3) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, Page 339
Page 340
32 Appendix 4 – Additional licence conditions Short-term Lets: Proposed Additional Conditions Introduction Argyll and Bute Council consider that additional conditions should be applied to short-term let licences in its area. These derive from (a) the Part 2 Guidance for licensing authorities and (b) issues relating to guest safety which the Council has identified in its area and for which it considers additional licence conditions are necessary and appropriate. The “Part 2” additional conditions, are based closely upon the examples provided by the Scottish Government. These conditions would be generally-applicable to all licences, although some, for instance those relating to impact noise are not necessary for detached premises with no party structures. The guest safety conditions are intended for specific premises where certain facilities and amenities are provided for the use of guests (this would require a declaration on the application form). Alternatively, the conditions could be generally-applied with a conditional clause; the draft guest safety conditions are in the latter form. Additional conditions based on Part 2 Guidance Antisocial behaviour 1. The licence holder must take reasonable steps to manage the premises in such a way as to seek to prevent and deal effectively with any antisocial behaviour by guests to anyone else in the short-term let and in the locality of the short-term let. 2. The licence holder must take reasonable steps to: Ensure that no disturbance or nuisance arises within or from the premises, for example by explaining the house rules to the guests; Deal effectively with any disturbance or nuisance arising within or from the premises, as soon as reasonably practicable after the licence holder is made aware of it; and Ensure that any vehicles belonging to guests are parked lawfully, for example explaining where any designated parking spaces are to be found and highlighting any local rules. 3. The licence holder must take reasonable step to ensure that guests do not play amplified music within the garden or external areas where or at times it would impact neighbouring residents. Page 340
Page 341
33 Privacy and security 1. The licence holder must manage the premises in such a way as to respect and protect the privacy and security of neighbours. 2. The licence holder must ensure: Guests know and understand any particular rules applying to shared areas and entrances; Guests understand that shared doors should be properly and securely closed after use; and The provision of access codes or keys to guests cannot be used by guests to gain access to shared areas after they have finally departed. Noise control in flatted premises 1. Where the premises are a flat above another dwellinghouse, the licence holder must: Fit and maintain carpets (with appropriate underlay) to the floors of bedrooms, living room and any hallway. Take reasonable steps to ensure that guests do not first arrive or finally depart from the property between the hours of 2300 and 0700. The licence holder must advise guests of this condition as part of their booking terms and conditions. 2. The licensing authority may, at its own discretion, exempt any flatted premises from the requirement to carpet floors where the licence holder can demonstrate that they have been built to or been converted to Domestic Technical Standard 5.1. 3. Note that “reasonable steps” allows for unavoidable circumstances, such as significantly-delayed transport. Littering and waste disposal 1. The licence holder must provide adequate information on, and the facilities for, the storage, recycling and disposal of waste. 2. The licence holder shall be responsible for advising residents of the refuse collection day and for making arrangements for the presentation of bins for collection at the appropriate time and day. 3 The licence holder must advice guests of: Their responsibilities; The use of the bins etc. provided for the premises; and The location of the nearest recycling area or recycling point. 4. The licence holder must: Clearly label bins as belonging to the premises; Ensure that guests manage their waste in compliance with (2), including when they depart; and Page 341
Page 342
34 Maintain the bins storage area and the exterior of the premises in a clean and tidy condition. Damage to property The licence holder shall not affix a key box, or any other device to facilitate guest entry to the premises, to any public or jointly-owned private structure or infrastructure without the prior written permission of the relevant authority or owner(s). The licence holder must be able to produce the written permission to the licensing authority on demand. Additional Conditions for Guest Safety Legionella risk assessment – spa pools/hot tubs 1. Where a spa pool, including any electric hot tub or wood-fired hot tub, is provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must install, maintain and operate it so it can be safely operated and used by guests. 2. The licence holder shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable: That any such spa pool is installed and maintained in accordance with the guidance in HSE publication HSG282 Control of legionella and other infectious agents in spa-pool systems. That there is a risk assessment and written scheme of control for Legionella in respect of any such spa pool. That the risk assessment and written scheme of control are lodged with any application for a licence and are to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. That, prior to any spa pool being brought into use for the first time during the period of the licence, at least 28 days’ notice shall be given to the licensing authority and the risk assessment and written scheme of control shall be submitted at the time of such notice. 3. The licence holder shall provide guests with information on the safe use of the spa pool in accordance with the written scheme of control. 4. The licence holder shall not provide or install any inflatable hot tub for the use of guests without the prior written approval of the licensing authority. Note that the licensing authority will not give approval in respect of inflatable hot tubs not intended for commercial use and which cannot conform to the requirements of HSG282. Guest safety – swimming pools and ponds 1. Where a swimming pool or swimming pond is installed and provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take reasonable measures to ensure water quality and bather safety. 2. The licence holder shall ensure: Page 342
Page 343
35 In the case of swimming pools, and swimming ponds, that a pool safety operating plan is prepared and lodged with any application for a licence and is to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. The licence holder shall have regard to the guidance in HSE publication HSG179 Health and safety in swimming pools. In the case of swimming pools and swimming ponds, that a bather safety plan is prepared and lodged with any application for a licence and is to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. The bather safety plan shall include measures to minimise the risk of bathers getting into difficulty, to facilitate the rescue of bathers in difficulty and to call for the assistance of emergency services where necessary. That, prior to any swimming pool or pond being brought into use for the first time during the period of the licence, at least 28 days’ notice shall be given to the licensing authority and the pool safety operating plan and bather safety plan shall be submitted at the time of such notice. 3. In this condition, “swimming pond” means an outdoor body of untreated water in natural ground which has been excavated or modified to provide a facility for swimming. It does not include natural watercourses, fresh-water lochs or coastal waters. 4. This condition does not apply to swimming pools which are staffed and operated with continuous poolside supervision by trained lifeguards. Risk of Carbon monoxide – barbecue huts 1. Where a barbecue hut is installed and provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take reasonable steps to ensure that the risk from Carbon monoxide is minimised. 2. The licence holder shall, so far as is reasonably practicable: Install, maintain and operate the barbecue hut only in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Install and maintain in proper working condition a Carbon monoxide monitor and alarm within the barbecue hut. Provide guests with instructions on the safe use of the barbecue hut, the symptoms of Carbon monoxide poisoning and the actions to be taken in an emergency. Not permit the use of the barbecue hut by persons under the age of 18 except in the presence of a person over the age of 18. Not permit the use of a barbecue hut as sleeping accommodation. 3. For the purposes of this condition, a barbecue hut is a purpose-built, structure including a fixed hearth, and fixed ventilation supplying both fresh air to the hearth and extracting the products of combustion from the occupied space. Page 343
Page 344
36 Guest safety – provision and use of watercraft 1. Where any watercraft are provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take reasonable measures to ensure the suitability and safety of the watercraft and the safety of persons using them. 2. The licence holder shall ensure: That any watercraft provided are suitable for the waters upon which they are intended to be used. That any watercraft are operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. That personal flotation devices are provided which are suitable for the use intended and the user, and have regard to the categorisation of any inland waters or standards issued by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. That personal flotation devices are inspected and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. That guests are provided with proportionate safety information about the use of watercraft, including the intended areas of use, local hazards, adverse weather conditions, actions to take in an emergency, and the means of contacting the emergency services. 3. In this condition, “watercraft” means any boat, canoe, kayak, stand-up paddleboard, raft, or similar vessel capable of carrying passengers or being ridden upon, and equipped with sails, or an engine, or capable of being directed or steered using oars or paddles. 4. In complying with this condition, the licence holder shall have regard to advice and guidance issued by authoritative bodies including, where appropriate, MCA, RoSPA and the Scottish Canoe Association. 5. In the area of the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park, the licence holder shall comply with any relevant byelaws issued by the National Park Authority. 6. This condition does not apply to premises where the vessels provided are done so under the terms of a current boat hire licence issued by the licensing authority and operated in compliance with the conditions of such a licence. Guest safety – provision of bicycles 1. Where bicycles are provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of persons using them. 2. The licence holder shall ensure: That any bicycles provided are suitable for the use intended and for the user. That, where cycle helmets are provided, they are suitable for the use intended and the user. Page 344
Page 345
37 That there is a programme of inspection and maintenance in place to ensure that bicycles and cycle helmets are only made available to guests when they are in a safe condition. 3. In complying with this condition, the licence holder shall have regard to the Cycle Hire Guidelines of the Association of Cycle Traders. Guest safety – outdoor play equipment 1. Where any outdoor play equipment is provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of persons using the play equipment. 2. The licence holder shall ensure: That only equipment which is suitable for the use intended shall be installed and provided for the use of guests. That play equipment is installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. That play equipment is subject to an inspection and checking regime in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. That rules are in place and communicated to guests to ensure the safe use of play equipment and to prevent its abuse. 3. In complying with this condition, the licence holder shall have regard to the RoSPA Code of good practice for play areas and the RoSPA guidance on the safe use of garden trampolines. 4. The provision for the use of guests of inflatable play equipment which is intended for bouncing or climbing on is prohibited. This prohibition does not apply to inflatable play equipment which, at all times when it is use, is directly supervised by the licence-holder or their agent, or an employee of the licence-holder or their agent. Page 345
Page 346
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 347
Appendix 3: Post-consultation review of proposed fee structure for short-term lets This paper considers the banding and weighting of application fees for short-term let licences in the light of the public consultation of the Council’s draft licensing policy. The Scottish Government recommend that local authorities, at a minimum, establish a licence fee structure that takes account of the following: the type of licence with lower fees set for home sharing and home letting licences than for secondary letting licences; and guest capacity in terms of the maximum number of guests, as requested by the host or operator on their application form. Note that some licences will be for premises including significant numbers of unconventional accommodation, such as pods or lodges on the same site where a caravan site licence is not otherwise required. The Council originally proposed to take account of these factors by applying weightings to a unit cost, derived from that for processing a routine 4-guest secondary letting application, as follows: Table 1: Original bands and weightings Guest capacity applied for Home sharing or home letting licence Secondary letting licence 1 or 2 0.6 0.8 3 or 4 0.8 1.0 5 to 8 1.0 1.5 9 to 12 1.5 2.0 12 to 20 2.0 4.0 20+ 4.0 8.0 Following the public consultation, a review of responses concluded: 1. There was general agreement with this proposed approach, although concerns were raised specifically about the bandings and the weightings to be applied to fees. 2. The bandings proposed were based upon the Scottish Government’s example banded fee structure set out in the Part 2 Guidance, with two bands merged. a. It was clear from the consultation responses that: b. The bands are too narrow, and 3. The “standard” secondary let premises should be regarded as a three-bedroom property that can sleep 6 persons, including children under the age of 10 years. 4. There was broad support from respondents for the weighted approach to setting fees, although there was a wide range of opinion on the actual applied weighting values. 5. Respondents challenged the Council’s assertion in the draft policy statement that larger secondary letting premises would necessarily attract more objections and representations, or require more work to process their applications. The Council considers that larger premises are more likely to require physical site inspections as part of the application determination process compared with smaller, more conventional, premises and therefore an increased fee is proportionate and appropriate. 6. The assessment of larger premises, accommodating more than, say, 12 persons will probably bear comparison with the assessment of similar-sized houses in multiple occupation. Page 347
Page 348
Having regard to these comments, the proposed revised bands and weightings are as follows, noting that children under the age of 10 are to be included in the occupancy capacity: Table 2: Revised bands and weightings Guest capacity applied for (including children under the age of 10) Home sharing or home letting licence Secondary letting licence Up to 4 0.5 0.7 5 to 8 0.7 1.0 9 to 12 1.1 1.5 13 to 20 1.4 2.0 21 and over 1.8 2.5 The bands are simplified and the 5 to 8 band now represents a three-bedroom house accommodating, for example, eight adults and children, subject to sufficient space and sleeping accommodation. The weightings for secondary let licences increase roughly proportionately with the number of guests, rather than exponentially as in the original proposal. The maximum weighting is therefore significantly reduced from 8.0 to 2.5 for the highest secondary letting band. The discount for home sharing or home letting licences is 30% compared with an equivalent secondary letting licence. Similarly, secondary letting licences for small premises accommodating four or fewer guests are discounted by 30%. Weightings are rounded to two significant figures. The 21 and over band will include holiday villages with cottages or lodges in the same curtilage and which do not hold a caravan site licence. It is expected that there will be very few, if any, home sharing or home letting premises in the highest two bands. Level of fees The level of fees has yet to be determined, It is worth comparing the licence fees charged for other Civic Government licences by Argyll and Bute Council. These fall into three bands: 1. £524: a. Second hand motor dealer b. Metal dealer c. Market operator d. Public entertainment e. Late hours catering 2. £452: a. Taxi car b. Private hire car c. Second hand dealer 3. £275: a. Boat hire b. Street trader c. Window cleaner It is reasonable to expect the enquiries required for a short-term let licensing application to be comparable with a public entertainment licence. There is a case for the fees for short- term lets to align with other Civic Government licence fees charged by the Council. Applying a standard fee of £524 (which is more appropriate given the complexity of STL applications) is likely to result in over recovery of income, and therefore the mid range fee of £452 will be used as the standard short-term let fee. Applying this to the bands and weightings, the following fee structure arises (fees rounded to the nearest whole pound): Page 348
Page 349
Table 3: Proposed fees based on a standard fee of £452 Guest capacity applied for (including children under the age of 10) Home sharing or home letting licence Secondary letting licence Up to 4 £226 £316 5 to 8 £316 £452 9 to 12 £497 £678 13 to 20 £633 £904 21 and over £814 £1130 For comparison, the fee for an HMO licence for premises with 10 or more people is £1,101. The lowest fee of £226 under this model compares with the lowest standard band of other Civic Government licence fees of £275, such as for a window cleaner. Page 349
Page 350
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 351
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 LOCAL PLACE PLANS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report seeks to advise members of one of the measures which has been introduced as part of the Governments work on planning reforms introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, with the publication of Local Place Plan Regulations 2021 and Planning Circular 1/2022 Local Place Plans. 1.2 Local Place Plans (LPPs) are seen as a way for promoting wider public engagement in the planning process, by enabling local communities to have the opportunity for early involvement in the development plan process, by preparing plans for their area. This report sets out the responsibilities of the Planning Authority with regard to LPPs, the requirements of community bodies preparing LPPs, the duties of the Planning Authority to register LPPs and to take them into account when preparing Local Development Plan 3. 1.3 LPPs provide the opportunity for community bodies to prepare and take ownership of place plans for their area. There is no requirement for communities to prepare a LPP, so the extent to which communities may take up this opportunity is unknown. However, a number of communities have been in contact with the Development Plans and Community Planning teams to find out more about LPPs with a view to starting the process. In order to assist this the Development Plans/ Community Planning teams have set up a web page to direct communities to sources of information and potential external funding for LPPs, and have developed a protocol for handling initial enquiries about LPPs from existing staff resources in order to minimise financial pressures on the council as a result of these new duties. 1.4 It is recommended that the committee note: the publication of the Local Place Plan Regulations 2021 and that in accordance with these Community Bodies may prepare and submit Local Place Plans for registration to the Local Planning Authority. that the primary responsibility for production of Local Place Plans lies with communities. that Councillors are likely to be consulted on Local Place Plans by communities. Page 351 Agenda Item 15
Page 352
that the Council has set up an information website for the benefit of communities interested in taking forward Local Place Plans. the Council will support local communities in production of LPPs by utilising existing resources as outlined in para. 4.11 of this report, and particularly through the use of only holding virtual meetings. Page 352
Page 353
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 LOCAL PLACE PLANS 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Local Place Plans (LPPs) are part of the Government’s wider work on planning reform and implementation of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 (the 2019 Act), including steps to reduce conflict, improve community engagement and build public trust in planning matters. They offer the opportunity for a community-led, collaborative approach to creating great local places. LPP can support community aspirations on the big challenges for a future Scotland, such as responding to the global climate emergency and tackling inequalities. It is vital that local people have the opportunity to engage meaningfully and have a positive influence in the future planning of development in their areas. The aim is to significantly enhance public engagement in development planning, effectively empowering communities to play a proactive role in defining the future of their places. 2.2 It is expected that LPPs will form part of the early engagement in the evidence gathering and preparation stages of Local Development Plan 3 (LDP3), with these opportunities being highlighted in the Development Plan Scheme for LDP3 as and when it is produced. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 That the committee note: the publication of the Local Place Plan Regulations 2021 and that in accordance with these Community Bodies may prepare and submit Local Place Plans for registration to the Local Planning Authority. that the primary responsibility for production of Local Place Plans lies with communities. that Councillors are likely to be consulted on Local Place Plans by communities. that the Council has set up an information website for the benefit of communities interested in Local Place Plans. the Council will support local communities in production of LPP by utilising existing resources as outlined in para. 4.11 of this report, and particularly through holding only virtual meetings. Page 353
Page 354
3.2 That the committee note that a web page has been put up to assist communities to prepare Local Place Plans, by providing links to sources of information and potential funding and agree a protocol for handling initial enquiries about LPPs from existing staff resources in order to minimise financial pressures on the council as a result of these new duties. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 Local Place Plans are community-led plans setting out proposals for the development and use of land. Introduced by the 2019 Act, these plans will set out a community’s aspirations for its future development. Once completed and then registered by the planning authority, they are to be taken into account in the preparation of the relevant local development plan. Further guidance on the planning authority’s invitation to prepare Local Place Plans, and taking into account registered Local Place Plans will be published when the new Local Development Plan Regulations are brought into force. 4.2 Many communities have had experience of preparing Community Plans already. Local Place Plans may be very similar, however, there are some fundamental requirements which a Local Place Plan must fulfil before it can be registered as such; They must be prepared by a Community Body Be a proposal as to the development or use of land; and fulfil the legal requirements set out in the 1997 Act and the 2021 Regulations. 4.3 As LPPs are to be community led they must be prepared by a Community Body. This could either be an established Community Council or another community body which must have a written constitution as defined by section19 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. 4.4 While the legislation does not prevent multiple LPPs for an area the Scottish Government encourages people and organisations preparing local place plans to work collaboratively where possible. LPP are to cover proposals as to the development or use of land. So this could include improvements to town or neighbourhood centres, retaining, improving and expanding quality open space, green/blue infrastructure, play facilities, as well as conservation of the built and natural environment. Promotion of sites for housing, employment, or new tourism, or community facilities, could also be included. It is not envisaged that LPPs would address things like litter management, dog fouling, or operation of public transport (routes and timetables). 4.5 In preparing a LPP the legislation requires the Community Body to take certain steps which include: having regard to the National Planning Framework, Local Development Plan for the area, and any Locality Plan published for the area. The Community Body will be required to explain how it has had regard to these documents when submitting the Local Place Plan. If Page 354
Page 355
the community feels strongly that the Local Place Plan should diverge from any relevant policies or developments, it should set out clear reasons why the Local Place Plan is departing from it. If the Community Body considers that the Local Development Plan should be amended it must set out why it considers this necessary in a statement accompanying the Local Place Plan. 4.6 A Local Place Plan can be a short, clear and visual document which sets out the Community Body’s proposals and priorities. The legislation, intentionally, does not over-prescribe how the Community Body presents its proposals to the wider community and the planning authority. The minimum requirements are: a) identify the Community Body who prepared the Local Place Plan; b) contain a map that shows the land to which the Local Place Plan relates; and c) contain a statement of the Community Body’s proposals as to the development or use of land within the Local Place Plan area. Where the statement contains a proposal which relates to a specific area of land or particular building the Local Place Plan is to contain a map or maps which identify the location of the land or building. The map showing the Local Place Plan area should also be sufficiently detailed so as to enable the boundaries of the LPP to be identified. 4.7 As part of the process of preparing a Local Place Plan, it is expected that Community Councils/Bodies would work collaboratively with their communities and carry out consultations as appropriate. Prior to submitting the Local Place Plan a copy must be sent to each councillor for the LPP area and any community councils whose area is within or adjoins the LPP area, together with an information notice which describes the content and purpose of the LPP and information as to how and to whom any representations on the content of the LPP should be made and the date by which they should be made. 4.8 For a planning authority to accept a Local Place Plan as valid, the Community Body must be able to provide evidence that it has complied with the legal requirements as outlined above. In addition the Community Body must also provide a statement setting out its view of the level and nature of support for the LPP and the basis on which it has reached this view, including a description of any consultation in respect of the proposed LPP. There are often differences of opinion within communities and if concerns are raised during the engagement with the community and others the Community Body may wish to show how it has tried to resolve these. 4.9 When the planning authority receives the Local Place Plan and accompanying information, it will check it contains all the required information, and that the organisation qualifies as a Community Body. Once registered the local planning authority must take into account any LPP when they are preparing any new LDP. While this will be the primary way for LPPs to influence local planning policies, Community Bodies may wish to consider whether the Page 355
Page 356
proposals contained within the LPP may reasonably form a part of representations on individual planning applications. 4.10 Thus the primary responsibility for production of LPP lies with the community and it is important to note that no additional resource of funding has been allocated to planning authorities in connection with this. However, in order to assist communities in this process, the Development Plans and Community Planning teams have set up a web page to direct communities to sources of information and potential external funding for LPP Local Place Plans (argyll- bute.gov.uk). 4.11 In addition they have developed a protocol for handling initial enquiries about LPPs utilising existing staff resources in order to minimise financial pressures as a result of these new duties. The intention is to offer a preliminary virtual scoping consultation meeting with communities wishing to develop LPP. This would involve all relevant Council officers (e.g.: planning, community planning, roads, economic development, amenity services etc… as was relevant). The aim would be to scope information requirements which Council officers may be able to readily assist communities with. Officers will not be able to physically attend Community LPP meetings given the limited staff resources available and the potentially significant numbers of LPP which may come forward across a wide geographical area. However, an agreed relevant officer will be available to virtually attend a consultation event if requested. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 LPPs provide the opportunity for community bodies to prepare and take ownership of place plans for their area. Their aim is to significantly enhance engagement in development planning, effectively empowering communities to play a proactive role in defining the future of their places. In order to assist this the Development Plans/ Community Planning teams have set up a web page to direct communities to sources of information and potential external funding for LPPs, and have developed a protocol for handling initial enquiries about LPPs from existing staff resources in order to minimise financial pressures as a result of these new duties. Councillors should note they are likely to be consulted if not asked to be actively engaged with the production of LPPs by their relevant local communities. 5.2 Formal requirements to invite Community Councils/Bodies to prepare Local Place Plans, for the Local Planning Authority to provide information on the assistance available to prepare Local Place Plans and to register them will be included in the new Scottish Government Development Plan Regulations. These are expected to be published towards the end of this year and be applicable to the next Local Development Plan cycle. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS Page 356
Page 357
6.1 Policy – Local Place Plans provide a new opportunity for local communities to contribute to Local Development Plan policies and proposals 6.2 Financial – The Local Place Plan regulations introduce new duties on the Planning Authority. The financial implications are currently unknown as this will be dependent upon the level of interest from communities. The web page and protocol seek to minimise the financial implications for the council. 6.3 Legal – The preparation of LDP and the requirements associated with it regarding LPP are statutory duties of the Council’s role as Planning Authority. 6.4 HR – None 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty 6.5.3 Islands The above issues are assessed as neither positive, or negative, at this stage, however the uptake by communities of the opportunity to develop Local Place Plans will require to be kept under review. 6.6 Climate Change – None 6.7 Risk – None 6.8 Customer Service – Local Place Plans give opportunities for communities to be more involved in the Development Plan process. This may result in additional expectations which we will seek to meet by providing new online resources and virtual meetings. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Policy Lead Councillor Kieron Green 2nd September 2022 For further information contact: Mark Lodge mark.lodge@argyll-bute.gov.uk 01546604280 Fergus Murray Fergus.murray@argyll-bute.gov.uk 01546604293 APPENDICES Appendix A: definition of Community Body from Section19 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Page 357
Page 358
Appendix A Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 19 Meaning of “community-controlled body” In this Part, a “community-controlled body” means a body (whether corporate or unincorporated) having a written constitution that includes the following— (a) a definition of the community to which the body relates, (b) provision that the majority of the members of the body is to consist of members of that community, (c) provision that the members of the body who consist of members of that community have control of the body, (d) provision that membership of the body is open to any member of that community, (e) a statement of the body's aims and purposes, including the promotion of a benefit for that community, and (f) provision that any surplus funds or assets of the body are to be applied for the benefit of that community. Page 358
Page 359
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 Planning Performance Framework 2021/22 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report introduces the 2021/22 Planning Performance Framework (PPF) Annual report as required by the Scottish Government Planning Reform Agenda. 1.2 The PPF is the principal annual performance measure for Planning Services (Development Management, Planning Policy, and Projects and Regeneration within Development & Economic Growth) and is submitted to the Scottish Government for scrutiny and scoring. The PPF required to be submitted to the Scottish Government by 7th September 2022, and will thereafter be subject to peer review before formal scoring. 1.3 The Argyll and Bute PPF 2021/22 captures that our performance during 2021/22 has deteriorated slightly in relation to the previous reporting period. The qualitative outcomes captured in the PPF also demonstrate that Planning Services are open for business by supporting sustainable economic growth, delivering high quality development outcomes on the ground and have sustainable management and service delivery structures/processes in place. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that PPSL: (a) Note the content of the Planning Performance Framework 2021/22; and (b) Note that an update report shall be submitted detailing Scottish Government feedback at the appropriate time later in 2022/23. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 This is the Planning Services 11th Annual Planning Performance Framework (PPF) and is our ‘balanced scorecard’ of performance which all Local Authorities must submit to the Scottish Government. The deadline for submission of the finalised report was 7th September 2022. Page 359 Agenda Item 16
Page 360
3.2 The PPF aims to be a holistic and easy read document that encapsulates the main statistical performance indicators as well as more qualitative information and case studies of good practice for the previous financial year. The basic structure of the document is stipulated by the Scottish Government but the character, tone, style and content is all shaped by the individual Authority. 3.3 The Scottish Government has previously suggested that Authorities use the PPF as more than a means of simply reporting performance and make use of the document as an opportunity to promote their service and local area, to incorporate customer feedback and to provide updated narrative on case study items from previous years. As in previous years, the 2021/22 PPF seeks to focus on the Council being ‘open for business’ and the positive economic contribution that Planning Services have made within Argyll and Bute. 3.4 Accordingly, the PPF presents case studies and examples of good practice throughout the document which demonstrates the ability of the Service to facilitate the delivery of high quality development on the ground, to provide certainty to developers and investors, to consult and engage with customers effectively and to ensure that appropriate management and service delivery structures are in place to work efficiently. During 2022/21 the resilience, effectiveness and efficiency of the Planning Service has been significantly affected by the continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and wider recruitment issues within the planning profession and accordingly the PPF includes commentary addressing those factors. 4.0 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Policy None 4.2 Financial None 4.3 Legal None 4.4 HR None 4.5 Equalities / Fairer Scotland Duty Positive outcomes for FSD as the PPF demonstrates that the Planning Service supports sustainable economic development. 4.6 Risk If the PPF were adjudged to be not fit for purpose there is potential reputational risk of being viewed as a poorly performing planning authority. 4.7 Customer Service 4.8 Climate Change None None Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead: Councillor Kieron Green 14th September 2022 For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204 Page 360
Page 361
APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Planning Performance Framework 2021/22 Page 361
Page 362
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 363
2021/22 PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 11 Appendix 1 Page 363
Page 364
About Argyll and Bute Population (2019): 85,570 9% Argyll and Bute as a proportion of the total Scottish land area. Average Pop. Density (2019): 0.12 persons per ha 43% of Argyll and Bute’s Population live in areas classified as “remote rural”. 21 inhabited islands* Bute, Coll, Colonsay, Danna, Easdale, Eilean da Mheinn, Erraid, Gigha, Gometra, Iona, Islay, Jura, Kerrera, Lismore, Luing, Mull, Oronsay, Seil, Shuna (Luing), Tiree, Ulva * not including LLTNP area 96% of Argyll and Bute’s population live within 10km of the coast. 52 of Argyll and Bute’s 125 data zones are amongst the 20% most geographically access deprived data zones in Scotland. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2020 £536 average weekly income Compared to Scottish Average of £577, and UK Average of £688 (2019) 33% of employment is in “Public Administration, Education and Health” Compared to 29.8% in Scotland, 26.4% in UK (2018) Page 364
Page 365
Argyll and Bute Key Challenges: Our geography – A highly rural area with many small communities, often separated by water. Access to the area and to key services are perennial challenges. Reducing population – The projected decline in total population is a real threat to the viability of the area with a potential to adversely impact on the economy/wealth creation, workforce availability and efficient service delivery. Changing population – With more extremes than most of Scotland we face increasing costs and challenges to deliver services to older people and we need to encourage younger people to move to the area so that our economy can grow. Economy – Unlocking the opportunities offered by its significant, sustainable economic assets for the benefit of its communities and the competitiveness and security of the Scottish and EU economies. Employment – Developing education, skills and training to maximise opportunities for all and create a workforce to support economic growth. Infrastructure – Improving and making better use of infrastructure in order to promote the conditions for economic growth including enhancing the built environment and our town centres. Sustainability – Ensuring a sustainable future by protecting the natural environment and mitigating climate change. Health –Improving health and well being and reducing health inequalities. Deprivation –Inequalities exist in Argyll and Bute so we need to improve how we identify and implement action to address them. People on the fringe – Many of our communities are very isolated and risk collapsing as population changes take affect alongside urban communities where deprivation can create real hardships. Arrinagour, Isle of Coll Page 365
Page 366
As the Head of Development and Economic Growth, I am pleased to submit the annual performance report for Argyll and Bute Council’s Planning Service, which provides relevant statistics for 2021/22 and case studies highlighting the work of the council’s planning service that forms part of the wider Development and Economic Growth Service of the council. This 11th Planning Performance Framework report is written at a time of unprecedented challenges. The need to address climate change, the impacts of the pandemic, a cost of living crisis, together with a critical shortage of skilled workers is placing a significant pressure on the planning service in terms of our performance. Our workforce is moving to hybrid working with face to face meetings increasingly common. That said, our main communication with our many customers remains predominately through digital channels and this will be the norm going forward as we rationalise and adapt our offices to new ways of working. Workload levels remain high across the service, dealing with backlogs due to the pandemic, adapting to the new requirements from the Planning Act, responding to Government consultations including NPF4, taking forward the Local Development Plan through a Public Local Inquiry, dealing with an increasing workload of complex planning applications including major investments in renewables, food and drink, housing and tourism. This rising and increasingly complex workload has been made more challenging by our difficulty in attracting experienced Planners with the right skills to improve our performance as a Planning Service. This situation is reflected in our overall performance, whilst our approval rates remain high at 98% our performance in determining planning applications this year is not yet in the place where we want to be. This situation is compounded further by our need to address long standing legacy applications that when determined inevitably impact negatively on our overall planning application decision averages. Striking a more positive note, our area regeneration efforts continue to help transform our region, creating great places for people to live, to invest in and importantly for us to visit given the dominance of the tourism sector in our economy. The Planning Service working closely with the Council’s Economic Growth and Housing Services has played a key role here, helping new homes to be built, new businesses to start, buildings to be repurposed and facilitating the expansion of major renewable energy projects. Key projects include the development of the Dunbeg Corridor and the building of housing on former areas of the Helensburgh Greenbelt, the delivery of key infrastructure on our islands, the repowering of on shore wind farms in Kintyre, the continued expansion of our forest, aquaculture and the spirits industries. This work will continue and has considerable potential to expand further given the continued delivery of our Rural Growth Deal and taking account of recent Levelling Up Bids to the UK Government focussing on regeneration in Rothesay and Dunoon town centres. Foreword: Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Argyll and Bute Council 3 Page 366
Page 367
Contents: Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Foreword P3 Part 1: Defining & Measuring a High Quality Planning Service Part 2: Supporting Evidence & Performance Markers P31 Part 3: Service Improvements P35 Part 4: National Headline Indicators (NHI’s) 2021/22 P36 Part 5: Official Statistics P38 Part 6: Workforce Information P40 Part 7: Planning Committee Information P42 Case Study 1: Welcome to Bute P8 Case Study 2: ACT-ing Together: Compensatory Planting P9 1.2 Quality of Service and Engagement P11 Case Study 3: Dunbeg Masterplan - Update 2022 P15 Case Study 4: Bringing Empty Homes Back Into Use P17 1.3 Governance P19 Case Study 5: DM Response to Covid-19 Update 2022 P22 1.4 Culture of Continuous Improvement P25 Case Study 6: CCDC Masterplan for Scalasaig P29 1.1 Quality of Outcomes P5 Page 367
Page 368
Defining and Measuring a High Quality Planning Service Part 1: 1.1 QUALITY OF OUTCOMES 1.1.1 Throughout 2021/22 the Planning Service has continued to work closely with communities, developers and partner organisations to deliver a range of developments across Argyll and Bute. 1.1.2 The adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 (the LDP) is firmly embedded into decision making with 12 key policies which seek to promote the delivery of sustainable long term economic growth to support the retention and growth of our population; to support the transition to a low carbon economy; to help retain and improve essential services; to protect and enhance our outstanding natural and built environment, and to maintain and improve our quality of life. Whilst the LDP is now more than five years old it is still considered fit for purpose in terms of decision making and will remain so until it is replaced by the Argyll and Bute Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (PLDP2) which is now at an advanced stage in its preparation and has reached Examination stage. 1.1.3 Interpretation and implementation of the LDP policy aims is assisted by a suite of Supplementary Guidance and non-statutory Technical Working Notes. These include publications on: Masterplanning, Advertisement and Signage Policy, Houses in Multiple Occupation, and a Biodiversity Technical Note for Planners and Developers. In 2021/22 we published non-statutory guidance on the handling of requests for Non-Material Amendments under S64 of the Act was updated. Advice for communities interested in Local Place Plans was published also online during 2021/22. 1.1.4 The Council seeks to promote high quality design through the publication of Sustainable Design Guidance covering a range of topics including Small Scale Housing Development, Larger Housing Development, Working with Argyll and Bute’s Built Heritage, Case Studies on Sustainable Materials and Technologies, and place specific guidance for the unique circumstances of the Islands of Coll and Tiree. Delivery of quality in design and place making is celebrated and championed through the Council’s Sustainable Design Award scheme and identification of exemplar designs via the Council’s website. The most recent iteration of the Sustainable Design Awards was launched in February 2020 but has subsequently been postponed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. To date it has not been possible to re- schedule. However, subject to availability of resources, it is hoped that this will be re-instigated by Summer 2023. The Design Awards 2020 were intended to recognise work that was carried out or completed in the period July 2015 to May 2020, however this will be subject to review at an appropriate time. The proposed award categories have been identified as Sustainable Design, Aesthetic Design, Community Led Regeneration Project, Built Heritage, and Design for Under £100k. The range of categories are intended to highlight good practice across varying scales and types of development, and include for the promotion of low cost-innovative design, and community led developments. Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 5 Page 368
Page 369
1.1.5 There are 33 Conservation Area designations across Argyll and Bute providing protection to the historic built environment. Where resources allow, the Council seeks to review and update the Conservation Area Appraisal and Character Evaluations that underpin the management of these designations and to support regeneration activity. 1.1.6 Through considered and targeted investment, the Council is continuing to develop, deliver and distribute funding to regeneration projects, the foundations of which support more attractive and prosperous places. During 2021/22, we have developed a bespoke website which highlights the many ongoing and completed regeneration projects which are being delivered by teams across Argyll and Bute Council as well as by community groups. Further information can be found at https://investinargyllandbute.co.uk/physical-regeneration-in-argyll-and-bute/. The projects which were developed and delivered by the Projects and Regeneration Team during 2021/22 are as follows: Dunoon CARS - partnership project with Historic Environment Scotland. To date this has delivered the completion of 3 priority buildings and 22 shopfronts, with 6 units brought back into use, and 7 Owners Associations formed with a total investment spend of £1.9m. During 2021/22 an allocation of £70,000 was made from the Place Based Investment funds towards improvements to the area surrounding Castle House Gate Lodge. Delivery of the CARS is continuing through 2022/23. Rothesay TH2 - partnership project with National Lottery Heritage Fund, Historic Environment Scotland, Highlands & Islands Enterprise, LEADER and SUSTRANs. To date this has delivered completion of 8 priority buildings, 14 shopfronts, 10 small repairs and 2 window projects with total investment spend of £5.4m. The project is ongoing until the end of March 2023 due to delays arising from the Covid-19 pandemic. The project was supported by a grant of funding by the Place Based Investment during the year to help assist with rising construction costs. Lochgilphead CARS - - partnership project with Historic Environment Scotland with total investment spend of £1.8m. First priority buildings are expected to be on site during 2022/23. First small repair grant has been awarded with other cases being developed. A number of training activities have taken place including a traditional skills roadshow across 4 towns and a seminar on how to heat older properties. Lochgilphead Front Green / Lochgilphead Public Realm Works - Following completion of the Argyll Street public realm improvements during 2020/21 (see previous PPF), work commenced on the £1.6m investment planned for the redevelopment of the Front Green in May 2021, the project is delivering a new play park, pathways, a public square and open space. The site is identified as an Area for Action within the Local Development Plan. Works are planned to complete during 2022/23. Tarbert / Ardrishaig Regeneration - Regeneration projects in Ardrishaig are informed by outcomes from the Crinan Canal Corridor Charrette joint working with Scottish Canals which we reported on in PPF 5 and PPF 6. In PPF 9 we reported on the completion of the Ardrishaig Harbour Regeneration project, The Egg Shed has since been recognised by the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS) in their 2021 awards. During 2021/22 development work related to the Ardrishaig North Public Realm project has continued and works are planned to take place during 2022/23. Works have been delayed as a result of increased construction costs associated with issues around the Covid-19 pandemic, Brexit and the war in Ukraine. Town Centre Fund - The team has continued to implement projects which were funded through Town Centre Funding and have completed works in Rothesay to provide a covered seating area 6 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 369
Page 370
and ‘Welcome to Bute’ sign which aim to help support the recovery of local businesses and raise the profile of the Island of Bute - see Case Study 1. Town Centre Funding has been superseded by Place Based Investment (PBI) funding, which the Scottish Government has committed to allocating on an annual basis over a five year period. Projects committed within the 2021/22 period are as follows: Region-wide shopfront scheme aimed for small and micro businesses in rural and smaller settlements. Deadline for applications closed at the end of December 2021, with a total of £80,000 awarded to 16 businesses to carry out improvement works, works are now largely completed. £250,000 towards public realm improvements in Gibraltar Street, Oban. This project will provide a bright, contemporary gateway into the Oban town centre, improve access and encourage people to shop locally. Design work was commenced during 2021/22 and are currently being finalised for the site with delivery planned for 2022/23. A third party grant of £50,000 to support the Dunoon Burgh Hall Trust through the creation of an attractive outdoor garden café area to the rear of the building, designed to boost income generation potential and the sustainability of Dunoon Burgh Hall. The immediate area to the rear of the Burgh Hall would be tackled as an initial phase, then further developed should additional funding allow. A £300,000 investment towards enhanced hard landscaping and lighting of the masonry pier section of Helensburgh Pier. The project follows on the from the Council’s £22 million Helensburgh Waterfront Development project as it will uplift the pier’s visual appearance including the views looking out from the new swimming pool and gym. Delivery is planned for 2022/23. Hermitage Parks for People - £3.7m project for the heritage-led regeneration of Hermitage Park. The project has been part funded by National Lottery Heritage Funding and is now reaching its final phase of implementation and is programmed for completion in December 2022 (extended due to the Covid-19 pandemic). In addition to work reported in the previous PPF, the project has delivered assorted areas of new or improved planting and a demonstration garden with bespoke volunteer bothy (with funding from Place Based Investment). In June 2022 Hermitage Park was awarded its third consecutive Green Flag status recognising not only the park’s green credentials but also the involvement of the community and educational link to the University of the Highlands and Islands. Helensburgh CARS - Funding secured in March 2021 for a £3m heritage-led regeneration project in partnership with Historic Environment Scotland. Three priority buildings have been identified and in partnership with the accredited architect all owners have been met and CARS Funding discussed. Two small repairs projects have also been identified and are being progressed. There have been 6 expressions of interest regarding the replacement of shopfronts and these are being progressed with costs. A traditional skills day was hosted at Hermitage Academy in conjunction with Developing Young People skills included roof slating, stone carving, surveying via VR with positive feedback received via the school and the young people who took part “I’m continuing to hear positive comments from the day - we even have a young person who wasn’t engaging in school who showed up on Friday, loved the activities that much he has now signed up to the Tullochan Trust’s “Furniture Fix” social enterprise to develop his skills further and plans to apply for a joinery apprenticeship towards the end of the year… I am chuffed that a young person who had no pathway lined up has now taken these steps off the back of our event”. Further training events are planned for September 2022. 7 Part 1 continued on P. 11 Page 370
Page 371
Welcome to Bute Case Study 1 Using Scottish Government Town Centre Funding, Argyll and Bute Council supported community ambitions through delivery of a bespoke sculptural welcome sign and an all-weather canopy. Both projects have involved strong collaboration with the Bute Community Council, Isle of Bute BID and elected members through design and delivery stages. The new bespoke welcome sign is located in the Winter Gardens in Rothesay aimed to encourage visitors to take photographs and share the Bute welcome on social media to the rest of the word. Promoting Bute as a visitor destination and creative new visitor attractions are long- held aspirations of the local community and businesses. A welcome sign was a key action set out by Audience Development work in 2019 from the Rothesay Townscape Heritage Programme. The location of which captures the architecture of the Victorian seaside town, the formal waterfront gardens, as well as the Firth of Clyde and hills behind. To further support local businesses, a new all-weather canopy has now been installed at Montague Street Gardens, Rothesay. The canopy enables businesses to extend a typical season by offering residents and visitors cover for dining and events. Both projects were aimed at attracting more people of the Isle of Bute and extending the tourism season which will help with ongoing economic recovery from the impact of the COVID pandemic. Project officers were supported by Development Management Team through providing quality advice on the planning requirements of the projects and ensuring it was within tight funding deadlines. The projects have contributed to the wider goals and outcomes of the planning service through supporting the delivery of town centre regeneration and place-making projects which support Argyll and Bute to become a more attractive and prosperous places to work, live, visit and do business. It has also been demonstrated that delivering physical improvements to our built environment can make our area a more attractive place to live, work and invest in. Feedback from the community has outlined the success of both projects, with the canopy used regularly by businesses as cover for alfresco dining and locals for events and festivals. The welcome sign has been drawing in visitors and has led to them sharing their photographs on social media helping to raise the profile of Bute. Both projects have succeeded in the aim of helping to extend the tourism season on the Isle of Bute and help local businesses recover from the impact of the COVID pandemic. 8 Themes A: Quality of Outcomes B: Quality of Services & Engagement C: Governance D: Culture of Continuous Improvement Performance Markers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Key Areas of Work Regeneration, Town Centres Stakeholders Argyll & Bute Council, Bute Community Council, Isle of Bute BIDS Project Lead Genna Lugue Page 371
Page 372
ACT-ing Together: Compensatory Planting Case Study 2 9 Themes A: Quality of Outcomes B: Quality of Services & Engagement C: Governance D: Culture of Continuous Improvement Performance Markers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Key Areas of Work Climate Change, Biodiversity, Collaborative Working Stakeholders Argyll and Bute Council, Argyll & the Isles Coast and Countryside Trust, Scottish & Southern Energy Network Transmission Project Lead Matt Mulderrig Argyll and Bute Council have joined forces with SSEN Transmission and leading community and conservation organisation, Argyll and the Isles Coast and Countryside Trust (ACT), to help deliver SSEN Transmission’s compensatory tree planting commitments and in doing so, help support and enhance Scotland’s rainforest in Argyll. The partnership was initiated following a recommendation from the Planning Service (who were engaged on the S37 project from pre- application through to discharge of conditions) that the Council’s aspirations for management of its own woodlands might offer scope for SSEN to deliver offsite replacement planting across Argyll. ACT is a community-led organisation and registered charity, established in 2014. Their mission is to sustainably maintain, enhance and promote the coast and countryside of Argyll and the Isles. Argyll's rainforest, also known as Atlantic woodland, temperate rainforest or Celtic rainforest, is a unique and rare habitat of ancient and native woodland, open glades, boulders, rocky cliffs and river gorges. Scotland is now the last stronghold for this habitat that was once widespread along the Atlantic coast of Europe. The mild, wet climate of the west coast of Scotland provides perfect growing conditions for this diverse habitat that supports a variety of plants and animals. The ground-breaking partnership will see ACT help deliver SSEN Transmission’s compensatory tree planting relating to its Inveraray-Crossaig reinforcement project which involve the construction of a new 275kV overhead line to provide capacity to connect wind farm development to the electricity network. The project is 81km in length and has potential to impact upon almost 460ha of woodland. Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 372
Page 373
The initial phase of compensatory planting is underway on Argyll and Bute Council’s sites near Lochgilphead in Argyll. By planting native species, the planting will support local flora and fauna, creating natural habitats for native species to thrive, supporting SSEN Transmission’s commitments to deliver biodiversity net gain and compensatory planting on all its major projects. The planting will also create a natural asset for the local community to enjoy for generations to come, leaving a positive lasting legacy beyond SSEN Transmission’s primary objective of delivering a network for net zero emissions across the north of Scotland. Richard Baldwin, Head of Consenting and the Environment for SSEN Transmission, said: “I’m really excited about our partnership with ACT to deliver our compensatory planting for our Inveraray-Crossaig project. By working in partnership with local experts we can ensure our compensatory planting focusses on the right species, in the right locations, to deliver the right outcomes for the local communities in which we operate. “Argyll’s rainforests are a truly stunning and precious resource and we’re delighted to be playing a small part in helping ensure the long term sustainability of this nationally significant natural asset. You can’t help but be mesmerised when you first discover Argyll’s rainforest and ACT’s dedication and passion to protect and enhance this wonderful natural asset is great to be part of. “As we continue to deliver a network for net zero emissions across the north of Scotland, we are committed to doing so in a responsible and sustainable way, helping sustain and enhance the local habitats in which we operate. We look forward to building on this initial planting project with ACT and other community organisations across the north of Scotland, leaving a positive legacy for generations to come.” Ross Lilley, ACT Chairman, said: “This partnership with SSEN Transmission and Argyll and Bute Council has been a very significant one for ACT as we’ve been able to create new native woodland sites which is an important part of Argyll’s Rainforest Strategy. “By improving existing woodland, as we have recently done at Kilmory and Glenan woods with extensive Rhododendron ponticum removal, and gradually linking up the clusters of Rainforest with new planting, we can create corridors for the rare species that are unique to our Rainforest habitat to thrive. “Argyll is incredibly fortunate to be home to more than half of Scotland’s rainforest and to ensure that it is safeguarded, we will need a partnership approach from businesses, communities and agencies. This agreement between SSEN Transmission, ACT and Argyll and Bute Council is a great example of what can be achieved.” Ross Mclaughlin, Head of Commercial Services at Argyll and Bute Council said: “It’s important that we take all steps we can to make day-to-day life in Argyll and Bute climate- friendly. We are pleased therefore to support this woodland conservation initiative. Becoming climate-friendly is about developing sustainable ways of living and working, to protect the planet on which we all depend for our future generations.” 10 Ross McLaughlin ABC; Ross Lilley, ACT; Richard Baldwin SSEN Page 373
Page 374
Crown Estate Funding - we have administered funding received from the Crown Estate to a number of community projects and during 2021/22 the ACT Hub was completed by the Argyll and the Isles Coast and Countryside Trust. The building is to be their main base as they look to deliver environmental and climate change work across Argyll. Other projects are ongoing. We have continued to work on securing funding which can be used to deliver improvements across Argyll and Bute. Funding was allocated to a number of community projects through the Regeneration Capital Grant Fund during 2021/22 including Obair Ùr Thirodh – Tiree Community Business Hub (£565,000), Kerrera Old School - Community Hub Final Phase (£285,000), and Ulva Ferry Shore Facilities Building - Doras Caolas Ulbha (£603,000) these projects are to start delivery during 2022/23. We have also been preparing a bid for the Levelling Up Fund which, if successful, would focus on delivering projects in Dunoon and Rothesay. 1.1.7 Involvement of the Planning Service has been instrumental in facilitating a number of developments which have/will deliver new housing, schools, employment, renewable energy, and tourism accommodation/facilities. 1.2 QUALITY OF SERVICE AND ENGAGEMENT 1.2.1 The LDP and priorities of the Planning Service are closely aligned with the Argyll and Bute Outcome Improvement Plan 2013-23 (previously known as the Single Outcome Agreement and Community Plan). The Outcome Improvement Plan remains the sovereign document and the LDP aims to translate its objectives in to a deliverable spatial strategy. The Council’s Action Programme is utilised to focus action on priority proposals and allocations, and to identify work which is required to enable development. The Council’s internal key performance indicators for the Planning Service all directly tie in and seek to demonstrate a contribution to delivery of the six long term outcomes identified in the Outcome Improvement Plan. Case Study 3 & 6 provide an example of these corporate aims being delivered on the ground by LDP policy. 1.2.2 During 2021/22 preparation of PLDP2 has focussed on final preparation of electronic documentation for submission to the Scottish Government for an Examination of PLDP2. All documentation was submitted early 2022 and subsequently the DPEA has issued a statement of conformity. The Examination is currently underway. In addition the Development Policy team has fully engaged with the Scottish Government on NPF4. An updated project plan for the Development Plan Scheme was published in March 2022. 1.2.3 The Planning Service is located in various offices across the main settlements of Argyll and Bute providing relatively easy access to a large proportion of the population. Customers on remoter mainland and island locations are also able to access Council services at Customer Service Points. The Planning Service also provide website, e-mail, and telephone based services to customers, and continues to utilise social media as a means of public engagement. The Council’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic involved the temporary closure of public offices and delivery of planning services via home working and digital communication channels; these arrangements have continued throughout 2021/22. The Planning Service has engaged within a wider corporate discussion within the Council on ‘Our Modern Workplace’ that is exploring the potential to review future workplace arrangements through permanent home working / hybrid working arrangements, and rationalisation of the Council’s portfolio of office accommodation. 1.2.4 The Planning Service, working in partnership with Regulatory Services, initially attained the Customer Service Excellence Standard in February 2019. An overview of the work 11 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 374
Page 375
undertaken to reach this attainment was set out in PPF 8. The CSE Standard was retained following reassessment and confirmed in April 2021. 1.2.5 The Planning Service continues to build partnerships both internally and externally. The Development Policy and Development Management teams have close links and seek to co- ordinate activity/resources with Economic Growth, Projects and Regeneration, Building Standards, Environmental Health, Strategic Transport, Housing, Access, GIS and Coastal Development through revised management arrangements for these functions which has seen them brought under a single Head of Service from July 2019. Departmentally the Planning Service is also aligned with Roads and Infrastructure under a single Executive Director. The Council Service structure facilitates partnership working and promotes symbiosis in working practice including the merging of Housing with Development Policy to better realise the synergies between these services in the delivery of effective affordable housing development and the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP). Over the past year the Housing and Development Policy teams have worked closely together to develop an updated Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA) which formed the basis of housing calculations submitted to the Scottish Government to inform the housing land requirement set by the draft NPF4. The approved HNDA has been approved by the CMHA and commended for its methodology. The HNDA has also informed the refreshed Local Housing Strategy which was launched at the beginning of 2022 and the updated SHIP. 1.2.6 Customer User Forums are held regularly as a joint exercise between the Development Management, Development Policy and Building Standards Services providing a co- ordinated approach to engagement with regular professional customers. The content of recent User Forums include updates on the PLDP2 process, validation standards, updates on changes to legislation, details of any revision to staffing and service delivery arrangements, performance appraisal, and details of recent publications/guidance. Customer User Forums have not been held during the pandemic but is currently intended to be reinitiated later in 2022 as a virtual event. 1.2.7 In addition to engaging with individual companies on application specific issues, the Planning Service also seeks to engage directly with the aquaculture industry by arranging an annual liaison meeting with local industry representatives with hosting arrangements alternating between the Council and Industry. The event intended for 2019/20 was due to be organised and hosted by the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation and has still to be revived following the Covid-19 pandemic. The agenda for the last meeting in 2018/19 meeting included an update on LDP2, the Clyde Marine Plan, Planning Performance, revised Industry Planning Protocols, discussion about changes to SEPA’s licensing regime and its implications for planning, wild fish interactions, and updated EIA Regulations. 1.2.8 The Development Policy Service has developed a remote based assessment of housing land supply in order to verify that it is fit for purpose and does not act as an impediment to the delivery of new house building. This has allowed us to carry out a survey despite ‘lockdown’ restrictions. The Council continues to explore innovative ways in which it can contribute to or facilitate the further delivery of a variety of housing types as reported in PPF 7., and is meeting regularly with all local Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) to identify working groups as appropriate to find tailored solutions for site specific development impediments. A quarterly Housing Forum is chaired by the Leader of the Council and we also now have a forum with Community Housing Trusts with planning being an agenda item for both groups. 1.2.9 The Council remains supportive of national efforts to roll out improved communications infrastructure. The Council’s Digital Liaison 12 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 375
Page 376
Officer continues to provide assistance and single point contact for numerous consultants and monitors progress of telecommunications planning applications as they are developed, submitted and implemented, following internal protocols to engage planning officers with greater expertise in telecoms development when required. Feedback from consultants has been complimentary of the processes which the Council have implemented to assist in the progress of digital connectivity. EE/BT have previously commented positively on the streamlined process that the Planning Service have implemented in assisting in network coverage development. It has also been highlighted internally that cross departmental working will be intrinsic to the successful development of improved fibre penetration into rural communities given the challenges and, in some cases, short timeframes for implementation. 1.2.10 The Council recognises that it cannot work in isolation and that collaborative working will deliver the most productive outcomes for communities. Area regeneration efforts require substantial involvement from the community as a whole, and relies on private and third party partnerships and subsequent investment. The Council has previously reported on ongoing collaborative work with a number of housing sector partners to identify solutions that continue to deliver new homes where and when they are needed. Amongst others this includes Mull and Iona Community Housing Trust who have completed detailed research on Key Worker housing provision; North West Mull Community Woodland Company who are being supported to re- populate the island of Ulva; Colonsay Community Development Company, and LINK Housing Association who are exploring the potential for further phases of development at Dunbeg beyond the 375 units anticipated to be completed by December 2022. The Rockfield Centre was previously reported as a good example of effective regeneration through partnership working which has occurred with the assistance of Regeneration Capital Grant Funding and Town Centre Funding. The Rockfield Centre is now operational providing an increasing programme of events and activities, providing social support to the community and economic activity within the previously vacant, town centre building. The Council also supports, and works in partnership with the area’s Business Improvement Districts. 1.2.11 The Covid-19 pandemic has impacted on a number of consultation projects originally planned for 2020/21, including postponement of consultation on the Tarbert and Helensburgh Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisals. The Council however adopted a virtual consultation approach to progress the public consultation on the Ardrishaig North Public Realm Improvements in June 2020 to seek input on the final design drawings in advance of an application for planning permission which was submitted and determined during 2021. It has been a long term aspiration of local residents and community organisations to see these public spaces integrate better with activity in the town, including provision of crossing points and space for public events, along with an uplift to their overall appearance. The Council has been working closely with members of the Community Council and Community Trust to bring the proposals forward within budget. 1.2.12 The Development Management Service continues to offer a pre-application and permitted development enquiry service. Previously we have reported on the introduction of charging, template responses and online submissions to provide timely, consistent, high quality advice to prospective developers through identification of relevant planning policies, constraints and requirement for supporting information in advance of the formal application process. The Planning section of the Council website includes useful customer information including advice on ‘Permitted Development’, relevant publications including the LDP and non-statutory guidance, information on the planning process and details of how interested parties can engage with it. 13 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 376
Page 377
Customer feedback has however identified demand for a pre-app initiation and follow up advice service however plans to extend the range of services and undertake a full review and refresh of website content has not been possible during 2021/22 due to additional work pressures continuing from the Covid-19 pandemic. Throughout 2021/22 details of disruption to the delivery of services and alternative arrangements for contacting the Planning Service during the Covid-19 pandemic have been published and kept up to date on the Council’s website. 1.2.13 Elected members are involved at an early stage of an application for ‘major’ development and are provided with a briefing on all Proposal of Application Notices (PANs). This protocol requires all PANs to be reported to the PPSL Committee and allows Members the opportunity to identify matters which they consider would be material to the determination of any subsequent application. Any issues raised by Members are then fed back to the applicant to take into account in the preparation of their formal application. Commencement of s23 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 has also introduced a new requirement to directly notify local, Scottish, and UK elected representatives when an application for Major development is received. The Council responded to this additional requirement through the introduction in 2019/20 of a new protocol providing notification to the relevant parties by e-mail. 1.2.14 We have reported in previous PPFs on the certainty provided through development of masterplans and LDP allocations. Recent years have seen development, including affordable housing, delivered within masterplan/LDP allocations in Bowmore, Campbeltown, Dunoon, Helensburgh, Lochgilphead, Inveraray, Port Ellen, and Tobermory and we reported in PPF 7, PPF 8 and PPF 9 that the Dunbeg masterplan area was the subject of a detailed application for 300 affordable dwelling units that is now on site. Case Study 3 provides an update on activity at Dunbeg over the past 12 months where significant progress has been made toward delivery of 300 affordable houses with completion anticipated during 2022/23. 2020/21 saw the approval of a new masterplan for a designated Potential Development Area in Scalasaig, Colonsay to support community led aspirations spearheaded by the Colonsay Community Development Company in partnership with MOWI for social housing and economic development on the island. Approval of the masterplan facilitated a grant of planning permission for phase 1 of the development which will be onsite during 2022/23. 1.2.15 Throughout 2020/21 and 2021/22, the Development Management and Projects & Regeneration officers have participated in cross-service/agency working groups as part of the Council’s ongoing response to and recovery from the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. Notably this has included participation in the Town Centre Recovery working group including Council representatives from Regulatory Services, Roads, and Licencing, and external stakeholders including Transport Scotland, Police Scotland, and BIDS representatives. Co- ordination of activity with this group has also informed the Council’s approach to relaxation of planning controls during the emergency period, a pragmatic approach to planning input in the consideration of temporary licence applications, and proactive identification of public realm sites and management of demand for use of these locations. 1.2.16 Progression of pilot projects to deliver two Simplified Planning Zones (SPZs) have not been taken forward in 2021/22 as previously planned. Further investigation into flooding issues on the Lochgilphead site has cast doubt over viability of the intended development. The Mull site has been identified for delivery of housing for key workers and will now be taken forward as part of the Council’s Rural Growth Deal. 14 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 377
Page 378
Dunbeg Masterplan - Update 2022 Case Study 3 In PPF 8, PPF 9 and PPF 10 we provided an update on the implementation of the Dunbeg Masterplan, which focussed on the installation of essential infrastructure upgrades, and provided an overview of cross-service internal and external collaborative working arrangements that had been put in place to bring the project to fruition. The project is being delivered through a strategic partnership between Argyll and Bute Council and LINK Housing Association. The aim of the project was to provide a sympathetic extension to the existing settlement of Dunbeg and has taken a design-led approach in addressing the challenges presented by its rural location and coastal, moorland landscape to deliver a development with placemaking and connectivity firmly established in its foundation. To date 154 homes within Phases 3A-3D are completed and have been handed over to West Highland Housing Association. The delivery of the remaining 146 units are programmed to handed over in further phases between June 2022 and May 2023. The project has faced significant challenges with supply chains and workforce availability reflecting post-Covid impacts 15 Themes A: Quality of Outcomes B: Quality of Services & Engagement C: Governance D: Culture of Continuous Improvement Performance Markers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Key Areas of Work Design, Masterplanning, Affordable Housing, Collaborative Working, Housing Supply, Placemaking Stakeholders Argyll and Bute Council, Scottish Government, LINK Housing Project Lead David Moore / Matt Mulderrig Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 378
Page 379
at national and global levels. The innovative design and layout of the development is now clearly starting to emerge on the ground and the demand for housing for workers and students in the locality has been bolstered through further new developments in the immediate locality including further investment and growth at the adjacent European Marine Science Park, and ongoing work to expand the offering of the University of the Highlands and Islands Dunbeg campus. The Council will continue to work with key partners in the area to ensure that all sections of the housing market continue to meet demand as this is a key aim of the Council’s Rural Growth Deal. Beyond this phase the Council is now working in partnership with LINK to explore the delivery mechanisms for further phases of the Dunbeg Masterplan Particularly the Halfway House Roundabout on the A85 trunk road, and associated commercial area adjacent it, and following this provision of a further link road to facilitate another possible 300 houses. In the first instance the Council has committed £640k in Lorn Arc TIF funding to progress more detailed Site Investigation and Design Costs for the Half Way house roundabout. Proposal of Application Notices for Pre-Application Consultation have been submitted in advance of major planning applications for the further housing, commercial and infrastructure developments being progressed. Pre-application discussion has continued on the further submissions during 2021/22 and planning applications for these phases are expected later in 2022. The Council has reinstigated the Dunbeg Partnership which involves all key stakeholders and local community representatives to ensure that there is full engagement and sharing of information and views as the development of the masterplan moves forward. 16 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 379
Page 380
Bringing Empty Homes Back Into Use Case Study 4 17 Themes A: Quality of Outcomes B: Quality of Services & Engagement C: Governance D: Culture of Continuous Improvement Performance Markers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Key Areas of Work Collaborative Working, Interdisciplinary Working, Housing Supply, Regeneration Stakeholders Argyll and Bute Council, Home Energy Scotland, Property Owner Project Lead Matt Mulderrig / Kelly Ferns / Fiona Scott These original workers semi-detached cottage properties in the conversation village of Cullipool on Isle of Luing are rich in history and the village and have Listed Building status. Like other villages in the Slate Islands, Cullipool owes its existence and growth to the quarrying of the slate on which large parts of the islands are built. Quarrying lasted until 1965, probably the last commercial slate quarrying to take place anywhere in the Slate Islands. The property had been registered as empty since 2013 and had been sporadically used as a second home for the preceding decades. Originally two dwellings, the property was in poor condition and not fit for habitation. One side of the building had a roof covering of corrugated metal sheeting with the other side finished in natural slate. The internal layout of the building was not fit for modern living and required to be stripped back to the bare walls in order to allow comprehensive refurbishment. The owner’s grandson was looking acquire a property and unable to afford to buy in the area due to the high property prices and limited availability of houses on the market. They initially contacted the Empty Homes Officer of the Council to discuss trying to bring the building back into use. Through liaison to obtain advice and providing informed choices, this identified that the most realistic and affordable option for the young person to achieve their goal of being able to remain in the area would be to take on the ownership of the property and undertake renovation works to bring it back into use. Once ownership had been transferred, the biggest challenge for the new owner was how to reconfigure the property to in a sympathetic manner to suit modern day living, whilst retaining the character of the property and the village at the same time. An architect was appointed to help the Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Before Refurbishment After Refurbishment Page 380
Page 381
Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 18 owner make the best use of the existing floor plan and maximise the space to meet their needs. Plans were drawn up, an extensive refurbishment programme produced, quotes received and the process begun. The renovation costs were high, this was due to the extent of the works required, cost of materials, and labour which are inflated due to the Island location. However, it was determined that it still demonstrated best value for the owner. The Council was able to provide support with a £10k empty home grant; they qualified for a reduced VAT rate; and Home Energy Scotland provided financial assistance to install a renewable energy heat source. All of these support mechanisms made a significant difference to achieving an affordable and viable project. Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission were required and granted to conjoin the two dwellings, reconfigure the external porch/utility extension and for installation of an air source heat pump. The Building warrant also approved and following renovation works the completion certificate was issued December 2021. This has been a fantastic project that has saved the future of a listed building; provided a young first time buyer with an energy efficient and sustainable home; and supported the local economy and community. The property owner and occupier said: "In rural communities every house is an asset and should be lived in. I have been fortunate to renovate an empty property into my full-time home in Cullipool on the Isle of Luing. Like many rural areas, Luing faces an aging population and a big reason for this is a lack of appropriate housing for younger people and families. The process to bring an old house back to a habitable state was fairly daunting. I faced many obstacles and challenges throughout the process including finding a builder willing to take on the work. The house being situated in a Conservation Area added to the complexity of the project. The property required a total rebuild including a new roof. I did all the preparation work myself, stripping the house back and removing the old roof leaving only the 4 original walls. This helped to keep costs down before builders and joiners came to start the main renovation work. By renovating this house, I have managed to live in the community where I grew up; something which would have been very challenging if I didn’t renovate the property. Not only that but I have achieved a far bigger, better-quality home than I would have been able to afford on the local market. Although a lot more work, it is a very satisfying process to take an empty property and make it into a full-time home once again." Page 381
Page 382
1.3 GOVERNANCE 1.3.1 Development Management and Development Policy items are reported to the centralised Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee which meets monthly (except for July) and convenes for site visits and discretionary Local Hearings as required. The PPSL Committee met on 14 occasions during 2021/22. Local Review Bodies operate flexibly to demand with 19 LRB meetings convened during 2021/22. PPSL continued to operate in a virtual format during 2021/22 and continued to facilitate public access to meetings; the successful transition to a virtual format for PPSL meetings has also facilitated 4 applications requiring discretionary pre-determination hearings to be concluded. The Council has embraced the use of virtual meetings for committees and discretionary hearings, and whilst some concerns have been raised about the prospect of digital exclusion, experience to date would indicate that conducting Committee business online provides additional opportunities for participation, particularly for populations located in remoter mainland, and island locations. The Full Council decided in 2021/22 to augment this position with improved functionality, scope for hybrid meeting formats, and functionality for live streaming/broadcasting of Council meetings through recent approval of a roll out of MS Teams to replace Skype from August 2021. 1.3.2 The Council’s Scheme of Delegation to officers was reviewed by Full Council and updated in September 2021. The scheme of delegation continues to operate effectively with 97.7% of decisions being made under delegated powers in 2020/21. During this period 98.0% of applications were approved demonstrating the effectiveness of a plan-led system, flexible/pro- development policies which are aligned to the corporate priority of sustainable economic growth, and a commitment to delivering positive outcomes. 1.3.3 Argyll and Bute Council’s Planning Service continues to face significant budget pressures due to the requirement for delivery of savings across all Council services. The last few years have seen a downsizing of staff resource, redesign of service delivery arrangements, and introduction of a chargeable pre-application enquiry service within the Development Management Service that have cumulatively delivered budget savings of £405,000. The Development Policy team have also downsized their staff resource following retirements of experienced officers during 2019/20 and a requirement to deliver £46,000 savings in 2020/21. The Development Management Service was also under extraordinary financial pressure arising from the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic due to a significant downturn in planning application fee receipts continuing during 2021/22. The financial outcome was however a significant improvement on 2020/21 although planning fees still only amounted to 82% of pre-Covid income forecasts. The Council was however pleased to hear the Scottish Government’s during late 2021/22 that a delayed reform of planning fees would be implemented from 1st April 2022 and is expected to go some way to addressing the concerns previously raised by the Council in its input to the Costing the Planning Service in Scotland project (as reported in PPF 8) which highlighted that fees associated with householder and local applications are insufficient to deliver a cost neutral position without an unsustainable reliance on a small number of high value major applications to subsidise the delivery of the Council’s Development Management function. Budgets and efficiency measures are considered at management meetings at all levels with updates provided regularly to the Executive Director and elected Policy Lead. Participation in the Costing the Planning Service in Scotland project, as detailed in PPF 8, has confirmed that the cost efficiency of Argyll and Bute’s Planning Service compares favourably with that of other Local Authorities and has provided additional insight to assist with budget planning for future years. The outcomes of this project were reported to the Council’s PPSL Committee in June 2019. Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 19 Page 382
Page 383
1.3.4 Planning Enforcement is currently delivered by two dedicated Enforcement Officers based in Lochgilphead and Oban covering the West of Argyll and Bute with the undertaking of enforcement duties now being combined with Development Management casework in the East of the Council area. Enforcement is delivered on a priority basis which is set out in the Enforcement and Monitoring Charter which was reviewed, updated and approved in March 2022. The Council also published an addendum to the Charter in November 2020 which remains in force until 30th September 2022 clarifying the manner in which unauthorised development arising from a necessary response / unavoidable impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic will be addressed in the planning enforcement process. The temporary relaxation of planning enforcement in relation to town centre recovery from Covid-19 was adopted as a Position Statement in July 2020 under emergency powers, these provisions have subsequently been extended up until 30th September 2022 following involvement of elected members. 1.3.5 The Planning Service continue to engage with key partners to facilitate a number of significant strategic development investments in and around Oban. These include Dunbeg, SAMS and the European Marine Science Park, Saulmore Golf and Marina Development, and Oban Airport Business Park. However there is a need to prioritise co-ordination and planning of long term strategic growth in the Ona area through development and production of the Oban Strategic Development Framework. This will be prioritised and progressed as and when resources are available. 1.3.6 Changes to the Council’s corporate structure in 2019 included the functions provided by Planning and Regulatory Services, and the Economic Development Service being brought under a single Head of Service which is now titled Development & Economic Growth. Whilst the corporate restructure was primarily intended to deliver budget savings the new service structure provides closer alignment and co-ordination of the Council’s regulatory functions, including Development Management, with the Council’s plan making, business support, and project delivery activities. Increasing reliance on virtual working has had the benefit of providing improved opportunities for collaboration and partnership working across Council services with virtual project teams capable of being readily assembled without the need for extensive travel and time demands. Examples of this approach include Rural Growth Deal Working Groups, the Council’s Climate Change Board, and the Care Homes and Housing Programme Board which bring together stakeholders from across a number of Council Services and other key external agencies. 1.3.7 The Planning Service continues to engage with other Council Services through Area Property Action Groups (APAGs). This award winning approach and some of its successful, high quality outcomes have been highlighted within previous PPFs, and examples of this innovative, inter-disciplinary approach to problem solving have been highlighted in PPF 8. 1.3.8 The Council continues to explore the delivery of shared services with other authorities. During 2021/22 the Planning Service has re-instigated shared service delivery of Conservation and Design advice to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, and has delivered a small amount of charged Biodiversity consultancy. Collaboration with neighbouring authorities also remains ongoing and during 2021/22 this has included case officer discussion with the LLTNP on the administration of cross-boundary applications. 1.3.9 The Development Management Service continues to seek to review and refine existing processes to deliver efficiency savings and improve performance and outcomes for customers. During 2018/19 the Development Management Service invested and delivered an upgrade of Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 20 Page 383
Page 384
Public Access improving stability of this customer engagement tool and allowing greater scope to improve the customer experience. The Service also invested in the purchase of IDOX Enterprise for Uniform during 2018/19 and undertook initial development work during 2019/20 however the development and roll out of Enterprise, which will implement improved workflow processes and performance management, was postponed during 2020/21 due resource implications arising from the Covid-19 pandemic. During 2021/22 a project has been implemented to replace the existing Document Management System (DMS) to deliver improved functionality for both officers, stakeholders and the public; Planning and Regulatory Services have engaged with the Council’s ICT Service to implement a project managed approach to development, implementation and roll out across three Council Services which is programmed for completion in 2022/23. Initial implementation of Enterprise is now scheduled alongside completion of the DMS project during 2022/23. As previously reported in PPF 10, the Covid-19 pandemic has enforced a requirement to adapt to restrictions on travel and social distancing and has expedited the adoption of online working practices, including online validation and e-decision notices, which will be retained in the long term. 1.3.10 All professional staff within Planning Services are provided with laptops to facilitate their ability to travel efficiently and work flexibly across the Council area. The Development Management Service has invested in tablets which were deployed during 2020/21 to allow use of e-documents as a replacement for hard copy planning application documentation used for examination of plans outwith the office environment, and recording site visit activity. The Council’s longer term investment in ICT that supports flexible working arrangements was crucial to our reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic and allowed the majority of Planning Services staff to seamlessly move to home working. Services providing frontline contact services now largely continue to continue to provide a primarily virtual service although face to face engagement has resumed where required. In some instances this has involved the delivery of new solutions such as the utilisation of Health Service Near Me portal by the Council’s Housing Service to deliver virtual face to face interviews with clients, and the further dissemination of smart phones. 1.3.11 Customer appetite for Processing Agreements remains indifferent. The Development Management Service did not determine any applications with a Processing Agreement during 2021/22 despite engaging with all applicants for Major development. Information on the availability of Processing Agreements is available on the Council’s website, is highlighted in all pre-application reports, and has previously been promoted in User Forums. 1.3.12 Argyll and Bute Council has a corporate complaints process; customer information is provided on the Council website and in customer Charters. All complaints are subject to performance reporting and ‘Stage 2’ complaints require review by senior management with the option to seek further review by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) where customers are not satisfied with the outcome. 1.3.13 Legacy cases (applications which have been valid for more than 12 months) are reviewed regularly as part of caseload management however the resource required to undertake this has been reduced due to reduced staffing capacity. Ordinarily, caseload reviews on longstanding applications is undertaken weekly/biweekly at team level and monthly with involvement of a senior manager. During 2020/21, 27 legacy applications were concluded representing an improvement on the previous period. Unfortunately the continuing impact of the Covid-19 pandemic upon workflows/staff absence and difficulty in recruiting to vacant posts has reduced the capacity of the Development Management Service to determining planning Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 21 Page 384
Page 385
applications has resulted in 35 new legacy cases (64 legacy cases in total) remaining undetermined as of 31st March 2022. Ordinarily legacy cases are subject to regular review by the DM Management team and targeted for conclusion; however during 2021/22 a long term vacancy at Team Leader level and the impact that this has had on the wider DM Management team has precluded this activity, it is however intended to reintroduce this activity once resources allow. 1.3.14 Applications which are to be subject to planning legal agreements are flagged up on lists of undetermined applications to ensure that the progress can be reviewed on a regular basis, it is noted that a requirement to operate with long-term vacancies has reduced resources and availability of staff to undertake this activity. The average time period for processing applications with legal agreements increased from 15.5 weeks to 33.6 weeks during 2021/22. Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 22 Development Management Response to Covid-19 - Update Case Study 5 Themes A: Quality of Outcomes B: Quality of Services & Engagement C: Governance D: Culture of Continuous Improvement Performance Markers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Key Areas of Work Development Management Processes, Performance Management, Process Improvement, Staff Training, Online Systems, Interdisciplinary Working Stakeholders ABC Development Management, IT, Legal and Governance Project Lead Peter Bain In PPF 10 Case Study 6 we provided an overview of the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic upon the delivery of Development Management. Whilst many of the most serious impacts and re- strictions associated with the pandemic have now receded they did continue to have a significant direct and indirect effects during 2021/22 on the manner in which the Council delivered Develop- ment Management, including the availability and deployment of staff resources, the management of workflow, and the manner in which we engaged customers. This Case Study seeks to provide a summary of those ongoing impacts and arrangements. Continuity of Critical Business: Processes and procedures implemented to recover critical business during April/May 2020 which saw the closure of Council offices, the implementation of home working, a move to paperless sys- tems, and the use of online meetings as an alternative to face to face engagement continued throughout 2021/22. Whilst the circumstances of the pandemic and Scottish Government guid- ance that necessitated the evolution of working arrangements have since been rescinded the Council has identified that future working arrangements will involve be a hybrid mixing a require- ment of office and virtual attendance and has accordingly embarked on a programme to rational- ise its office estate and seek to provide working arrangements which meet future requirements. In Page 385
Page 386
Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 the short-term this has resulted in the continued closure of Council offices across Argyll and Bute with limited re-opening to the public and staff being encouraged to remain home working where possible. Longer Term Impacts: Workflow: We reported last year that during 2020/21 the pandemic had a significant impact upon the timing of new submissions throughout the year, and that travel restrictions precluded our abil- ity to determine a number of applications that were already in the system. April and May 2021 saw a continuation of the rebound effect experienced at the end of the previous financial year with excess demand overwhelming the capacity of the Central Validation Team to register and review the competency of applications. This position was also exacerbated by an apparent re- duction in the quality/competency of submissions as developers sought to progress delayed de- velopments. The time taken to review new submissions increased from 5 working days at the end of 2020/21 to around 20 working days in early 2021/22 and despite hiring an additional staff member and authorising overtime to increase the capacity this has only been sufficient to main- tain that level of performance in light of increased absence (both Covid and non-Covid), a phased retirement, a continuing high volume of substandard submissions which require to be re- viewed multiple times, and increased demand for customer contact. Delays at validation stage have also had a knock on effect on the overall time period to determine applications. The availa- bility of a professional resource to assess and determine applications has also been significantly impacted during 2021/22, in part by an increase in Covid and stress related absence within the wider team over this period, and also as a result of the loss of number of experienced staff mem- bers and difficulties in recruiting replacements which has seen the team operate at only 75-80% staffing levels for extended periods of time. Workflow pressures in the management of statutory activities has largely been addressed by downgrading the priority of non-statutory activities and in seeking to ensure that available re- sources are targeted toward the validation and determination of priority cases where the project will deliver significant employment or affordable housing, and where there are either fixed dead- lines, funding cut-offs, or health issues that would be impacted by a delay to determination. This has included reducing/removing resource allocated to service improvement activities, longer time periods for responding to pre-application enquiries and has also impacted upon our ability to de- liver on planning enforcement. This latter element, coupled with enforcement relaxations in town centres, continues to give rise to an ‘enforcement deficit’ that will not only require additional re- source in the future to address but is evident in increasing customer dissatisfaction where the Council’s enforcement response does not meet ‘normal’ expectations; a similar rise in complaints relating to the time taken to determine planning applications is also becoming evident. Customer Communication: The Development Management Service continues to provide ‘live’ service updates online, newsletter/e-mail updates to regular customers, and e-mail updates to individual applicants. The Senior Management Team are kept updated on issues affecting ser- vice delivery arrangements and have in turn been supportive where customers have been un- happy to be advised that ‘normal’ expectations on service delivery cannot be met. It is however acknowledged that during 2021/22 there has been an increase in customer dissatisfaction due to more frequent breakdowns in communication at case officer level which has proven difficult to address due to the significant caseload pressures that officers are working under, the changing mood and reducing acceptance of customers in a post-pandemic situation, and continuing diffi- 23 Page 386
Page 387
Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 culties with recruitment which required the Service to operate without a full quota of profes- sional staff over extended time periods. Finances: 2021/22 saw an improving financial position however whilst submission rates re- turned to and exceeded pre-pandemic levels there was still a general lack of larger scale, high fee value projects entering the system during this period and the end result was the fee receipts were still 19% under recovered for this period (which was offset by Covid funding) but nonethe- less restricted the ability of the Service to respond to workflow issues and precluded any longer- term commitment to increase staff resource in response to the emerging trend of increasing case work volumes. Home working: The Council’s previous investment in technology that supported flexible working arrangements, and the resilience of its ICT infrastructure was fundamental to the success of the Development Management Service in being able to resume activity in an almost seamless man- ner. The enforced requirement for home working demonstrated that this is a viable option for staff and managers to consider as part of future service delivery arrangements with benefits of in- creased flexibility for staff, and greater potential to attract suitably qualified professional staff, par- ticularly for work in more remote areas. There are also potential financial benefits for the Council if it is able to rationalise its office estate. The Development Management Service has engaged in corporate workstreams that are not simply looking to manage the return to office working but will seek to modernise the Council’s working arrangements on a more permanent basis with options for office / hybrid / home working arrangements. Extended periods of home working has contin- ued to have a number of adverse consequences during 2021/22 particularly with the manage- ment of communications and staff morale. Arrangements have been made to allow staff who had become isolated at home access to the office however efforts to revive physical and social inter- action of staff have also seen incidents of subsequent Covid absence which suggests caution still requires to be exercised in encouraging staff to meet face to face. Home working still gives rise to difficulties in managing, training and motivating individuals and their performance. The Devel- opment Management Service has utilised MS Teams to create new channels for communication and sharing of information particularly for training and reference purposes, and has continuing to work on the development of a new workflow system which when introduced in 2022/23 will pro- vide individuals and managers with better tools to effectively and efficiently organise and manage their workload and review performance both at team and individual level. Performance: Difficulties in recruitment, increased staff absence, significant delays at validation interruption of workflow, and reduced efficiency of some ad-hoc electronic processes continues to significantly impact upon the ability of the Development Management Service to determine ap- plications efficiently. The average time taken for determination of local (non-householder) sub- missions had increased by just over 1 week since 2021/22 and the volume of undetermined ap- plications which is evident in an increase in ‘legacy’ applications is continuing to place the Devel- opment Management Service under considerable strain going into 2022/23 and will only be re- solved once the Service is able to return to full staffing levels following recruitment to current va- cancies. The Scottish Government’s announcement in March 2022 that planning fees would be increased for 2022/23 has been welcomed by the Council; however the lack of notice has pre- cluded any expectation of additional income to be factored into the budget planning process and will resultantly cause some delay in being able to secure elected member commitment on how much of this can be reinvested back into the Development Management Service particularly giv- en that there is evidence to suggest that a significant increase in ‘major’ applications and com- plex S36/S37 consultation case work will be received in the upcoming period. 24 Page 387
Page 388
1.4 CULTURE OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT 1.4.1 During 2021/22 the Planning Service delivered and progressed on a range of Improvement Actions identified in PPF 10. An overview of progress is set out in Part 3 of this document. 1.4.2 The Council continues to benchmark its performance on the determination of planning applications against the National average and the performance of other rural local authorities. 1.4.3 Internally, team meetings are held on a regular basis. The Executive Director attends fortnightly Strategic Management Team meetings. The Head of Development & Economic Growth attends the fortnightly Departmental Management Team meeting and monthly meetings of the Strategic Management Team, provides a regular update to Policy Leads, and holds his own Service meetings on a regular basis; a Service level e-Development group is also convened quarterly. Service level management teams also meet regularly/quarterly; within Development Management area teams also meet weekly to assign casework, and review caseload performance. 1.4.4 In January 2022 the Council replaced a corporate requirement for all staff to prepare an annual Performance Review and Development plan (PRD). The new approach seeks to recognise that an annual PRD meeting was not always the best way to approach performance and career conversations and instead now recognises that conversations about objectives, behaviours, skills and development form part of an ongoing regular dialogue between employees and line managers although this will be supported by corporate activity monitoring outcomes in an annual survey of employers and managers. 1.4.5 Since 2014, the Planning Service has delivered a series of short training events for elected Members which are intended to improve their breadth of knowledge and competence in the undertaking of planning decisions. These are normally undertaken in bite size sessions in the hour prior to a meeting of the PPSL Committee but have also previously included half day workshops and site visits. Training during 2019/20 included Competent Motions, Aquaculture Development, Oban Strategic Development Framework, Landscape Character Assessment, Low Carbon Technology, Food Growing Strategy, and an update on the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. Training sessions have recommenced in April 2021 and the training programme for 2021/22 included information on the impact of Covid-19 on the delivery of planning services, a presentation from the Planning & Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA), planning enforcement, a presentation from SEPA on their role as a statutory consultee, placemaking, archaeology and planning, material considerations, access issues, energy efficiency and the historic environment, and landscape and visual impact assessment. The Planning Service have also delivered in house training in May/June 2022 to provide members of the PPSL Committee with an overview of the planning system and processes in which they are required to participate. 1.4.6 The Annual Planning Conference was held in March 2022 both at Helensburgh Civic Centre and online as a hybrid event. This was an important opportunity for many members of staff to meet face to face for the first time since the pandemic began. Not only that, but it was also a first chance to deliver a fully hybrid conference where both attendees and presenters utilised a mix of in person and virtual attendance. This allowed the opportunity to explore the technical capabilities of hardware/software and the challenges of delivering this type of event and will be a crucial learning event in the development of strategies for future public engagements. The conference was open to professional staff across the Council who engage in or with the planning process; the conference is promoted as a CPD event to staff in addition to an opportunity to recognise and promote collaborative working not only across the Council but also 25 Page 388
Page 389
with other key stakeholders. The March 2022 event included presentations from SEPA and a private sector outlook on the housing market from Taylor Wimpey. Previous conferences have included presentations from the external partners including Nature.Scot, Historic Environment Scotland, and SEPA. Presentations have also been received from the Council’s Housing, Economic Growth, and Roads Services, in addition to the Local Biodiversity Officer, Marine and Coastal Development Officer, and GIS Manager covering a range of topics including delivery of affordable housing, homelessness, SuDS, flooding and coastal erosion, Appropriate Assessments, Construction Environmental Management Plans, the Clyde Regional Marine Plan, and availability of new GIS services. The annual conference is a successful platform for exchanging ideas, working practices and knowledge between different Council Services and key stakeholders, and for fostering smarter, more efficient ways of working. 1.4.7 Planning Services representatives regularly attend meetings of Heads of Planning Scotland (inc. DM and DP subgroups), Scottish Planning Enforcement Forum, the Local Authority Aquaculture Forum, Clyde Marine Planning Partnership, West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and the e-Development/Digital Taskforce and have continued to do so during the Covid-19 pandemic as the majority of these moved to virtual forums. During 2021/22 the Development Management Service has continued to have quarterly meetings with Highland’s and Islands Enterprise, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, and Forestry Scotland to discuss upcoming projects, and to identify and prioritise resource for submission and determination of applications. Whilst it is recognised that there is a downside to the removal of face to face contact there is a significant time and cost saving for authorities like Argyll and Bute through removal/ reduction in the significant travel requirements. 1.4.8 In addition to benchmarking performance, the Planning Service also seeks to engage directly with other local authorities to share best practice and develop new ways of working. During 2019/20 officers visited Dumfries and Galloway Council, and Glasgow City Council to learn from their experience in the development and roll out of bespoke IDOX Enterprise workflow systems; and more recently have engaged more widely with other rural local authorities on reviewing and updating procedures for handling Prior Notification/Prior Approval submissions, have provided advice to North Ayrshire Council and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park to assist with their handling of aquaculture submissions/cross boundary applications. 1.4.9 Work to review and improve the rate of applications which are valid upon receipt is currently on hold due a lack of staff resource to progress this workstream. Officers have however continued to participate in a review of the Scottish National Validation Standards that is being undertaken by the Heads of Planning Scotland. The Development Management Service previously hosted a visit from Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority in 2019/20 to compare arrangements, experience, and resources for the validation of planning applications. During 2020/21, the closure of Council offices required the rapid development and implementation of new process to facilitate home working in the validation process; limited office presence has however been maintained to manage incoming/outgoing hardcopy mail (including issue of neighbour notifications), and for the conversion of hardcopy submissions into electronic workflow upon receipt. The increase in substandard submissions appears to be a continuing trend and the percentage of applications valid upon receipt has declined further to 18%. Abnormal workflows, particularly the glut of submissions in FQ4 2020/21 generated a backlog of case work which continues to impact significantly upon the capacity of the centralised validation service to meet performance targets of a 5 day turnaround for reviewing submissions and validation checks are currently taking significantly longer to complete despite the provision of 26 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 389
Page 390
additional staff resource and use of overtime. 1.4.10 The Planning Service have engaged with Scottish Government consultations, in particular during 2021/22 to the consultations on Local Place Plan Regulations, Short Term Lets, Onshore Wind Policy Statement, Local Development Planning Regulations and Guidance, Open Space Strategies, Draft Heat Networks Delivery Plan, Marine Litter Strategy, A New Deal for Tenants and NPF4. We have also engaged with the Independent review of the Current Regulatory Framework for Aquaculture with consultations by other National agencies including SEPA’s Proposals for a Risk-Based Framework for Managing Interaction Between Sea-Lice and Wild Atlantic Salmon, and with the Improvement Service on 20 Minute Neighbourhoods in Rural and Island Areas. 1.4.11 In March 2020 the Planning, Protective Services and Licencing Committee approved the Lochgilphead Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan as non-statutory technical planning guidance. We also reported in PPF 9 that draft Appraisals and Management Plans for the Tarbert, and Helensburgh Town Centre Conservation Areas had been prepared for progression in 2020/21. Public engagement on these items has been postponed in light of restrictions arising from Covid-19 and a reduced staff resource due to maternity leave during the reporting period but will be reviewed when resources become available. 1.4.12 Aquaculture is an area of planning that relatively few authorities have expertise in. Argyll and Bute is one of five Scottish Local Authorities that deal with the majority of fin fish planning applications. The aquaculture industry is currently seeking to expand into new locations across Scotland to meet national growth targets. In PPF 8 we reported that we had provided assistance to colleagues in North Ayrshire Council and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park following receipt of EIA Screening and Scoping requests for aquaculture development within their respective areas and informal support has continued to be provided during 2021/22 as these projects progressed to formal applications. In 2020/21 Argyll and Bute took up the role of Chair within Local Authority Aquaculture-working group, an online event was held last year however a resumption of the group as a physical meeting with site visit learning opportunities is scheduled for September 2022. Officers also continue to participate in the Fish Welfare Multiagency group which is hosted by the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and includes Marine Scotland, SEPA, and Local Authority representatives from both a planning and animal welfare perspective. 1.4.13 We reported in PPF 8 and PPF 9 of investment in updated software/systems to deliver a more resilient Public Access service resulting in the availability of the Public Access system rising to 99.9% for the second half of 2018/19. Whilst issues with the day to day resilience of this service have been addressed there is now a focus on delivering improvements to the usability of the Public Access System. It has been identified that delivery of the desired improvements are very much dependent on providing improved compatibility with back office Document Management Systems (DMS) and accordingly work has been progressed with IT, Building Standards and Regulatory Services a project has been planned and initiated during 2021/22 to move to the IDOX DMS that will enable improvements to Public Access but also to the functionality of other existing back office workflow systems across a range of Council services. The project is due for completion in 2022/23. 1.4.14 Internal processes for handling pre-applications and the management of e-mail correspondence and file attachments were subject to review and updating throughout 2019/20 having regard to the implications of GDPR with updated data retention policies, procedure notes 27 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 390
Page 391
for staff and training sessions delivered, and deletion of data/documents that no longer required be held from systems was undertaken during 2020/21. Enforced homeworking arrangements implemented in response to Covid-19 restrictions have resulted in new workflow processes that remove/minimise the requirement for hardcopy process in mail handling, issuing of decision being expedited in their development in order to allow the planning process to continue operating during ’lockdown’, a lack of staff resource has however to date precluded the further development of a number of temporary processes put in place. 1.4.15 We reported in PPF 8 that the Planning Service has successfully attained Customer Service Excellence Standard during 2018/19. Retention of CSE accreditation requires continued engagement with customers to develop and inform the ways in which we deliver our services in the future and the standards to which we deliver them. The reaccreditation assessment was held in March 2021 as a virtual event and re-accreditation was confirmed in early April 2021 The assessment included a specific focus on how Planning and Regulatory Services had reacted to the Covid-19 pandemic and maintained customer service levels despite the limitations imposed by home working, contact and travel restrictions during this period. 1.4.16 The online and mobile capabilities of the Council’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) continue to be developed saving officer time and providing customers with quicker access to information. In PPF 9 we reported that the GIS team developed the ‘story map’ for the proposed LDP 2 public consultation, and enhanced the photographic data layer in the online map based footpath guide to include key view points from an increasing number of paths. The GIS team also played a valuable role in the Council’s response planning to the Covid-19 pandemic and have assisted with a great many of the planning and logistical challenges that have arisen. During 2021/22 the team have continued work to enhance the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) with enhanced GIS functionality which is now being used to facilitate easier and earlier identification of impediments to development within the SHIP programme. The GIS team has developed a GIS based Storymap which allows spatial analysis of all RSL stock, new builds, ongoing and future development sites. This is an invaluable input to updating and planning the annual SHIP. As this is further developed it will also be launched online. Going forwards the service is seeking to replicate this for all housing tenures in order to further inform our understanding and analysis of the housing market within Argyll and Bute. 1.4.17 Engagement with Forestry Scotland was initiated during 2020/21 on a review of the effectiveness of consultation with the Council on proposals for new plantations, forest accesses, and long term forest plans. This workstream has however been put on hold during 2021/22 due to a lack of resources. Once completed it is expected to deliver a streamlined consultation process with improved quality of consultation response that is tailored to meet the requirements of Forestry Scotland officers in their assessment of planning proposals. The publication of technical note on Upland Hill Tracks has been progressed and was intended to be completed for publication concurrently with completion of this workstream but has been placed on hold indefinitely following announcement by the Scottish Government in November 2019 that related ’permitted development rights’ would be subject to an upcoming review. 1.4.18 The Planning Service has engaged with consultation on both planning controls and licencing for short-term letting, and form part of the Council’s working group involving Legal, Regulatory Services, Housing and external stakeholders which will initially seek to implement a licencing scheme from 1st October 2022 and then consider the requirement for planning control areas in the medium to longer-term. In the short term it has been identified that, in the absence of national guidance, local advice requires to be provided by the Council for both officers and the public on planning requirements for short-term lets outwith control areas. 28 Page 391
Page 392
CCDC Masterplan for Scalasaig Case Study 6 29 Themes A: Quality of Outcomes B: Quality of Services & Engagement C: Governance D: Culture of Continuous Improvement Performance Markers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Key Areas of Work Interdisciplinary Working, Collaborative Working, Masterplanning, Housing Supply, Affordable Housing Stakeholders Argyll and Bute Council, Colonsay Community Development Company, Communities Housing Trust, Scottish Land Fund, HIE, MOWI Project Lead David Love / Peter Bain Colonsay Community Development Company (CCDC) has identified that a significant proportion of the housing stock on the Island is utilised as second homes or for self-catering holiday accommodation and as a consequence young people and families who wish to stay or relocate to Colonsay are priced out of the local property market. Like many other rural and island communities, the resident population of Colonsay has decreased significantly with a consequent impact on the availability of working age residents and young people threatening the sustainability of life line services and community facilities. It is nearly twenty years since the last affordable housing development on Colonsay, however CCDC has been working efforts to deliver affordable homes to both retain existing islanders and to attract new residents. The establishment of a new marine fish farm off of the north-east coast of Colonsay by MOWI further highlighted the lack of availability of accommodation on the island to support employment and inward investment. A fish farm creates jobs for local people living on the island and can also attract new people or enable people to return; however a fish farm is not viable without housing for its employees. Argyll and Bute Council had recognised the demand to deliver new housing on Colonsay through the identification a Potential Development Area (PDA 8/1), originally in the 2009 LDP, and retained this in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. The PDA is intended to deliver low to medium density housing including provision of an affordable housing component of at least 25% of the overall development. Whilst the identified site offered the prospect of consolidating new housing around existing infrastructure within the settlement of Scalasaig the LDP also highlighted a number of constraints relating to the historic and natural environment, and sewage infrastructure that would require to be addressed and promoted a masterplanned approach as a means of delivering development of the site. Guidance on the masterplan process has been published as a Technical Note. Page 392
Page 393
Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 In April 2020, CCDC secured community ownership of two sites in Scalasaig with funding from the Scottish Land Fund, Highlands & Islands Enterprise, Argyll and Bute Council, and MOWI. One site relates to the PDA and is intended to deliver affordable housing within a development of up to 24 units. The second site will be used to develop new commercial units and workshop space. Early engagement between CCDC and the Development Management and Development Policy teams facilitated the submission of both a masterplan for the PDA and a planning application for the first phase of the development by January 2021. The submissions were assessed concurrently and positively determined at the April meeting of the Council’s Planning Protective Services and Licencing (PPSL) Committee. The Masterplanning process provided a means of addressing biodiversity issues relating to Corncrake habitat and ensuring protection for the setting of two category B listed buildings within the wider proposals for development as well as ensuring that infrastructure proposals for the site were appropriate to deliver longer-term aspirations for development, and as a means of providing a degree of flexibility to the boundaries of the site as originally defined in the LDP to be adapted as further information on ground conditions and their suitability for development was provided. The first phase of the development will deliver 12 residential units, 6 will be retained by CCDC to provide affordable housing to address the requirements of both resident and incoming population, 3 units will be offered as self-build plots, and the remaining 3 units have been consented as Houses in Multiple Occupation which will be leased to MOWI to provide accommodation for their employees on the island. In the event that MOWI’s requirement for accommodation decreases then these properties would revert to CCDC and be made available to address housing need at that time. The first phase of the development is onsite during 2022/23 and the quick turnaround demonstrates the benefits of a Masterplanning as tool to refine LDP aspirations in addition to the effectiveness of early engagement and the ability of the Planning Service to prioritise resources to support rural communities. 30 Page 393
Page 394
Supporting Evidence & Performance Markers Part 2: Wherever possible weblinks have been provided within the body text of the report. This report was compiled drawing on evidence from a variety of sources including: Argyll and Bute Outcome Improvement Plan 2013- 2023 Argyll and Bute - Economic Development Action Plan 2016 - 2021 Argyll and Bute—Renewable Energy Action Plan Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 Development Plan Scheme March 2022 Argyll and Bute - Main Issues Report 2017 Argyll and Bute Council Website Argyll and Bute Council Monitoring and Enforce- ment Charter March 2022 & Covid-19 Addendum Argyll and Bute Council Planning Performance Framework Online Publication/Archive Argyll and Bute Council, PPSL Committee Minutes Argyll and Bute Council Scheme of Administration and Delegation Argyll and Bute Council, Development & Economic Growth Service Plan 2020-23 Argyll and Bute Housing Land Audit 2021 A range of committee reports Customer feedback Reports from IDOX Uniform Scottish Government Statistical Returns 31 Case Study Topics Issue cov- ered by Case Study No. Case Study Topics Issue cov- ered by Case Study No. Case Study Topics Issue cov- ered by Case Study No. Design 3 Economic Develop- ment Performance Monitoring 5 Conservation 1 Enforcement 5 Process Improvement 5 Regeneration 1 Development Manage- ment Processes 5 Project Management Environment 2 Planning Applications 2, 5 Skills Sharing Greenspace Interdisciplinary Work- ing 1, 2, 4 Staff Training 5 Town Centres 1 Collaborative Working 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Online Systems 5 Masterplanning 3 Community Engage- ment 1 Transport LDP & Supplementary Guidance 6 Placemaking 3 Active Travel Housing Supply 3, 6 Charrettes Other: Affordable Housing 3, 6 Place Standard Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 394
Page 395
32 PERFORMANCE MARKERS REPORT 202/21 PERFORMANCE MARKER EVIDENCE / COMMENTS 1. Decision-making: Authorities demonstrating continuous evidence of reducing average timescales for all development types. Part 4—Table B & Part 5—Table A. Contextual commentary setting out factors affecting performance on decision-making are set out under Part 5 C and also within Case Study 5. 2. Project management: Offer of processing agreements (or other agreed project plan) made to prospective applicants in all major applications and availability publicised on planning authority website. Part 1—1.3.11 Processing Agreements for major and ‘locally significant’ developments are promoted through pre-application discussion, user forums and online. Argyll and Bute Council - Processing Agreements 3. Early Collaboration with applicants and consultees on planning applications: Availability and promotion of pre- application discussion for all prospective applications. Clear and proportionate requests for supporting information. Part 1—1.2.12 Case Studies 2, 3, 4 & 6, & Part 4 - Table B The Development Management Service provides a pre-application advice service. This is promoted on the Council website, through user forums, and by officers when engaged by prospective applicants. Pre-application assessment of proposals seeks to identify all relevant issues which will be material to the determination of a subsequent application, and will involve engagement with consultees where appropriate. The report template issued to applicants was revised during 17/18 to include a dedicated section identifying the requirement for supporting information - this list is populated following a review of relevant planning constraints and the advice of consultees (including other Council Services) to ensure that any request for further information is specific and proportionate to the development proposed. Where applicants do not engage at pre- application stage a similar approach is undertaken to identify issues and any requirement for further information at an early stage in the handling of the application. Applications are validated against the National Validation Standard published by HoPS to ensure that submissions and requirements for supporting information are quality checked on a consistent basis. This document is also promoted and published on the Council website to assist applicants in the preparation of their application. During 2021/22 updated guidance on the submission and processing of applications under S64 of the Act was prepared and published. 4. Legal agreements: Conclude (or reconsider) applications within 6 months of ‘resolving to grant’. Part 1—1.3.14 & Part 5—Table A Applications subject to legal agreements were determined with an average time period of 30.3 weeks during 2021/22. Applications requiring a legal agreement are reviewed regularly and are highlighted on officers outstanding items case lists. Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 395
Page 396
33 PERFORMANCE MARKER EVIDENCE / COMMENTS 5. Enforcement charter: updated / republished. Part 1—1.3.4 Part 4—Table C, Case Study 5 The Planning Enforcement and Monitoring Charter was been reviewed and updated in March 2022. During 2020/21 this was augmented by a Position Statement on the temporary relaxation of planning control within town centres, and an addendum to the Charter covering more general Covid-19 related issues which remain in place until 30th September 2022. 6. Continuous improvement: Show progress/improvement in relation to PPF National Headline Indicators; Progress ambitious and relevant service improvement commitments identified through PPF report. Part 4—Tables A, B, C & Context D, Case Study 5. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and a lack of availability of planning professionals has had a significant adverse effect upon performance of decision- making timescales during 2021/22. Part 3 details previous and committed Service Improvements. Contextual commentary on delivery/identification of improvements is included within: Part 1—1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.2.2, 1.2.4, 1.2.15, 1.3.9, 1.3.11, 1.3.13, 1.3.14, 1.4.9, 1.4.11, 1.4.13, 1.4.15, 1.4.17 and Part 5 Table A 7. Local Development Plan: Less than 5 years from adoption. The Local Development Plan was adopted in 2015. Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 8. Development plan scheme: Demonstrates next LDP On course for adoption within 5 year cycle. Project planned and expected to be delivered to planned timescale. LDP2 is project planned with careful management and reporting of any adjustments, LDP 2 is currently at Examination stage and is currently scheduled for adoption in 2023. Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan Scheme March 2022 9. Elected members engaged early (pre– MIR) in development plan preparation: if plan has been at pre -MIR stage during reporting year. N/a 10. Cross sector stakeholders, including industry, Agencies and Scottish Government, engaged early (pre-MIR) in development plan preparation - if plan has been at pre -MIR stage during reporting year. N/a Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 396
Page 397
34 PERFORMANCE MARKER EVIDENCE / COMMENTS 11. Production of regular and proportionate policy, advice, for example through supplementary guidance, on information required to support applications. The Make a Planning Application section of the Council website provides applicants with information that they need to consider before making an application. Argyll and Bute - Planning Application Info The Central Validation Team contributed to the development of and have subsequently adopted the National Validation Standard published by HoPS in 2017. Officers have participated in HoPS ongoing review of this document during 2020/21. Part 1—1.4.9 HoPS National Validation Standard Supplementary non-statutory planning guidance is reviewed and updated regularly. Current publications include Houses in Multiple Occupation, and Advertisements, Masterplanning, and Biodiversity. During 2021/22 the Council has published updated guidance on S64 submissions and Local Place Plans. 12. Corporate working across services to improve outputs and services for customer benefit (for example: protocols; joined up services; single contact; joint pre-application advice.) Part 1—1.1.6, 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.2.10, 1.2.11, 1.2.12, 1.2.13, 1.2.14, 1.2.15, 1.3.1, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 1.3.12, 1.4.3, 1.4.5, 1.4.6, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 1.4.15, 1.4.16, 1.4.18 & Case Studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 13. Sharing good practice, skills and knowledge between authorities. Part 1—, 1.1.4, 1.1.6, 1.2.7,. 1.2.15, 1.3.8, 1.4.2, 1.4.6, 1.4.7, 1.4.8, 1.4.9, 1.4.10, 1.4.12, 1.4.17, 1.4.18 & Case Studies 2 & 5 14. Stalled sites / legacy cases: Conclusion / withdrawal of planning applications more than one year old. Part 1—1.3.13, & Part 4—Table B. During 2021/22 27 legacy cases were cleared. At 31st March 2022 there were 65 ‘live’ legacy applications undetermined. 15. Developer contributions: Clear expectations set out in development plan and in pre-application discussions. The adopted Local Development Plan sets out expectations in respect of Developer Contributions for affordable housing and green / play space and is supported by Supplementary Guidance which sets out that the Council will seek appropriate elements of planning gain proportionate to the scale, nature, impact and planning purposes associated with the development. Where Developer Contributions are required these will be flagged up at pre-application stage where applicable, or where no pre- application engagement is sought then officers will seek to make the developer aware of the requirement and justification for any developer contribution as soon as such a requirement is identified in the assessment process. The Council is continuing to review its approach to Developer Contributions in the production of LDP 2 and where appropriate the Council shall seek appropriate developer contributions in liaison with participating partners and developers which are proportionate to the nature, impact and planning purposes associated with the development, and shall be in accord with the Policy Tests set out in Circular 3/2012. Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Page 397
Page 398
35 Service Improvements Part 3: SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE DELIVERED IN 2022/23 DELIVERY ON SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS ACTIONS FOR 2021/22 COMMITTED SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ACTIONS 1. Retain Customer Service Excellence Award 2. Delivery of LDP 2 (ongoing - see Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan Scheme March 2022 ) 3. Run Sustainable Design Awards (ongoing - launched Feb 2020) 4. Production of Short Term Letting Planning Guidance (programmed for 2022/23) 5. Production of Hill Tracks Guidance (subject to Scottish Government review of ‘PDR’) 6. Implement improved workflow and performance management systems within the Development Management Service (project initiated 2021/22 to replace existing systems with IDOX Enterprise and DMS) 7. Review of Validation Processes (on-going engagement with regular customers and review/promotion of HoPS National Validation Standards to improve proportion of applications valid upon receipt) 8. Deliver Dunoon CARS (Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme) project (ongoing - 90% delivery complete) 9. Deliver Rothesay TH (Townscape Heritage) project (ongoing - completion due 2022/23) 10. Deliver Ardrishaig Public Realm Works (programmed to commence 2022/23) 11. Deliver Lochilphead CARS (Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme) (project ongoing - 15% complete) 12. Deliver Lochgilphead Front Green Public Realm Works Project (ongoing - completion due 2022/23) SERVICE IMPROVEMENT STATUS 1. Retain Customer Service Excellence Award Delivered - see Part 1 - 1.2.4, 1.4.15 2. Deliver 2 pilot Simplified Planning Zones Discontinued - see Part 1 - 1.2.16 3. Prepare 2 Conservation Area Appraisals On Hold - see Part 1-1.4.11 4. Deliver LDP 2 Progressing - Adoption planned 2022 - see Part 1 - 1.2.2, Part 2 - KPI Table (8),Part 4 - Table A & C 5. Run Sustainable Design Awards On Hold - Launched Feb. 2020 but currently on hold due to Covid-19 - Part 1 - 1.1.4 6. Production of Hill Tracks Non-Statutory Technical Guidance On Hold - Awaiting outcome of Scottish Government review of ‘Permitted Development Rights’ - see Part 1 - 1.4.17 7. Implement improved workflow and performance management systems within the Development Management Service. Progressing - Part 1 - 1.3.9, 1.3.10, 1.3.13, 1.3.14, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.8, 1.4.9, 1.4.13, 1.4.14 8. Review of Validation Processes On Hold - see Part 1 - 1.4.9 9. Deliver Dunoon CARS Progressing - see Part 1 - 1.1.6 10. Deliver Rothesay TH (Townscape Heritage) project Progressing - see Part 1 - 1.1.6 11. Deliver Tarbert and Ardrishaig Regeneration Fund project Progressing - see Part 1 - 1.1.6 12. Deliver Lochilphead CARS (Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme) project Progressing - see Part 1 - 1.1.6 Page 398
Page 399
National Headline Indicators (NHI’s) 2021/22 Part 4: A: KEY OUTCOMES—DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 2021/22 2020/21 Local and Strategic Development Planning Age of local / strategic development plan(s) at end of reporting period. Requirement: less than 5 years. 7 years 6 years Will the local / strategic development plan(s) be replaced by their 5th anniversary according to the current development plan scheme? No No Has the expected date of submission of the plan to Scottish Ministers in the development plan scheme changed over the past year? Yes Yes Were development plan scheme engagement / consultation commit- ments met during the year? Yes Yes Effective Housing Land Supply Established housing land supply 5406 units 5310 units 5-year effective housing land supply 2684 units 2889 units 5-year effective land supply total capacity 5162 units 4998 units 5-year housing supply target 1500 units 1500 units 5-year effective housing land supply (to one decimal place) 8.95 years 9.63 years Housing approvals 507 units 509 units Housing completions over the last 5 years 1201 units 1084 units Marketable employment land supply 85.0 ha 85.7 ha Employment land take-up during the reporting period 0.7 ha 0.7 ha B: KEY OUTCOMES—DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 2021/22 2020/21 Project Planning Percentage and number of applications subject to pre-application ad- vice 7%(84) 11.9%(126) Percentage and number of major applications subject to processing agreement - - Decision Making Application approval rate 98.0% 97.9% Delegation rate 97.7% 98.5% Validation 19.2% 21.5% Decision-making Timescales Major Developments 40.8 weeks 40.4 weeks Local Developments (non-householder) 13.6 weeks 12.5 weeks Householder Developments 10.3 weeks 9.1 weeks Legacy Cases Number cleared during reporting period 27 17 Number remaining 65 57 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 36 1 3 2 Page 399
Page 400
D: NHI KEY OUTCOMES COMMENTARY: 1. It is noted that this NHI is not wholly reflective of the uptake of employment land within Argyll and Bute where the rural nature of the Council area and local economy stimulates demand for development in locations that are not readily addressed through take up of allocated land. The Council’s settlement strategy seeks to promote sustainable economic development and focuses allocation of employment land in and around existing key settlements where there is demand of employment, existing housing provision and infrastructure to support new development. The LDP does however recognise that the requirements of traditional rural industries, particularly those which are island based including the whisky industry and aquaculture, will give rise to occasional demand for development in countryside locations - our settlement strategy is sufficiently flexible to accommodate this demand but it also means that take up of land for employment purposes is not wholly captured in the NHIs. 2. It is has been established that this data set is incomplete and does not currently provide an accurate reflection of the number of planning applications that have been subject to pre- application advice. 582 pre-application enquiries were received during the reporting period, this figure is representative of 52% of the volume of statutory determinations within the same period. 3. It is noted that the data subset for ‘major’ applications is small and easily skewed. Contextual commentary on other factors affecting decision-making timescales are set out within Part 5 C of the report. C: KEY OUTCOMES—ENFORCEMENT 2021/22 2020/21 Time since enforcement charter published / reviewed 1 months 12 months Complaints lodged and investigated 228 224 Breaches identified - No further action taken 177 - 51 170 - 54 Cases Closed 109 119 Notices served 18 22 Direct Action 0 0 Reports to Procurator Fiscal 0 0 Prosecutions 0 0 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 37 Page 400
Page 401
Official Statistics Part 5: A: DECISION-MAKING TIMESCALES (based on ‘all applications’ timescales) Timescales 2021/22 No of Cases (%) 2021/22 Weeks 2020/21 Weeks Overall Major developments 6 40.8 40.4 Local developments (non-householder) 621 13.6 12.5 Local: less than 2 months 275 (44.3%) 7.1 6.8 Local: more than 2 months 346 (55.7%) 13.6 15.0 Householder developments 350 10.3 9.1 Local: less than 2 months 179 (51.1%) 7.0 6.6 Local: more than 2 months 171 (48.9%) 18.8 13.5 Housing Developments Major 1 76.3 19.5 Local housing developments 287 13.1 12.1 Local: less than 2 months 121 (42.2%) 7.2 6.9 Local: more than 2 months 166 (57.8%) 18.8 16.1 Business and Industry Major 1 9.7 - Local business and industry developments 15 11.9 12.7 Local: less than 2 months 5 (33.3%) 7.3 7.0 Local: more than 2 months 10 (66.7%) 14.2 17.1 EIA Developments 2 25.2 - Other Consents 142 13.0 9.0 Planning / Legal Agreements 14 33.6 15.5 Major: average time 1 76.3 - Local: average time 13 30.3 15.5 B: DECISION-MAKING: LOCAL REVIEWS AND APPEALS Total Number of Decisions Original Decision Upheld Type 2021/22 2020/21 No. % No. % Local reviews 8 6 33.3 6 75.0 Appeals to Scottish Ministers 5 1 20.0 1 33.3 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 38 Page 401
Page 402
C: Context Development Management Service: Argyll and Bute Council’s Development Management Service continues to process planning applications with the aspiration to deliver positive outcomes in all cases. This approach is reflected in our high approval rates but is often achieved by providing applicants with additional time beyond prescribed statutory determination periods where this is required to negotiate and address resolvable deficiencies in their submissions. Whilst it is recognised that this approach can have a negative impact upon performance in decision-making time periods it is contended that this is outweighed by the economic benefits of delivering on improved development proposals which might not otherwise have obtained permission had the Council sought to determine within prescribed statutory time periods; additionally resources required to handle amended applications, appeal and LRB work is minimised. Service delivery arrangements continue to be impacted by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic; in particular the Service is experiencing a high volume of demand as a wide range of developments delayed by the pandemic have sought planning permission during 2021/22. This period of high demand has coincided with a period of high staff turnover, difficulties in recruiting in a market where there is a lack of available planning professionals (an issue known to be a national rather than local issue and are discussed by Heads of Planning Scotland and the RTPI in their Future Planners Project Report July 2022) and higher absence rates attributable in a large part to Covid and stress related illness. During this period the Service has lost a number of experienced professional officers and required to operate with vacancies in key positions for extended periods of time in some cases for 12 months or longer. The resilience of the Service to operate efficiently with reduced resource and high volume of casework had already been eroded through previous requirements to make budget cuts and reduce staffing numbers in previous years. Whilst temporary measures have been taken to maintain a critical level of service delivery through use of overtime and use of external resources to process planning applications it is expected that overall performance will remain impacted until staffing issues are addressed through filling of vacancies. The Scottish Government’s reform of statutory planning fees from 1st April 2022 is welcomed but came too late to address resource issues arising in 2021/22. Development Policy Service: Following approval of Schedule 4’s by Council it took the Development Policy team approximately 4 months to prepare all documentation in the required electronic format for submission to the DPEA. The LDP2 along with associated documents was submitted to the DPEA in January 2022. Reporters have now been appointed and it is anticipated that the Examination will run until the end of 2022. It should be noted that until the new Local Development Plan is adopted, the current Local Development Plan’s statutory status remains, including that of the associated Supplementary Guidance. The current LDPs made plans for ten years from adoption, so until 2025, and are still considered to be robust. The LDP contains an effective land supply with the latest Housing Land Audit showing an effective supply of 3738 units or 5.02 years supply as at 1 April 2022, thus taking us to 2026 well beyond the proposed adoption date of LDP2. The proposed growth areas of Tobermory – Dalmally and Helensburgh and Lomond have sufficient supply to take us beyond the adoption of LDP2. Planning applications will continue to be processed as normal during the delay period, being assessed against the Adopted plan. An updated Development Plan Scheme was approved by elected members in March 2022 that re-programmes the planned adoption date to early 2023. 39 Page 402
Page 403
Workforce Information (at 31.03.21) Part 6: Tier 1 Chief Executive Tier 2 Director Tier 3 Head of Service Tier 4 Manager Head of Planning Service RTPI Qualified Staff Number Head of Service 1 Development Management 9 Development Policy 3 Enforcement 1 Projects and Regeneration 3 Staff Age Profile % Under 30 7.4 30 - 39 51.9 40 - 49 33.3 50 and over 7.4 Service Overview Planning Services includes: Development Management; Development Policy & Housing; and Projects and Regeneration. Planning Services sit within the Development & Infrastructure Services Department, and within the portfolio of the Head of Development & Economic Growth which also includes responsibility for the complimentary activities of: Regulatory Services; Economic Growth; Rural Growth Deal Programme; Strategic Transportation & Infrastructure; and, project specific activity relating to Oban Strategic Development Framework including Lorn Arc regeneration activities. 40 Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 Staff Structure Diagrams as at 31.03.2022 Development & Economic Growth Page 403
Page 404
Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 41 Development Policy & Housing * Note: Housing Services Staff not shown Development Management Page 404
Page 405
Planning Performance Framework Report 2021/22 42 Projects and Regeneration Planning Committee Information Part 7: Committees & Site Visits Number Full Council Meetings 7 Planning Committees 14 Area Committees 12 Local Review Body 19 LRB Site Visits 0 Page 405
Page 406
Page 406
Page 407
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 PRIVATE HIRE CARS AND TAXIS LICENSED IN ARGYLL & BUTE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee agreed at their meeting on 18 November 2020 that Officers should prepare periodic reports at least every six months providing updates on the number of private hire cars and taxis across the licensing authority’s area. Page 407 Agenda Item 17
Page 408
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 PRIVATE HIRE CARS AND TAXIS LICENSED IN ARGYLL & BUTE 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Following publication of the Scottish Government’s best practice guidance on the power to refuse to grant private hire licences on the grounds of over provision, consideration was given to a report inviting Members to amend the procedure for determining private hire car licence applications. The Committee agreed at their meeting on 18th November 2020: a) that all future unopposed applications for private hire car licences may be granted by Officers on a delegated basis; and b) that Officers should prepare periodic reports at least every six months, for the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee providing updates on the number of private hire cars and taxis across the licensing authority’s area. 3.0 RECOMMENDATION 3.1 That the members note the number of private hire cars and taxis across the licensing authority’s area as detailed in Appendix 1 and 2. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the numbers. It should be noted that while the numbers are broken down by area, Private Hire cars, once granted, have a license for the whole Council area while Taxi licenses are restricted to specific zones in accordance with the Council’s 4 administrative areas. Page 408
Page 409
5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 An update of these figures will be provided on a 6 monthly basis. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy: None 6.2 Financial: None 6.3 Legal: None 6.4 HR: None 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty 6.5.3 Islands 6.6 Climate Change: None 6.7 Risk: none 6.8 Customer Service: None Douglas Hendry Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Policy Lead Kieron Green 31 August 2022 For further information contact: Sheila MacFadyen Ext: 4265 Appendix 1 – Number of Private Hire Car Licences Appendix 2 – Number of Taxi Licences Page 409
Page 410
APPENDIX 1 NUMBER OF PRIVATE HIRE CAR LICENCES – September 2022 Area No. Private Hire Car referenced in LVSA Report 2019 No. Licences lapsed since LVSA report New licences granted since LVSA report Licences surrendered since LVSA report Current Total Bute & Cowal 1 2 5 0 4 Helensburgh & Lomond 14 8 7 1 12 Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay 36 11 6 2 29 Oban, Lorn & Isles 16 3 1 3 11 Overall Total 56 Page 410
Page 411
APPENDIX 2 NUMBER OF TAXI LICENCES – September 2022 Area No. Taxis referenced in LVSA Report 2019 No. Licences lapsed since LVSA report New licences granted since LVSA report Licences surrendered since LVSA report Current Total Bute & Cowal 57 (discrepancy due to clerical error – actual figure 54) 0 1 0 55 Helensburgh & Lomond 48 5 4 2 45 Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay 23 1 1 1 24 Oban, Lorn & Isles 52 3 3 2 50 Overall total 174 Page 411
Page 412
This page is intentionally left blank