Public reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 17 August 2022
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 17 August 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 10 August 2022 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held ON A HYBRID BASIS BY ATTENDANCE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD OR REMOTELY BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 17 AUGUST 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 22 June 2022 at 10.30 am (Pages 5 - 12) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 22 June 2022 at 2.00 pm (Pages 13 - 16) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 22 June 2022 at 2.30 pm (Pages 17 - 22) (d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 22 June 2022 at 3.00 pm (Pages 23 - 26) 4. MACKENZIE WELDING: ERECTION OF STORAGE SHED (PART RETROSPECTIVE): PLOT 1, NANT PARK, TAYNUILT (REF: 19/02300/PP) (Pages 27 - 54) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
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) (Pages 55 - 100) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 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) (Pages 101 - 128) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 7. KILBOWIE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD: ALTERATIONS TO INCREASE ROOF PITCH OF DWELLINGHOUSES: 1-7 KILBOWIE SHORE, GALLANACH ROAD, OBAN (REF: 22/00231/PP) (Pages 129 - 144) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 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) (Pages 145 - 154) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 9. PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF PLANNING TRAINING FOR MEMBERS (Pages 155 - 158) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 10. SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 2021/22 - DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH SERVICE (Pages 159 - 180) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services E1 11. REQUEST FOR TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (Pages 181 - 184) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The appropriate paragraph is:- E1 Paragraph 13 Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes- (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment.
Page 3
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 BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 JUNE 2022 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Governance Manager Sheila MacFadyen, Senior Solicitor Peter Bain, Development Manager Howard Young, Area Team Leader – Bute, Cowal, Helensburgh and Lomond Tim Williams, Area Team Leader – Oban, Lorn and the Isles Norman Shewan, Planning Officer Derek Wilson, Development Manager Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE An apology for absence was received from Councillor Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. MINUTES The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 April 2022 was approved as a correct record. 4. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: TAXI DRIVER/PRIVATE HIRE CAR DRIVER MEDICALS The Committee agreed on 23 March 2022 to consult private hire/taxi drivers and operators to seek their views on the proposed amended procedure for taxi/private car driver medicals. A report detailing the responses received to this consultation was before the Committee for consideration. Decision Having regard to the consultation responses, the Committee agreed to adopt the new procedure for medicals whereby the medical would be carried out by a private company at a central location with the cost being paid by the Council. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support dated 19 May 2022, submitted) Page 5 Agenda Item 3a
Page 6
5. SCOTTISH SEA FARMS LTD: MODIFICATION OF FIN FISH FARM (ATLANTIC SALMON) FROM 9 X 80M CIRCUMFERENCE CAGES TO 14 X 100M CIRCUMFERENCE CAGES, INCLUDING INCREASING BIOMASS TO 2350 TONNES AND INSTALLATION OF REPLACEMENT FEED BARGE: DUNSTAFFNAGE FISH FARM, NORTH OF GANAVAN HILL, DUNBEG (REF: 20/02358/MFF) The Development Manager spoke to the terms of the report and to supplementary report number 1 which referred to 2 late representations from the Friends of the Sound of Jura and a response from the Applicant which provided further clarification on the risk to wild swimmers and bath medicine treatments. The application site is located in the Firth of Lorn off the coast between Dunbeg and Ganavan, north of Oban. A fish farm has been operating in this location since 1987. The current site at Dunstaffnage comprises 9 x 80m circumference cages in a 50m mooring grid with an associated 80 tonne feed barge. This would be replaced by 14 x 100m circumference cages in a 75m mooring grid and a 300 tonne feed barge. The biomass would increase by 1050 tonnes to a new maximum biomass of 2350 tonnes. The application has been subject to 29 objections, 1 petition, 1 representation and 28 expressions of support. Many of the objections relate to fish farming in general rather than being site specific. Objections were also received from Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board and Fisheries Management Scotland. A summary of all representations received is contained at section D and F of the report of handling. All of the objections have been addressed fully in the report and having regard to the approved guidance for hearings, it is considered that a hearing would not add value to this assessment. The recommendation on this application has been guided by the conclusions of the Environmental Impact Assessment report and the proposal has been assessed against the policies of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP). It is considered that the proposal complies with the LDP and it was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report. Motion To agree to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons numbered 1 – 12 in the report of handling and subject to the amendment of Condition 13 which should be augmented to include provision for the monitoring of the dispersal of discharge of hydrogen peroxide into waters, with feedback from this monitoring exercise incorporated into a communications plan in order to inform marine users of potential risks to human health in the vicinity of the fish farm. The final wording of condition 13 to be delegated to the Head of Development and Economic Growth in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee. Moved by Councillor Kieron Green, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie. Page 6
Page 7
Amendment To agree to continue consideration of this application until SEPA release its new sea lice regulatory framework so that the Committee can make an informed decision on the cumulative impact the expansion may have. Moved by Councillor Luna Martin, seconded by Councillor Mark Irvine. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor John Armour Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Peter Wallace The Motion was carried by 10 votes to 2 and the Committee resolved accordingly. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons numbered 1 – 12 in the report of handling and subject to the amendment of Condition 13 which should be augmented to include provision for the monitoring of the dispersal of discharge of hydrogen peroxide into waters, with feedback from this monitoring exercise incorporated into a communications plan in order to inform marine users of potential risks to human health in the vicinity of the fish farm. The final wording of condition 13 to be delegated to the Head of Development and Economic Growth in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 7 June 2022 and supplementary report number 1 dated 21 June 2022, submitted) Councillor Amanda Hampsey rejoined the meeting at this point, having lost Wi-Fi connection to the meeting prior to the vote being taken on the foregoing application. 6. ISLE OF GIGHA HERITAGE TRUST: ERECTION OF 3 DWELLINGHOUSES AND 2 FLATS. INSTALLATION OF AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS, FORMATION OF ACCESS AND PARKING ARRANGEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING: FIELD ADJACENT TO PLAYPARK, ARDMINISH, ISLE OF GIGHA (REF: 21/01102/PP) The Development Manager spoke to the terms of the report. The proposal seeks detailed planning permission for a development comprising three dwellinghouses and two flatted dwellings located within the ‘settlement area’ of Ardminish, Isle of Gigha. The proposal is considered to be of appropriate location, scale, design finishes, and does not give rise to any concern in relation to infrastructure, services or to its compatibility with surrounding Page 7
Page 8
land uses. The application has been subject to representation from ten individuals who have raised objection to the proposals, and also concern raised by Gigha Community Council about the prospective loss of land for recreational purposes. However, the site itself is currently in agricultural use and is not identified in the Local Development Plan as either a formal recreational facility or an Open Space Protective Area. The land use planning related issues are not considered to be unduly complex and, as such, it is considered that a fully informed assessment and determination can be made with reference to this report. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Local 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 Section 25 of the Act. 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 conditions and reasons: 1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 25th May 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 LO_001 09.12.2021 Existing Site Plan PL_100 09.12.2021 Proposed Site Plan GA_100_C C 28.03.2022 Proposed Elevations EL_001 09.12.2021 Proposed Floor Plans GA_001 B Proposed Roof Plan GA_102 26.05.2021 Proposed Drainage Layout 20.0276 – 5000 E 28.03.2022 Proposed Site Levels & Grading Layout 20.0276 – 7000 D 28.03.2022 Visibility Splay Layout 20.0276 – SK01 A 28.03.2022 3D Visualisation SK_01 09.12.2021 ASHP Specification MSZ-LN50VG R/B/V/W 09.12.2021 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. Page 8
Page 9
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD08/004 rev A (min. access width 5.5m) and visibility splays of 2.5 metres to point X by 75.0 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access. The access shall be surfaced with a bound material in accordance with the stated Standard Detail Drawing. 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 development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 3. The parking and turning area 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. 4. The refuse collection area 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 as such. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until 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 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. 6. 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) Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted; v) A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on-going maintenance. Page 9
Page 10
Planting proposals shall include additional hedge planting along the northern boundary of the site in so far as this might practicably be accommodated on the land available. 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. 7. 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 external walls, roofs, windows and doors 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. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 June 2022, submitted) A short comfort break was taken at 12.10 pm and the Committee reconvened at 12.15 pm. 7. 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) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. 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). A total of 20 representations have been received from interested third parties. One of these supports the proposal and 17 are objections. The remaining 2 representations raise planning issues but are neutral in terms of support or objection. There are no objections to the proposal from statutory consultees. 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 would add value to the determination process. It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report. Page 10
Page 11
Decision The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application to their next 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. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 8 June 2022, submitted) 8. FLEXION ENERGY UK STORAGE: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR INSTALLATION OF A GRID BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY (UP TO 50 MW), WITH ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT: LAND WEST OF ARDNADAM ELECTRICITY SUB STATION, SANDBANK (REF: 22/00998/PAN) The Development Manager spoke to the terms of the report. The site with currently appears to be rough grazing land measures less than 1 hectare and is located to the west of the electricity sub station at Ardnadam and to the south of Ardnadam Farmhouse. It is advised that the generating capacity would be no more than 50MW and access would likely be taken from the north east of the site although at this stage this is indicative only. The report sets out the information submissions to date as part of the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and summarises the policy considerations, against which any future planning application is likely to be judged against any potential material considerations. It was recommended that Members have regard to the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the PAN to allow any matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report and submissions with no further feedback being provided. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 7 June 2022, submitted) 9. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FQ4 2021/22 - DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH SERVICE A report presenting the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee with the FQ4 2021/22 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the Development and Economic Growth Service was considered. Decision The Committee reviewed and scrutinised the FQ4 2021/22 KPI report as presented. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated May 2022, submitted) Page 11
Page 12
10. MR RICHARD STEIN: ERECTION OF DETACHED GARDEN ROOM ANCILLARY TO DWELLINGHOUSE: EILEAN DA MHEINN, HARBOUR ISLAND, CRINAN, LOCHGILPHEAD (REF: 21/02308/PP) The Committee, at their meeting on 20 April 2022 agreed to continue to this application to a site visit and discretionary pre-determination public hearing in light of the significant volume of representation raising matters relating to planning both in support and opposition to the proposed development. A report advising that the Applicant has subsequently withdrawn this planning application and that a formal determination of this application by the planning authority was no longer required, was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 1 June 2022, submitted) Page 12
Page 13
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 JUNE 2022 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Willie Hume Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Luna Martin Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Governance Manager Sheila MacFadyen, Senior Solicitor Colin Stroud, Applicant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Daniel Hampsey, Paul Kennedy and Peter Wallace. 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 STROUD, BALLYGRANT, ISLAY) 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 video call and joined the meeting by Microsoft Teams. The Senior Solicitor, apologised for the circulation of the wrong taxi survey report to the Applicant and the Committee. She advised that the correct survey report by LVSA was issued the day before this meeting to both the Applicant and the Committee. She further advised that as 14 days notice of the correct survey was not given to the Applicant clarification on whether or not he would wish to proceed with the hearing today was required. The Applicant confirmed that he had read the correct survey report and was content to proceed with the hearing today. The Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr Stroud advised that he has lived on Islay for 9 years and was a former tour guide with Bunnahabhain Distillery and has used taxis and private hire for this purpose. He explained that on the island there was a massive demand for taxis and said that since Page 13 Agenda Item 3b
Page 14
Covid several taxis were no longer operating. He commented that one Operator who had passed away had 3 or 4 cars on the road. He advised that a lot of people coming to the island could not get taxis and a lot of the private hires were tied up with distillery tours. He believed the island was 8 cars down since 2 years ago. He advised that he lived on the north of the island where there were no taxis as most were based out of Bowmore and Port Ellen and drivers from there did not want to come so far north. He advised that he would like to work for himself and said that the demand was there for another taxi, if not more. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Hume referred to Mr Stroud advising that the island was 8 taxis down. He asked how many taxis were initially on the island. Mr Stroud said there were 7 or 8 companies with, he would say, a maximum of 20 cars. Councillor Forrest asked the Senior Solicitor how many licences were currently on the island and also asked if she was aware of a drop in cars. Mrs MacFadyen advised that when the LVSA survey was carried out there were 7 taxis and now there were 6. She said that she did not have a breakdown figure of how many private hire cars were on the island as the figure of 36 covered the whole of the Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands area. Councillor Green asked why the Applicant was applying for a taxi licence rather than a private hire licence. Mr Stroud advised that with a taxi licence he would be able to be flagged down. He said that driving through Bowmore and Port Ellen you could see people wanting to flag you down. He advised that a taxi licence would give him the flexibility to be waved down and take a fare. Mr Stroud then provided a list of those taxi and private hire operators he believed were no longer working. Mrs MacFadyen advised that some of these may have held onto their licences. She confirmed that she would check to see if they were still operating so that this information could be provided to the Committee in future, if required. SUMMING UP Applicant Mr Stroud advised that there was a huge buzz on the island and that people were struggling to get a taxi even through private hire. He said that when we was working at Bunnahabhain he was aware of people having to walk 5 miles to the Port Askaig ferry. He said that he would like to help alleviate this shortage. When asked, Mr Stroud confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Armour advised that he knew the island well and that he knew how difficult it was to get transport. He said that he thought Mr Stroud’s summing up was spot on and that another taxi was absolutely necessary. He confirmed that he was happy to support this application and wished Mr Stroud all the best in getting his licence. Councillor Hampsey echoed what Councillor Armour said. She advised that she had spent time on Islay and had personal experience of the issues of transport. She thought Page 14
Page 15
this licence was greatly needed on the island and confirmed that she was happy to support the application. Councillor Forrest commented that this was an island with a lot of tourism and confirmed that she would also support this application. Councillor McCabe confirmed that she would also support this application. Councillor Hume said that he fully supported the application and commented that people should not have to walk 1, 2 or 5 miles. Councillor Green referred to the LVSA report which mentioned that dead mileage was a feature of transport on the island as well as the difficulty of responding to bookings. On this basis, and in line with the other comments made, he advised that he was supportive of this application. Councillor Armour commented that an application for a taxi licence rather than a private hire licence was correct in his opinion as part of the problem in remote areas was seeing private hire vehicles driving by with no customers in them and not being able to flag them down. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Stroud 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 15
Page 16
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 17
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 JUNE 2022 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Willie Hume Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Governance Manager Sheila MacFadyen, Senior Solicitor Sarah Osborne, Applicant Sgt David Holmes, Police Scotland 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Daniel Hampsey and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Graham Hardie declared a non-financial interest in this application as he knew the Applicant personally. He left the meeting and took no part in the determination of this application. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A TAXI DRIVER LICENCE (S OSBORNE, 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 Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. Police Scotland also opted to proceed by way of audio call and Sgt David Holmes joined the meeting by telephone. Reference was made to a preliminary matter that Police Scotland had requested the Committee take account of a matter that was considered “protected” in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It was noted that the Committee may take into consideration evidence relating to protected matters where they are satisfied that justice could not be done except by admitting such evidence. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed in this respect and invited Police Scotland to address the relevancy of the protected matter. POLICE SCOTLAND Sgt Holmes advised that it was the Chief Constable’s contention that justice could not be done in this case except by admitting the evidence relating to the ‘protected’ conviction. Page 17 Agenda Item 3c
Page 18
The Chair then invited the Applicant to ask Police Scotland questions and to address the relevancy of the protected matter to her application. APPLICANT Ms Osborne advised that she presumed the conviction was spent and did not realise it was protected. She said that she could only apologise. She said that she had worked as a paediatric occupational therapist in Glasgow. She referred to working as secretary for the Highland Games Committee and that she also worked as a carer during Covid. She said that she was a kind and caring person and would like to continue to work. The Chair invited Police Scotland to comment on the Applicant’s submission and Sgt Holmes advised that he had no comment to make. The Chair then invited questions from Members and noted there were none. The Committee agreed that they would like to consider the protected matter as part of this application and a copy of a letter from Police Scotland was circulated by email to the Committee. The Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of her application. APPLICANT Ms Osborne advised that she assumed the conviction was spent and did not realise it was protected. She said that she had turned her life around since then. She referred to her previous line of work as an occupational therapist and said that she would like to get back to work and have some routine in her life which all hinged on the decision that would be taken today. POLICE SCOTLAND Sgt Holmes referred to a letter dated 9 May 2022 which advised that the Chief Constable objected to this application on the grounds that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence. He advised that as a result of an incident which took place on 16 December 2008, Ms Osborne was convicted under the Road Traffic Act 1988 section 5(1) (A) at court on 14 October 2009. She received a fine of £500 and was disqualified from driving for 18 months. In terms of the protected matter, which related to the same incident which took place on 16 December 2008, the Applicant received a conviction under the Road Traffic Act 1988 section 170(2) and (4) which related to failing to remain in the locus of the incident and failing to provide details. She received a fine of £50 and her licence was endorsed. Sgt Holmes also advised that Ms Osborne had been reported to the Procurator Fiscal for a contravention of section 3 Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 and was also charged with a contravention of section 5 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a result of an incident which took place on 20 January 2022. As this matter was sub-judice, he advised that he was constrained with regard to the nature of any further information he could provide at this time. Page 18
Page 19
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Sgt Holmes that with reference to the sub judice matters, Section 52 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 related to a person having a controlled substance on their person and Section 3 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 was related to sexual assault. Councillor Irvine asked Sgt Holmes if Section 52 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 also concerned intent to supply. Sgt Holmes confirmed this section was just about personal possession. Councillor Armour referred to the conviction in 2009 being 13 years ago. He asked Sgt Holmes why Police Scotland were opposed to the granting of a licence as a result of an incident that took place 13 years ago. Sgt Holmes said that Police Scotland believed these convictions were relevant. He advised that they related to a drink driving offence and this was an application for a taxi driver. Police Scotland felt it was important from a public safety point of view to bring this to the attention of the Committee so that the Committee could make an informed decision. Councillor Howard asked the Applicant why she was applying for a taxi driver licence. Ms Osborne explained that she enjoyed driving and had always wanted to be a HGV driver. She said that she enjoyed talking to and meeting people and that the hours would be flexible. She advised that she’s had a clean licence since the incident and said that the flexible hours would really suit her life style. Ms Osborne referred to the most recent incident which was sub judice and advised that she had not been in a good head space then. She advised that she had turned her life around since March this year. She said life was good and a job opportunity like this only came around once. SUMMING UP Police Scotland Sgt Holmes advised that he had nothing further to add to the objection submitted. Applicant Ms Osborne apologised for what had happened and asked the Committee to grant her licence and send her on to a better future. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Brown said that she agreed that people should be given a second chance and be able to move on. She sought confirmation on how long the Applicant would have to wait to reapply should the Committee decide to refuse the application today and if the other issues were resolved at Court. Mrs MacFadyen advised that she thought that the Applicant would have to wait a year but would check the legislation and come back to Councillor Brown to confirm. Councillor Hume said he thought someone should be able to turn their life around and that the Committee should support this application. Page 19
Page 20
Councillor Irvine advised that he had serious concerns about approving the application. He said the Committee had a duty of care to members of the public who would be using this vehicle. He referred to the motoring offences and advised that in terms of the other issues, while he would not prejudge something that had still to go to Court, he would be concerned about public safety at this time. Councillor Armour said that if it was only the incidents from 2008 he would be minded to accept this application. He referred to the outstanding issues and commented that he wished the Applicant had waited until these had been dealt with before making the application. He said that he did not want to judge before anything came to Court but felt that it would not be right to approve this application today. He advised that he was sad about that as he had noted the Applicant did want, and was showing that she was trying, to turn her life around. He advised he could not support this application at the moment. Councillor McCabe advised that though she felt sorry for the Applicant, she felt that in light of the concerns raised by Police Scotland in relation to being a fit and proper person to have a licence she could not support the application. Councillor Martin advised that she had concerns for public safety and said that as the Committee did not know what the conclusion would be of the ongoing issues, she felt there would be a risk there. Councillor Kain said he agreed with what had been said that everyone should get an opportunity but advised that the application should not be approved at this point in time. Councillor Hampsey advised that it was with regret that she agreed with the other Members on this matter. She said that as there were ongoing proceedings she felt it would be wrong to grant a licence at this time. At this point the Applicant left the meeting. Councillor Howard said that she was struggling with this application. She said that she would have liked to have granted the licence and thought that the Applicant probably would have deserved it if it had not been for this one more mistake. She said the Applicant should be encouraged not to give up. Councillor Brown said that until the current case came to Court the Committee should not grant the licence. She advised that the Applicant needed to be encouraged to reapply if the outcome of the Court went her way. Councillor Hampsey said that it was a shame that the Applicant had not waited to hear the comments from Councillors Howard and Brown. She advised that due to the outstanding proceedings, she felt it would be impossible to grant the licence at this time. Councillor Forrest advised that in the past this Committee have taken the option of deferring a decision on an application until Court proceedings were complete. She asked if this was an option in this case. Mrs MacFadyen confirmed that the Committee had, in the past, continued an application to a future meeting if they did not want to prejudge a decision. She confirmed that if the Committee refused the application today the Applicant would have to wait one year before she could reapply. She confirmed that continuation of the application to a future meeting would be an option for the Committee today. Councillor Hume advised that people needed to be supported to move forward. Page 20
Page 21
Councillor McCabe advised that she agreed people should be given a second chance but the Committee did not know anything about the Applicant. She referred to the Chief Constable’s concerns in relation to being a fit and proper person to hold a licence. She commented that the Committee did not know what else the Police may be aware of and about how she lived her life. She advised that a person may say they have turned their life around just so they can get their licence. Councillor Forrest said she would like to move continuation of this application until the legal matters were concluded. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mrs MacFadyen that the Committee would have to make a decision within 9 months as under the current legislation a licence would be automatically granted after that time. Sgt Holmes advised that there was no fixed date set for a trial at the moment. Councillor Green advised that it was the role of the Committee to determine whether or not a person was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. He referred to the representation from the Applicant and the representation from Police Scotland. He said that the Committee can take on board what the Police have said about the Applicant not being a fit and proper person but the Committee did not need to take that at face value and should be satisfied that fair process has been followed. In terms of deferring this application, he would not want the Committee to not have the opportunity of determining the application. Mrs MacFadyen advised that she would ensure the timescales were observed and suggested that an update on progress with any Court proceedings be brought to the Committee in 6 months time or sooner if the legal issues were concluded before then. DECISION The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application until December 2022 or until legal proceedings were concluded, whichever was earlier. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 21
Page 22
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 23
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 JUNE 2022 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Willie Hume Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Governance Manager Sheila MacFadyen, Senior Solicitor Archibald Mathieson, Applicant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Daniel Hampsey and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor John Armour declared a non-financial interest in this application as he knew the Applicant personally. He left the meeting and took no part if the determination of this application. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF TAXI DRIVER LICENCE NUMBER 2810 (A MATHIESON, CAMPBELTOWN) 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 Mathieson referred to the points on his driving licence which were as a result of stupid, spur of the moment decisions. The first one related to using his mobile phone. He explained that he had lifted his mobile phone as he was coming out of his yard and was seen by the Police. The second incident related to him going through a red light. He explained that he was taking a passenger home and their child was upset in the back of the car. He advised that the road was clear and the house he was travelling to was in front of him beyond the lights and again he was seen by the Police. He acknowledges that he should not have done this. He advised that he relied on his licence for his livelihood and that his customers relied on him too. He referred to customers relying on him for runs to Glasgow if flights for the islands were cancelled. He said customers were Page 23 Agenda Item 3d
Page 24
very limited with drivers prepared to travel to Glasgow. He advised that he really needed his licence and acknowledged that the incidents which took place should not have happened. He advised that the 6 points he received for using his mobile phone would come off his driving licence in 6 months time. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Mathieson that he was 60 years of age and had held a driving licence since he was 18 years old. He also confirmed that he had been driving taxis for 20 years. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Mathieson that he previously had points on his driving licence for speeding. Councillor Forrest sought and received confirmation from Mr Mathieson that he would never use his mobile phone again while driving and that he would not drive through a red light. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mrs MacFadyen that no representation had been received from Police Scotland in respect of this application. She said that Mr Mathieson had declared these fixed penalties on his application form. SUMMING UP Applicant Mr Mathieson confirmed that he would never jump a red light again and would not use his mobile phone while driving. He said that he needed this licence as a lot of people relied on him. He referred to having school contracts and running his licence for the past 20 years. When asked, Mr Mathieson confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE DECISION Councillor Irvine commented on Mr Mathieson being frank and open with the Committee and expressing remorse and abject horror for what he had done. He advised that he believed this was a genuine error of judgement and wished Mr Mathieson well going forward. He confirmed that he supported the renewal of this licence as there was a need for good hard workers and honest people. Councillor McCabe said that she accepted what Mr Mathieson had said and that she also supported his application. Councillor Hardie said he appreciated Mr Mathieson’s honesty in declaring these offences on his application form. He commended Mr Mathieson for that and confirmed that he would support his application. Councillor Hampsey also commended Mr Mathieson for his honesty and advised that she would support this application going forward. She said she believed Mr Mathieson was Page 24
Page 25
very remorseful for what he had done and that she highly doubted these incidents would happen again. She said she was happy to take his word on that. Councillor Hume said he fully supported this application. Councillor Howard advised that she had no worries about this application. Councillor Green said he valued being able to hear from the Applicant today. He advised that Mr Mathieson had presented himself very well and that he had no problem with renewing this licence. Decision The Committee unanimously agreed to grant the renewal of Mr Mathieson’s Taxi Driver Licence (No. 2810) 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 25
Page 26
This page is intentionally left blank
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: 19/02300/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: MacKenzie Welding Proposal: Erection of storage shed (part retrospective) Site Address: Plot 1, Nant Park, Taynuilt, Argyll and Bute ____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ____________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Erection of storage shed Construction of vehicular access Formation of earth bunds (part retrospective) Erection of 1200mm high timber fence (ii) Other specified operations Installation of disconnecting chamber and soakaway for surface water Provision of landscaping (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons appended to this report. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY (Application Site & Adjacent Land): 18/02587/PP Erection of storage shed (part retrospective), withdrawn 22.02.2019. 17/00199/ENOTH3 Page 27 Agenda Item 4
Page 28
Alleged change of use of land, case opened 21.09.2017. Enforcement Notice served on 1st of October 2018 which took effect on 7th of November 2018 with a 3 month time period for compliance. Notice required to be complied with by 7th of February 2019. Notice requirements: 1. Cease the use of the land affected by permanently removing any unlawful stored materials and / or plant equipment from the plot of ground. 2. Remove the engineered earth bunds from the land affected. The reinstatement of land shall comprise the following actions: The earth bunds located along the south east, north east, and south western boundaries of the land affected shall be removed from the land affected. The area of ground formally occupied by those earth bunds shall then be scraped and or raked to achieve an approximately even profile. At the conclusion of works, the finished ground level within any part of the land affected shall be no greater than 400 millimetres above the surface of the road carriageway located immediately to the south east of the plot of ground. The plot or areas of ground where material has been removed and/or disturbed shall be sown with grass seed to encourage soil stabilization. This Enforcement Notice has never been complied with and remains live. 17/02683/PP Erection of dwellinghouse, (plot 3), granted 01.03.2018 16/01946/PP Erection of dwellinghouse, garage and formation of vehicular access, (plot 4), granted 13.09.2016 15/01651/PP Erection of dwellinghouse and detached garage (plot 5), granted 23.09.2015 15/01442/PP Erection of dwellinghouse and detached garage (plot 5), withdrawn 11.06.2015 15/01033/PP Erection of dwellinghouse and formation of vehicular access (plot 2), granted 23.09.2018 13/02865/PP Demolition of Blacksmiths workshop and erection of new workshop, Weldmech Services Workshop site, granted 31.03.2014. 11/01842/PPP Site for the erection of 5 dwellinghouses, granted 16.11.2011 (current application site is known as plot 1) ____________________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: Area Roads Authority 22.01.2020 – No objection subject to conditions: Access to the site from existing private access to be in accordance with SD08/001a; Turning head required within site boundaries to prevent HGV and other associated vehicles from reversing onto the public road; A Page 28
Page 29
pedestrian drop kerb crossing point would be required to be installed opposite Nant Park and a pedestrian rail would be required to be installed on footpath from junction with Achnaferna to the pedestrian bridge crossing the River Nant. (Case officer note: Following the receipt of third party objection and a detailed site inspection, concern was raised with the Council’s roads engineer on the 9th December 2020 that it might be very difficult to provide the required turning head within the application site boundary due to the scale of the proposed storage shed building and the consequent lack of available space. The roads engineer informally responded to this by email dated 10th December 2020 and stated, “If a HGV turning and loading/unloading area cannot be achieved within the site boundary Roads will recommend refusal, we will not allow the public road to be used for parking, loading/unloading operations. Any vehicles entering and exiting the site should do so in a forward gear”. This was followed up by a revised formal consultation response dated 31st August 2021). 31.08.2021 – Due to the concerns raised, the Roads Engineer recognises that the required turning head via condition would be problematic to achieve therefore causing difficulties for the applicant to contain all of their business activities within the application site without spilling out onto the public road corridor. Requires the submission of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to show the ability of vehicles using the site to do so in a safe and legal manner. (Case officer note: The required TMP is requested from the developer on the 31st August 2021 upon receipt of the revised Roads comments. This request is reiterated on 16th February 2022 On 2nd March 2022, the agent acting for the developer states that he will review the request for a TMP and will provide the relevant information asked for. To date, no such information has been received). 30.05.2022 – The roads engineer, in the absence of the required TMP, recommends refusal on road safety grounds but omits to detail the reasoning for this. 09.06.2022 – The roads engineer has submitted a further response detailing the reason for refusal which is as follows: 1) Without the provision of a turning and loading area within the curtilage of the industrial unit, safety issues will continue to arise due to the unsafe manoeuvres to and from the public road. These movements will include; (i) Reversing large and other vehicles HGV’s on and off the public road, the public road where there are many users, vehicular, pedestrian and cyclists included. By definition, pedestrians and cyclists can be classed as vulnerable users due to lack of protection afforded to motor vehicle drivers. Furthermore, children of primary school age, potentially unaccompanied older children also use this route. (ii) Loading and unloading of vehicles within the public road corridor using forklift trucks or similar. Due to the nature of the business, these deliveries will include heavy steel items that have the potential to be unstable when in transit to and from delivery vehicles serving the business. This has the potential to cause injury and damage to road users and their property. There also has been unsubstantiated reports that the carriageway has been blocked on numerous occasion as these practices have taken place resulting in vehicles having to mount the footway to get past. Within current legislation, it is an offence to drive onto a footway. Page 29
Page 30
(iii) The transfer of goods and materials between the two separated units may involve unstable, unsafe loads transiting over a short section of the public road using vehicles not suitable for use on a public road. With the close proximity of the existing unit, (along with the existing site relevant to this application), to the public road corridor,(footway included) Roads have legitimate safety concerns that potential unsafe working practices could be exacerbated due to the proposed expansion. The above concerns may have been addressed and mitigated by providing a TMP, (Traffic Management Plan) to provide details on how the business owners propose to address Roads safety concerns but as this has not been forthcoming, Roads recommend refusal on the above road safety concerns. SEPA 10.02.2020 – Objection in Principle. The proposed development may put buildings and persons at flood risk, contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). Given the location of the proposed development within the undeveloped/sparsely developed functional floodplain we do not consider that it meets the requirements of SPP. We consider the proposal to represent an increase in land use vulnerability and we would not be supportive of development within the functional floodplain. As there is currently no built development on site, the construction of a large storage shed (which is a Least Vulnerable Use) constitutes an increase in land use vulnerability. The topographic survey provided demonstrates that the entire site sits below 4.2m AOD and is therefore situated within the 200-year coastal floodplain. As such we object to this proposed development. We also have concerns that the site is situated within the 200- year fluvial floodplain. We note that the proposal contains the construction of a bund. We acknowledge that this has not been designed to offer any kind of flood protection and we agree that the bund offers no protection to the site. As the bund has been constructed in the floodplain, it constitutes land raising within the floodplain. This is contrary to SPP unless it can be demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances. We acknowledge that some aspects of this application are retrospective. Had we been formally consulted on these prior to their construction we would have objected in principle to these aspects. In the event that the planning authority proposes to grant planning permission contrary to this advice on flood risk, the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009 would require the application to be referred to Scottish Ministers. (Case officer note: Following the receipt of this objection, the developer on 19th February 2020 requested that the consideration of the planning application be put on hold to enable them to engage a specialist consultant in order to negotiate directly with SEPA. This request was agreed by officers. Due to a range of factors, primarily the COVID emergency, the developer eventually contacted SEPA on the 3rd December 2020 but only, at this time, to query the 4.2m AOD coastal flood risk levels stated by SEPA in their initial consultation response. The developer suggests at this time that the actual coastal flood risk levels at the proposed development site are 3.1m AOD, not 4.2, the inference being that the proposed development does not fall within the 200-year coastal flood risk zone. SEPA responded to the information supplied by the developer on 28th July 2021 (the long delay being due to the consequences of the widely reported SEPA ‘cyber-attack’) Page 30
Page 31
28.07.2021 - Holding Objection. It is acknowledged that the previously quoted coastal flood risk level has been recently revised to take account of a submarine rock ledge (the Falls of Lora) located at the mouth of Loch Etive to the west of the site. The updated coastal flood risk level is now lower at 3.1m AOD and, as such, the proposed development site may not be at risk from coastal flooding. However, a review of our flood risk data shows that the proposed development remains at risk from the 200-year fluvial flood risk event from the River Nant. Request for submission by the developer of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to allow the fluvial flood risk to be investigated in more detail. SEPA also require the actual level of the specific development site to be submitted by the developer. (Case officer note: The agent acting for the developer contacted SEPA directly on 29th July 2021 to state that the actual level of the development site has already been submitted to SEPA by way of a topographical survey that demonstrates that the development site ranges in levels from approximately 3.5m AOD to approximately 3.8m AOD and is therefore above the coastal flood risk level of 3.1m AOD. The agent also, at this time, suggests that the required FRA may not be necessary and that he will discuss it with his client’s specialist consultant. SEPA responded to this on 27th August 2021). 27.08.2021 – Maintain Holding Objection. SEPA acknowledge the receipt of the topographic information and agree that the proposed development is not within the coastal flood risk area. However, they reiterate the need for a detailed FRA to inform a detailed assessment of the fluvial flood risk from the River Nant and request that the application is held in abeyance until this information is received and investigated. (Case officer note: The agent acting for the developer is asked to provide a timescale for the submission of the required FRA by email on the 8th September 2021. This request is reiterated by the case officer in an email dated 16th February 2022 and a response is received on the same day stating that the agent will press his specialist consultant for a response. This coincides with SEPA reaffirming their position in a further consultation response, also dated 16th February 2022). 16.02.2022 – SEPA have not received the FRA required in their response of 28.07.21 and, in the absence of this, they reaffirm their objection to the proposed development on the previously stated grounds that they are not persuaded that the proposal is consistent with the principles set out in Paragraph 256 of Scottish Planning Policy or the Risk Framework set out in Paragraph 263. (Case officer note: On the 2nd March 2022, the agent acting for the developer submits a copy of a flood risk assessment that had been produced in December 2007 in support of a proposed residential development in Achlonan, Taynuilt. Whilst including, within its wider scope, the land the subject of the currently proposed development, this FRA was produced nearly 15 years ago. This information is forwarded to SEPA who respond on the 20th April 2022). 20.04.2022 - Maintain Objection, A FRA was submitted by the applicant which SEPA considers not to be a robust assessment of the potential flood risk at the site for the following reasons: Page 31
Page 32
It is dated December 2007 and as such may not use current and up-to-date flow estimation and modelling methods. The hydrologist data underpinning it also is 14 years old and out-of-date. Insufficient detail of the modelling methods has been provided. There is only one modelled cross section whereas typically we require submission of all cross sections as well as the long section and confirmation of the modelled reach. The one modelled cross section provided in Figure 3.2 includes glass walling. This is not appropriate. The surveyed cross section of the main channel and floodplain need to be comprehensive, i.e. not include ‘glass walls’ in the model. A more extensive topographic survey is required. The SEPA flood maps indicate that out of the bank flows may travel towards the site from the south due to insufficient capacity of the B845 road bridge. The modelled reach does not appear to extend far enough upstream to capture the potential flood risk of flooding from this mechanism. No additional information is submitted by the applicant in response to this and SEPA are asked to provide their final written comments to include reasons for the refusal of the application. 09.06.2022 – SEPA maintain their objection in principle as their final position. The site is completely overlain by the 1 in 200-year fluvial flood event. SEPA do not believe that new ‘least vulnerable’ development in the fluvial floodplain can be reconciled with either the principle of flood avoidance or the risk framework set out in Paragraph 263 of SPP. SEPA understands that the Council’s Flood Risk Officer is satisfied with the development subject to the inclusion of flood resilient measures. However, whilst SEPA are generally supportive of the adoption of such measures, they do not consider them to be a satisfactory means of enabling development that would otherwise be contrary to SPP. SEPA maintain their objection in the absence of an updated robust FRA. The applicant has been advised of SEPA’s objection and has recently suggested that they are likely to be unwilling to commission an updated FRA. Instead, they intend again to try to persuade SEPA to lift their objection. Officers consider that SEPA have maintained consistent and robust advice throughout and that any further approach to SEPA is extremely unlikely to succeed. Council Flood Risk Officer 11.11.2019 - No objection. The site is located in Achlonan, north of Taynuilt, and is bounded by the B845 road to the east, the access road to the south and sewage works site to the west. From the available LiDAR data, the elevations across the site lie at approximately 4 metres above Ordnance Datum (m AOD). The River Nant lies circa 70 metres to the south west of the site. The site is completely overlain by the 1 in 200 year fluvial and coastal flood extents as shown on the SEPA Flood Map (2014). The fluvial flood extent demonstrates that water depth would likely be greater than 0.3m if the 1 in 200 year event were to occur. No raised floor level is proposed. It is recommended that, as far as is practicable, flood resilient materials be used in the construction of the shed. It is recommended that any surface water drainage be designed according to CIRIA C753. (Case officer note: The FRA submitted in response to the concerns raised by SEPA (see above) were forwarded to the Council’s flood risk officer on 8th March 2022. This resulted in the following revised consultation response): Page 32
Page 33
14.03.2022 – Reiterates no objection response but points out the failings of the submitted FRA in a similar manner to SEPA . Environmental Health Unit 11.11.2019 - No objections subject to conditions with regards to noise mitigation measures, hours of operation, site lighting and the existing fencing and bunding. 10.12.2021 - Further comments received expressing concerns regarding the current and ongoing unlawful use of the site for open storage. _____________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 procedures, closing 5th December 2019. ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: There have been a total of 34 representations submitted in response to the planning application, 25 in support and 9 objections which are listed below: Objectors Dr Elzbieta Tolloczko, 5 Nant Park, Taynuilt, PA35 1LA, (e-mail 23.11.2019) Anna Daalman, 2 Nant Park, Taynuilt, PA35 1LA, (letter 24.11.2019) Ann Judge, 2 Nant Park, Taynuilt, PA35 1LA, (letter 24.11.2019) Dr Jean Butterfield, 4 Nant Park, Taynuilt, PA35 1JH, (letter 25.11.2019) Rev John Butterfield, 4 Nant Park, Taynuilt, PA35 1JH, (letter 25.11.2019) Colin Boden, Heather Brae, No 3 Nant Par, Taynuilt, (letter 30.11.2019), (letter 28.11.2019) June B Boden, Heather Brae, No 3 Nant Par, Taynuilt, (letter 30.11.2019), (letter 28.11.2019) Alison Pringle, Polverie, Hall Road, Taynuilt, (letter 02.12.2019) Mrs Isabel Blyth, Carnoch, Taynuilt, PA35 1HP, (e-mail 03.12.2019) Supporters Mr Peter McCracken, Keepers Cottage, Taynuilt, PA35 1HY (e-mail 13.11.2019) Mr Neil Jordan, Duncairn, Moss Road Ledaig, Oban, PA37 1RX (letter 11.11.2019) Mrs Ann Wilson, Fasnakyle, Taynuilt, PA35 1JN, (e-mail 22.11.2019) Mr Jonathan MacKenzie, Cullnadalloch Bungalow Achnacloich, Oban, PA37 1PR, (e-mail 22.11.2019) Mr Christopher MacKenzie, 2 Brenva Cottages, Taynuilt, PA35 1JW, (e-mail 22.11.2019) Mr Roderick MacEachen, Drimnin, Kilchrenan, PA35 1HF, (e-mail 22.11.2019) Mr Jamie Beamish, Craigloiste, Kilchrenan, PA35 1HG, (e-mail 24.11.2019) Mr Gordon Turnbull, Achadh Beul Na H’Uide, Penmore, Dervaig, Isle of Mull, PA75 6QS, (e-mail 24.11.2019) Mrs Isobel Silkowski, Cruachan, Appin, PA38 4BA, (e-mail 23.11.2019) Mr William Reilly, 35 Killermont Road, Bearsden, Glasgow, G61 2JB, (e-mail 25.11.2019) Mr Huert Julka, Flat 1/1, 2 Buchanan Terrace, Hill Street, Oban, PA34 5DF, (e-mail 26.11.2019) Miss Amy Underwood, 2 Ferryfield Drive, Connel, Oban, PA37 1SP, (e-mail 26.11.2019) Page 33
Page 34
Mr John Underwood, Errigal, Stronmilchan, Dalmally, PA33 1JJ, (e-mail 26.11.2019) Mr William MacKenzie, 18 Achlonan, Taynuilt, PA36 1JJ, (e-mail 26.11.2019) Miss Kimberley Reilly, 3 Cleveden Crescent Lane, Kelvinside, Glasgow G12 0NZ, (e-mail 26.11.2019) Craig Donald, 1 Achferna, Taynuilt, PA35 1JP, (e-mail 27.11.2019) Kirsten R MacMillan, 1 Achferna, Taynuilt, PA35 1JP, (e-mail 27.11.2019) John MacAlister, No 6 South Pier, Oban, PA34 4LS, (letter 20.11.2019) Mr Peter Campbell, 9 Islay Road, Oban, PA34 4YG, (e-mail 27.11.2019) Mr Donald MacLennan, Fassaig, Benvoullin Road, Oban, PA34 5EF, (e-mail 27.11.2019) Mr Jamie Turner, 48 marine Court, Dunbeg, PA37 1NU, (e-mail 27.11.2019) Mr Donald McNeill, Kilespikeral, Taynuilt, PA35 1HW, (e-mail 03.12.2019) John Barrington, Creran Oysters, Failte, Benderloch, PA37 1QU, (letter 02.12.2019) Mrs Taeko Mackenzie, 18 Achlonan, Taynuilt, PA35 1JJ, (e-mail 26.11.2019) Ian MacKenzie, Achalic House, Taynuilt, PA35 1JQ, (e-mail 26.11.2019) Summary of issues raised from objectors Proposed development is for a large shed which is out of keeping with the Nant Park development. Officer Comment: The proposed building is of a suitable form, scale and design for its context within a Key Settlement which accommodates a mixture of land uses which would ensure that it will not detract from the overall appearance of the wider area consistent with the terms of the policies set out below. It is considered that the design, the overall scale, massing and proportions of the proposed development would be sympathetic to its surroundings and that the existing unauthorised bunding which has been formed at the site in conjunction with the proposed landscaping will ensure that the proposed development successfully integrates with its surroundings. Adjacent plots purchased in the belief that there would be no business conducted on any of the 5 plots as stipulated in the deposition held at the Scottish Land Registry and as stated by the developer Lonan Properties. Officer Comment: The contents of any legal depositions are not a material planning consideration and are a private civil legal matter between affected parties. Concerns with regards to impact on dwellinghouse at plot 2. The 1.8m high screen fence along the boundary is not sufficient to mitigate the impact of the proposed 4m eaves/6.4m ridge height building set just 6-8m away from the boundary and running its full length of 18m adjacent to plot 2. Officer Comment: The proposed shed would be sited approximately 14 metres away from the dwellinghouse at plot 2 to the north of the site. A cross section has been submitted which illustrates that the proposed shed would sit at a lower level than both the existing commercial building and the dwellinghouse at plot 2. The proposed shed would be set back within the site in keeping with the existing spacing which would be reflective of the existing building line at this part of the settlement. The proposed shed would not, in the opinion of officers, have any materially harmful privacy or daylighting impacts on the nearest dwellinghouse at plot 2 to the north. Noise emissions Officer Comment: Environmental Health have been consulted and have raised no objections subject to conditions with regards to noise mitigation measures, hours of Page 34
Page 35
operation, site lighting and the existing fencing and retention of unauthorised bunds. Environmental Health have subsequently received complaints from neighbouring residents with regards to the current unauthorised use of the site for the external storage of materials and/ or plant equipment. Environmental Health have subsequently submitted a further response to this planning application raising an objection to the current unlawful use of the site. The unauthorised change of use which has occurred at the site which is ongoing differs substantially from the proposed development which is the subject of this application. The site is currently an unlawful outdoor storage area whereas the proposed development is a storage shed which would result in the materials which are currently being stored at the site being stored in a purpose designed building which can be required by planning condition to meet necessary sound insulation standards and conditions designed to appropriately control the use of the site. The original consultation response from Environmental Health has provided an assessment on the proposed development which is the subject of the current planning application. The additional response submitted from Environmental Health has been based on complaints having been made with regards to the current unauthorised change of use which has occurred at the site which differs substantially to the proposed development. It is considered that the original consultation is the relevant response in the determination of the current application. The proposed shed is unlikely to reduce the level of noise as the forklift truck used by MacKenzie Welding would have to shuttle between their work shed or lorry/trailer to the proposed development site for loading and unloading materials. Officer Comment: See comment above re noise. The shed will have its access point at the south western side of the site where the entrance door to the shed will be located, looking out to the private access to the south which serves the sewage works site. The applicant can currently operate a forklift on the private access to the south west of the site and it is considered that the placement of the shed with its entrance door directly overlooking the access point onto this track will ensure that there will be no additional impacts from noise over and above what could currently legitimately take place. Road safety concerns in particular the use of the public road by forklift. Existing access arrangements are dangerous with the public road being blocked on a number of occasions. Deliveries of metal to the site and the subsequent movement of those materials to and from the workshop would all generate additional traffic movement on the existing private access. Officer Comment: The Area Roads Engineer has been consulted and has recommended that the application be refused on roads safety grounds. The applicant has been requested by Roads to provide details of a turning head within the site and a TMP. The Roads Engineer has advised that conditions would be required with regards to the provision of: Access to the site from the existing private road to be in accordance with SD08/001a; Turning head required within site boundaries to prevent HGV and other associated vehicles from reversing onto the public road; A pedestrian drop kerb crossing point would be required to be installed opposite Nant Park and a pedestrian rail would be required to be installed on footpath from junction with Achnaferna to the pedestrian bridge crossing the River Nant. The Roads Engineer subsequently revisited the site in response to concerns raised by officers and by third parties. The Roads Engineer now recognises that the required turning head via condition would be problematic to achieve therefore causing difficulties for the applicant to contain all of their business activities within the application site without Page 35
Page 36
spilling out onto the public road corridor. The Roads Engineer then advised that details of the turning head within the site and a TMP would be required in order to demonstrate safe and legal use of the pubic road corridor in order for the required turning head condition to be applied and be achievable. These outstanding information requirements have been relayed to the applicant a number of times. This information has not been submitted and the Area Roads Engineer has submitted a final response recommending refusal on roads safety grounds as the information requested by Roads to provide details of the turning head within the site and for a Traffic Management Plan have not been submitted for consideration. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to SG LDP TRAN 4, SG LDP TRAN 5 and SG LDP TRAN 6 in the absence of the requested Traffic Management Plan. Concerns that external storage of materials would continue even if a storage building were to be provided within the site. Officer Comment: Planning conditions can be attached to any grant of planning permission in order to control external storage at the site. The building is not being advanced as a stand-alone development, where it could legitimately be deemed as small scale under LDP Policy. The proposed development is being advanced to facilitate the expansion of an existing Class 5 General Industrial operation resulting in an expanded development footprint of 372 square metres. The proposed development would therefore constitute medium scale development as defined in the Local Development Plan. Such expansion runs contrary to LDP DM 1, LDP 5 and SG LDP BUS 1. Officer Comment: The proposed development is required to facilitate the business operations of the welding business on the land to the south of the site by providing an incidental enclosed storage facility. The proposed development is considered to constitute small scale business and industry development as defined by the Local Development Plan as the proposed floor area of the proposed new storage building would be less than 200 square metres. Schedule B1 sets out the business and industry scales of development and SG LDP BUS 1 sets out provisions for the development of new or extensions to existing business and industrial enterprises within existing settlements. The proposed development is small scale business and industry development which would be incidental to an existing business and industry operation immediately adjacent to the site and it is considered that the principle of the development would largely accord with LDP DM 1, LDP 5 and LDP BUS 1. The proposed development is contrary to SG LDP BUS 1 as it would erode the residential character of the area and adversely affect local residents, through an increase in traffic, noise, fumes, or hours of operation. Officer Comment: The proposed development is for an incidental storage facility and is considered to constitute small scale business and industry development as defined by the Local Development Plan as the proposed floor area would be less than 200 square metres. Schedule B1 sets out the business and industry scales of development and SG LDP BUS 1 sets out provisions for the development of new or extensions to existing business and industrial enterprises within existing settlements. The proposed development is small scale business and industry development which would be incidental to an existing business and industry operation immediately adjacent to the site and it is considered that the principle of the development would largely accord with LDP DM 1, LDP 5 and LDP BUS 1. Environmental Health have been consulted and have raised no objections to the proposed development subject to mitigation conditions. The Area Roads Engineer has however recommended that planning permission be refused on road safety grounds. Page 36
Page 37
The proposed development is contrary to SG LDP BAD 1 as it would affect residential property by means of noise and potentially artificial lighting and vibration, and could arguably alter the character of an area of established amenity. Officer Comment: Environmental Health have been consulted and have raised no objections subject to conditions with regards to noise mitigation measures, hours of operation, site lighting and the existing fencing and bunding. Environmental Health have subsequently received complaints from neighbouring residents with regards to the current unauthorised use of the site for the external storage of materials and/ or plant equipment. Environmental Health have subsequently submitted a further response this planning application raising an objection. The unauthorised change of use which has occurred at the site which is ongoing differs substantially from the proposed development. The site is currently an outdoor storage area whereas the proposed development is a storage shed which would result in the materials which are currently being stored at the site being stored in a covered enclosure. The original consultation response from Environmental Health has provided an assessment on the proposed development which is the subject of the current planning application. The additional response submitted from Environmental Health has been based on complaints having been made with regards to the current unauthorised change of use which has occurred at the site which differs substantially to the proposed development. It is considered that the original consultation is the relevant response in the determination of the current application. The applicant’s supporting statement concedes that the proposal represents a departure from the LDP and is therefore in accordance with SG LDP DEP - Departures to the Local development Plan – which confirms that the council will seek to minimise the occurrence of departures and that departure will only be granted when material considerations so justify. Officer Comment: The proposed development is not considered to represent a departure to the local development plan. The specific nature of the proposed development is, however, contrary to the interests of road safety and to flood risk and whilst every attempt has been made by officers to find an appropriate solution to these issues, these attempts have been stymied, largely by the failure of the developer, either through unwillingness or some other reason, to provide the necessary information required by both SEPA and Roads; information which might otherwise have overcome these concerns. It is entirely inappropriate to seek to justify the current application based on recent unauthorised use of the site which has occurred for over two years and is the subject of a live enforcement notice. Officer Comment: The proposed development is required to be assessed against Local Development Plan policy and all other material planning considerations unless overriding factors indicate otherwise. The current use of the site is unlawful and is being pursued through ongoing planning enforcement action. The current unlawful use of the site is causing difficulties to local residents and will not be supported by the planning authority. The proposed development the subject of this planning application, however, is materially different to the current unlawful position and is considered capable of being assessed as acceptable if the technical obstacles could be overcome. Flood risk concerns. The ground levels at the site have been lowered to win material for use in the new bunding around the eastern and northern boundaries which has made the site more susceptible to flooding. Page 37
Page 38
Officer Comment: SEPA have been consulted and have objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it may place buildings and persons at flood risk contrary to Scottish Planning Policy. SEPA have raised concerns that the site lies within the 200-year fluvial floodplain. SEPA have requested the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment to investigate the potential flood risk from the River Nant. The applicant has subsequently submitted a 15 year old Flood Risk Assessment which includes the site of the current proposed development. SEPA have maintained their objection and have requested the submission of an updated Flood Risk Assessment which should be undertaken in accordance with technical and reporting requirements set out by SEPA. The proposed development is considered to be considered contrary to SG LDP SERV 7 in the absence of a robust Flood Risk Assessment. SEPA have been asked to provide a final consultation response in the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment. It is considered that the applicant has been given an abundance of time in which to submit a robust Flood Risk Assessment and SEPA have been asked to provide concise reasons for their objection to the proposed development. SEPA’s final response is summarised in Section D above. Raising the site and building levels to address the issue of flood risk would increase the dominance of the building within the vicinity. Officer Comment: Officers concur with this statement. The proposed shed does not incorporate any underbuild and is not proposed to be sited on a raised platform. The shed in its current form being set at ground level is considered to be acceptable visually and would have no impacts on the streetscene in this part of the settlement. There has been no request from either SEPA or the Councils Flood Risk Assessor to raise the site and building levels in order to mitigate any potential flooding concerns. The business is clearly outgrowing its operational base and business relocation appears to be the answer if such growth is to be sustained. Officer Comment: These comments are noted. The proprietor of the site, by carrying on a commercial business on the plot is in breach of the planning permission at the site which was granted for the erection of a dwellinghouse. Officer Comment: Detailed planning permission has never been granted for a dwellinghouse at the plot albeit that the plot obtained the grant of Planning permission in principle as part of a 5 plot development by virtue of 11/01842/PP. The site has been the subject of a breach of planning control which is detailed in this report. Summary of comments raised from supporters Mackenzie Welding provide an excellent high quality service to local businesses. They are a highly skilled employer, rooted at the heart of the community, serving local needs and the wider Argyll and Bute area. They offer much needed local employment and apprenticeships to young people enabling them to remain in the community. The proposed shed will offer a partial screen to the sewage treatment plant located to the rear of the site. The proposed shed would provide an acoustic barrier to the existing welder’s workshop facilities and the surrounding the residential area. Page 38
Page 39
The proposed shed has been amended to address the concerns of immediate neighbours. Officer Comment: These comments are noted. The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the letters of representation are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess. _________________________________________________________________________ (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: Yes This statement is available to view in full at the Council’s website via the following link: https://portal360.argyll-bute.gov.uk/my-requests/document- viewer?DocNo=22136444 (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development Yes e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Flood risk assessment submitted 2nd March 2022. This statement is available to view in full at the Council’s website via the following link: Microsoft Word - Rep3271.doc (argyll-bute.gov.uk) ____________________________________________________________________________ (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (i) 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. Page 39
Page 40
Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan, 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 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of our Economy 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 14 – Landscape SG LDP BUS 1 – Business and Industry Proposals in Existing Settlements and Identified Business and Industry Areas SG LDP ENF 1 – Enforcement Action SG LDP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development SG LDP SERV 2 - Incorporation of Natural Features / Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) 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 SG LDP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision (i) 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. Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guidance 2006 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014 Consultee Responses Third Party Representations SEPA Development Management Guidance: Flood Risk SEPA Flood Risk and Land Use Vulnerability Guidance 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 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road • Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access ____________________________________________________________________________ (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an No Environmental Impact Assessment: ____________________________________________________________________________ Page 40
Page 41
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application No consultation (PAC): ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 The determining factor in the assessment of this planning application rests on two separate technical issues, one of which is a matter of national and local planning policy with respect of flood risk. In this case SEPA, as the national agency tasked with the interpretation and enforcement of Scottish Government planning policy has raised, and strenuously maintained, an overriding objection to the development. This objection cannot be set-aside without the prior notification of this application to Scottish Ministers and this report of handling explains to Members why, in the considered opinion of the officers, this option should not be followed. Secondly, the Roads Engineer has advised that details of a turning head within the site and a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would be required in order to demonstrate safe and legal use of the pubic road corridor in order for the required turning head condition to be applied and be achievable. These outstanding information requirements have been relayed to the applicant a number of times. This information has not been submitted and is not forthcoming and the Area Roads Engineer has submitted a final response recommending refusal on roads safety grounds as the information requested by Roads to provide details of the turning head within the site and for a Traffic Management Plan have not been submitted for consideration. Whilst it is acknowledged that this application has generated a significant level of third party representation, both for and against the development, it is considered that the comments raised by third parties have been properly addressed within this report of handling and neither of the two technical reasons for refusal are capable of being resolved through further public debate. ____________________________________________________________________________ (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations This is an application seeking planning permission for the erection of a storage shed and associated works (part retrospective) at plot 1 Nant Park, Taynuilt. The site is a plot of ground which has previously had the benefit of Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) for the erection of a dwellinghouse as part of a linear row of 5 dwellinghouses. This plot of ground is known as ‘plot 1’ and is the southernmost plot of the 5 plots. The dwellinghouses on plots 2-5 have all been built and are occupied but the PPP insofar as it relates to Plot 1 has long expired. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP) the application site is located within the Key Rural Settlement of Taynuilt where Policy LDP DM 1 gives encouragement to sustainable forms of development on appropriate sites subject to compliance with other relevant policies and supplementary guidance. Supplementary Guidance (SG) policy SG LDP BUS 1 also gives encouragement to the development of extensions to existing business and industrial enterprises within existing Page 41
Page 42
settlements, provided that 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. The site is located to the immediate north of the existing McKenzie Welding Ltd business operation. There is an access track which separates the application site from the Welding site which serves an existing sewage works site which serves Taynuilt. An enforcement case was opened in September 2017 for an alleged change of use of the site after a complaint was received by a neighbour. It was alleged that the site was being used for the storage of material, equipment and/or repaired materials in direct connection with the welder’s business operation to the immediate south west of the site. At this time it was considered that use of land for the storage of material, equipment and / or repaired materials, conflicted directly with SG policy LDP BUS 1, by adversely impacting the local residential character and amenity. It was considered that the expansion of the welder’s business operation, (being within Use Class 5 in Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997), into an area of the housing development would create an increase in noise and fumes from machinery, as well as potentially further impacting any amenity due to the hours of operation of this business. The site is the subject of an enforcement notice which was served by the Council on 1st of October 2018 which took effect on 7th of November 2018 with a 3 month time period for compliance. The time period for compliance has long since expired and the site is currently still in use for the unauthorised storage of material, equipment and/or repaired materials in direct connection with the business operation. This application has been submitted in response to the enforcement notice and aims to resolve the issues caused by open storage by containing the use within a purpose- designed building. The determining factor in the assessment of this application is whether or not the proposed siting of a storage shed for general industrial purposes in connection with the existing welder’s business operation is acceptable at this location. Whilst the proposed use of the site for a small scale industrial development ancillary to the adjacent and long-established business site is considered to be broadly acceptable in accordance with Policy LDP 3, Policy LDP 5, and Policy LDP DM 1 of the LDP (subject to appropriate safeguarding measures concerning the construction of the building and controls over the specific use of the site), the development has been assessed as contrary to local and national flood risk policy and harmful to the interests of highway safety. Officers have tried to resolve these outstanding issues but have been unable to at this time, largely due to a failure on behalf of the developer to properly address the technical issues raised by both SEPA and the Council as Roads Authority (the issues raised and associated timeline are summarised in Section D of this Report). SEPA have objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it may place buildings and persons at flood risk contrary to Scottish Planning Policy. SEPA have raised concerns that the site lies within the 200-year fluvial floodplain and the construction of a large storage shed (which is a Least Vulnerable Use) constitutes an increase in land use vulnerability contrary to both local and national planning policy. In order to add clarity to any specific flood risk liability and to better inform their assessment of the proposal, SEPA have requested the submission of a detailed and site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). To date, no suitable FRA has been submitted and SEPA have maintained their objection. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to Local Development Plan Policy LDP 10 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP SERV 7, and contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). Page 42
Page 43
In addition, the Area Roads Engineer has attached weight to concerns raised by both officers and third parties that the site may not be large enough to appropriately accommodate the proposed built development whilst allowing for an appropriate level of on-site parking and turning in order to prevent the development from ‘spilling out’ onto the public road corridor and thus causing road safety concerns. In order to properly assess this aspect of the proposed development the area roads manager requires the submission of an appropriate Traffic Management Plan (TMP) in order to demonstrate that safe and legal use of the pubic road corridor is achievable. To date, no TMP or other appropriate information sufficient to allay these concerns has been submitted and the roads engineer has recommended that planning permission be refused. In this regard, the proposed development is considered contrary to Local Development Plan Policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 and SG LDP TRAN 6. The application has elicited approximately 34 representations in response to the planning application; 25 in support and 9 objections. The support which has been offered views the proposed development as being acceptable largely on the basis that it is of economic benefit to the area. Objections have been raised with regards to the proposed development not being compatible with the adjacent dwellinghouses in terms of siting, design, detrimental impacts on amenity from noise and hours of operation, flood risk grounds and the increase on traffic and usage of the public road. Whilst the amenity concerns are considered capable of being appropriately resolved through the use of planning conditions, and whilst the economic benefits of the proposal are acknowledged, officers have been unable to resolve the flood risk and highway safety issues associated with the development and it is therefore considered that planning permission should be refused. ______________________________________________________________________ (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (R) Reasons why planning permission should be refused See reasons for refusal below. ____________________________________________________________________________ (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: Lesley Cuthbertson Date: 01.08.2022 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 01.08.2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 43
Page 44
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 19/02300/PP 1. SEPA have objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it may place buildings and persons at flood risk contrary to Scottish Planning Policy. SEPA have raised concerns that the site lies within the 200-year fluvial floodplain and the construction of a large storage shed (which is a Least Vulnerable Use) constitutes an increase in land use vulnerability contrary to both local and national planning policy. In order to add clarity to any specific flood risk liability and to better inform their assessment of the proposal, SEPA have requested the submission of a detailed and site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). To date, no suitable FRA has been submitted and SEPA have maintained their objection. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to Local Development Plan Policy LDP 10 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP SERV 7, and contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). 2. Policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 state that the use of an existing private access will only be accepted if that access is either safe and appropriate in its current form or else is capable of commensurate improvements considered by the Roads Authority to be appropriate and necessary to the scale and nature of the proposed new development, and that it takes into account any current access issues (informed by an assessment of usage). The proposed development would result in the intensification in vehicular use of a private access regime where it has not been demonstrated, through lack of the submission of details of a turning head within the site and a Traffic Management Plan, that the application site and access track is capable of serving the proposed development, either in its current state or else by any reasonable and necessary commensurate improvements to that access as informed by the submission and assessment of information necessary for the planning authority to properly assess this part of the proposed development. Details of a turning head within the site and a full Traffic Management Plan has been requested to demonstrate the ability of vehicles serving the site to do so in a safe and legal matter. The requested details have not been submitted. In this regard, and in the absence of the submission and professional assessment of this necessary information, the proposal is considered contrary to Local Development Plan Policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 and SG LDP TRAN 6. Page 44
Page 45
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 19/02300/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT A. Settlement Strategy Detailed planning permission is sought for the erection of a storage shed (part retrospective) at plot 1 Nant Park, Taynuilt. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP) the application site is located within the Key Rural Settlement of Taynuilt where Policy LDP DM 1 gives encouragement to sustainable forms of development on appropriate sites and subject to compliance with other relevant policies and supplementary guidance. Policy LDP 3 assesses applications for their impact on the natural, human and built environment with Policy LDP 9 seeking developers to produce and execute a high standard of appropriate design and to ensure that development is sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located. The Sustainable Siting and Design Principles expands on this policy seeking development layouts to be compatible with, and consolidate the existing settlement and take into account the relationship with neighbouring properties to ensure no adverse privacy or amenity issues. Policy LDP 5 aims to support the development of new industry and business which helps deliver sustainable economic growth throughout Argyll and Bute by taking full account of the economic benefits of any proposed development. In particular integration between transportation and land use will be fundamental to delivering economic growth in a sustainable manner which would help improve accessibility to new employment opportunities. SG LDP BUS 1 aims to promote well ordered, sustainable industrial and business development in all existing settlements with the preferred location being within identified Business and Industry Areas. Other locations within settlements may also be appropriate for small-scale developments, particularly office type developments. SG LDP BUS 1 also gives encouragement to the development of extensions to existing business and industrial enterprises within existing settlements, provided that 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. Schedule B1 sets out the scales of Business and Industry development with small scale being defined as buildings not exceeding 200 square metres footprint. Schedule B2 sets out the preferred locations for business and industry. In the settlements Strategic and Business Locations (SIBL) are preferred locations for all scales of business and industry development. Business and Industry Locations (outwith SIBL) and Potential Development Areas (PDAs) designated for Business and /or industry and Established Business and Industry Areas are the preferred locations for all scales of business and industry development, subject to the constraints of and appropriate capacity within the specific sites. Other locations in the settlements are the preferred locations for small scale business development; and for small scale industry development. The proposed development site is a plot of ground which has previously had the benefit of Planning Permission in Principle for the erection of a dwellinghouse as part of a linear row of 5 dwellinghouses. This plot of ground is known as ‘plot 1’ and is the southernmost plot of the 5 plots. The dwellinghouses on plots 2 to 5 have all been built and are occupied but the PPP insofar as it relates to Plot 1 has long expired. Page 45
Page 46
The site is separated from the existing welder’s yard by a private access which serves the sewage works site to the immediate west. Prior to undergoing an unauthorised change of use with earth bunds being formed along the northern and eastern boundaries, the site was an area of flat ground which formed part of the residential site to the immediate north which has since been developed with a linear row of four detached dwellinghouses. The proposed shed would be sited approximately 14 metres away from the gable end of the dwellinghouse at plot 2. The proposed development is small scale business and industry development which could potentially be sited within a site within a designated settlement subject to compatibility with surrounding land uses. The proposed use of the site for small scale industrial purposes ancillary to the adjacent welder’s site, including a storage shed with a footprint of under 200 square metres, is considered to be largely in accordance with Policy LDP 3, Policy LDP 5 and Policy LDP DM 1. It is deemed that this extra storage and workshop space may be a contributor to the local economy and the proposal is deemed to comply with policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3, LDP 10 and SG LDP BUS 1. The proposal is intended to increase the capacity of the applicant’s business and thereby help to safeguard the business and is, in this regard, supported by policy LDP 5. The proposed development falls short of complying with all the criteria set out by SG LDP BUS 1 in that the applicant has not demonstrated that technical standards in terms of traffic circulation and vehicular access and servicing can be met in full. B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development The proposal site is set against the public road which runs through the village of Taynuilt. The site is an infill plot of ground which is bounded by a private access and the existing welder’s yard to the immediate south and a linear row of dwellinghouses to the immediate north. The site is currently being used unlawfully as a storage yard in connection with the existing welder’s yard. Two earth bunds have been formed unlawfully along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. An unauthorised access has also been formed at the southern side of the site which is currently being used by vehicles to deliver and store materials unlawfully at the site. This planning application seeks planning permission for the erection of a storage shed which would be sited centrally within the site. This shed would measure approximately 18 metres in length, 10 metres in width and would have a height of 6.4 metres. The shed would have a shallow roof pitch and gables. The southern facing gable end would incorporate a large roller shutter door to allow vehicular access. The storage shed would be clad with a ‘Vandyke brown’ colour cladding. The unauthorised earth bund along the northern boundary is shown to be retained on the supporting site plan as is an existing 1.8m high timber fence. A new 1.2 metre high timber fence would be erected along the eastern facing boundary of the site. New native tree planting/screening would be provided within the eastern side of the site. The proposed shed would be sited approximately 14 metres away from the dwellinghouse at plot 2 to the north of the site. A cross section has been submitted which illustrates that the proposed shed would sit at a lower level than the existing welder’s yard building and the dwellinghouse at plot 2. The proposed shed would be set back within the site in keeping with the existing spacing which would be reflective of the existing building line at this part of the settlement. The proposed shed would not, in the opinion of officers, have any materially harmful privacy or daylighting impacts on the nearest dwellinghouse at plot 2 to the north. The proposed building is of a suitable form, scale and design for its context within a Key Settlement which accommodates a mixture of land uses which would ensure that it will not detract from the overall appearance of the wider area consistent with the terms of the Page 46
Page 47
policies set out above. It is considered that the design, the overall scale, massing and proportions of the proposed development would be sympathetic to its surroundings and that the existing unauthorised bunding which has been formed at the site in conjunction with the proposed landscaping will ensure that the proposed development successfully integrates with its surroundings. C. Road Network and Parking Policy LDP 11 supports all development proposals that seek to maintain and improve internal and external connectivity by ensuring that suitable infrastructure is delivered to serve new developments. Supplementary Guidance SG LDP TRAN 4 and SG LDP TRAN 6 expands on this policy seeking to ensure that developments are served by a safe means of vehicular access and have an adequate on-site parking and turning area. The Area Roads Engineer has been consulted and has recommended that the application be refused on roads safety grounds. The applicant has been requested by Roads to provide details of a turning head within the site and a TMP. The Roads Engineer had originally advised that conditions would be required with regards to the provision of: Access to the site from existing private to be in accordance with SD08/001a; Turning head required within site boundaries to prevent HGVs and other associated vehicles from reversing onto the public road; A pedestrian drop kerb crossing point would be required to be installed opposite Nant Park and a pedestrian rail would be required to be installed on footpath from junction with Achnaferna to the pedestrian bridge crossing the River Nant. The Roads Engineer had originally recommended approval subject to the required conditions outlined above. The Roads Engineer was requested by this Service to review these comments in light of the objections having been received raising road safety issues and given the limited size of the site to incorporate a turning head. The Roads Engineer revisited the site and reviewed third party comments. The Roads Engineer then advised that details of the turning head within the site and a TMP would be required in order to demonstrate safe and legal use of the pubic road corridor in order for the required turning head condition to be applied and be achievable. These outstanding information requirements have been relayed to the applicant a number of times. This information has not been submitted and the Area Roads Engineer has submitted a final response recommending refusal on road safety grounds as the information requested by Roads to provide details of the turning head within the site and for a Traffic Management Plan have not been submitted for consideration. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to Local Development Plan Policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 and SG LDP TRAN 6 in the absence of the requested details. D. Impacts on amenity The proposed development is considered to represent a potential ‘bad neighbour development’ in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992. SG policy LDP BAD 1 provides that such development will only be considered where there are no unacceptable adverse effects on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Environmental Health have been consulted and have raised no objections subject to conditions with regards to noise mitigation measures, hours of operation, site lighting and the existing fencing and retention of unauthorised bunds. Environmental Health have subsequently received complaints from neighbouring residents with regards to the current unauthorised use of the site for the external storage of materials and/ or plant equipment. Environmental Health have subsequently submitted a further response to this planning application raising an objection to the current unlawful use of the site. The unauthorised change of use which has occurred at the site which is ongoing differs substantially from the proposed development which is the subject of this application. The site is currently an unlawful outdoor storage area whereas the proposed development is a storage shed which Page 47
Page 48
would result in the materials which are currently being stored at the site being stored in a purpose designed building which can be required by planning condition to meet necessary sound insulation standards and conditions designed to appropriately control the use of the site. The original consultation response from Environmental Health has provided an assessment on the proposed development which is the subject of the current planning application. The additional response submitted from Environmental Health has been based on complaints having been made with regards to the current unauthorised change of use which has occurred at the site which differs substantially to the proposed development. It is considered that the original consultation is the relevant response in the determination of the current application. The proposed development is, therefore, not considered to constitute a ‘bad neighbour development’. F. Flooding The site has been identified as having the potential to flood and therefore consultation has been undertaken with SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Advisors, JBA Consulting Ltd (JBA). SEPA has categorised the proposed development as introducing a new ‘least vulnerable land use’ but one within a previously undeveloped site and has objected to the development in principle on the basis that it represents an increase in land use vulnerability and may place buildings and persons at risk of flooding, contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). The application site is within the fluvial flood plain of the River Nant as per the SEPA Fluvial Flood Maps (2014). These flood maps show that the application site and its wider surroundings lies within the medium likelihood (1 in 200 year) fluvial flood extent of the SEPA Flood Map and may, therefore, be at medium to high risk of fluvial flooding. In addition, SEPA note that the proposal contains the construction of a bund. They acknowledge that this has not been designed to offer any kind of flood protection and they agree that the bund offers no protection to the site. As the bund has been constructed in the floodplain, SEPA comment that it constitutes land raising within the floodplain. This is contrary to SPP unless it can be demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances. SEPA advise that Paragraph 255 of the SPP states that “the planning system should promote a precautionary approach to flood risk from all sources”, as well as flood avoidance and flood reduction, where appropriate. Paragraph 256 stipulates that, “the planning system should prevent development which would have significant probability of being affected by flooding”. SEPAs ‘Development Management Guidance on Flood Risk’ (July 2018) states that, “Proposed developments should not be located in areas at medium to high risk from fluvial or coastal flooding (or low to medium areas for civil infrastructure). Where this is not possible, some types of development may be acceptable if they meet the requirements of the risk framework (SPP, paragraph 263). The risk framework should be applied within the context of the issues listed in paragraph 264 of SPP and our Land Use Vulnerability Guidance should be used to inform the vulnerability classification of the proposed land use and ensure that it is suitable for the location and degree of flood risk. In general, the following types of development may be acceptable in areas that are at risk of fluvial or coastal flooding: Page 48
Page 49
a) Developments classed as water compatible or that are considered to be essential infrastructure which require a flood risk location for operational reasons. The operational need for the development is for the planning authority to determine. b) Redevelopment of an existing building, including changes of use to an equal or less vulnerable use to the existing use. c) Redevelopment of a previously developed site where it involves the demolition of existing buildings and/or erection of additional buildings within a development site, and the proposed land use is equal or less vulnerable than the existing land use. d) Where the principle of development on the site has been established in an up-to-date, adopted development plan or the National Planning Framework and flood risk issues were given due consideration as part of the plan preparation process and our assessment of risk has not changed in the interim. e) Development in built up areas protected by an existing or planned flood protection scheme, where the standard of protection is appropriate for the vulnerability of the land use. “ The SEPA Land Use Vulnerability Guidance seeks to classify developments into a series of five specific land use types which range from ‘Most Vulnerable Uses’ (at the most vulnerable end of the scale) down to ‘Water Compatible Uses’ (at the least vulnerable end). The development the subject of this application has been categorised by SEPA as a ‘Least Vulnerable Land Use’ (the third most vulnerable to flood risk) because it proposes development comprising buildings for industry and/or for storage and distribution. SEPAs guidance states that development falling within the ‘Least Vulnerable Land Use’ category will only be acceptable within the medium to high flood risk area if one of the following exceptions apply: • Redevelopment of an existing building, including changes of use to an equal or less vulnerable use to the existing use. • Redevelopment of a previously developed site where it involves the demolition of existing buildings and/or erection of additional buildings within a development site, and the proposed land use is equal or less vulnerable than the existing land use. • Where the principle of development on the site has been established in an up-to- date, adopted development plan or the National Planning Framework and flood risk issues were given due consideration as part of the plan preparation process and our assessment of risk has not changed in the interim. • The site is protected by a flood protection scheme of the appropriate standard that is already in existence and maintained, is under construction, or is planned for in a current flood risk management plan. The proposed development does not conform with the methodology summarised above and SEPA have suggested that a detailed and site specific flood risk assessment (FRA) for the site might enable them to consider whether there are any as yet unforeseen factors that might enable them to lift their objection in principle. To date, however, no such FRA has been submitted and SEPA have, therefore, reiterated their objection in principle. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to Local Development Plan Policy LDP 10 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP SERV 7, and contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). Page 49
Page 50
It is acknowledged that the Council’s own flood risk advisor has not raised any objection to the proposed development. However, in the opinion of officers, this internal consultation response has been made without the necessary regard to both national and local flood risk policy and guidance, and officers are not persuaded, and certainly not in the absence of any site specific and up to date FRA, that there is any overriding reason to set aside specific flooding policy in this case. In the event that Members are minded to approve the application contrary to the recommendation by officers and having regard to National and Local Planning Policy with an outstanding objection from SEPA, this must be notified to Scottish Ministers. This requirement is set out in the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009 (‘the Direction’). Planning Circular 3/2009: Notification of Planning Applications sets out the process that will be followed in such notification cases under the Direction: “Where a planning authority notifies Scottish Ministers of its intention to grant planning permission, Ministers consider whether to call in the application or clear it back to the authority to decide the matter as it thinks fit. Scottish Government officials should usually be able to tell the authority within the 28-day period set out in the direction whether Ministers propose to take any action. Scottish Ministers do not need to wait until the end of that 28-day period, and will issue their decision as soon as they are ready to do so. The Scottish Government is committed to efficient decision-making, but in exceptional circumstances it may take a little longer to reach a conclusion, in which case Ministers will issue a further direction, extending the period for their consideration of the matter.” In respect of the current planning application and in the absence of any site specific and up to date FRA, Members are strongly advised to accept the recommendation and not to trigger the notification procedure. G. Economic Benefit A Statement has been submitted in support of the proposed development which sets out details of the existing welding business operation on the land to the south of the application site. This statement provides the following comments: “MacKenzie Welding Ltd is a family run engineering business based in Taynuilt. Formally known as Weldmech Services which started in 1972, they have been providing welding, fabrication & blacksmith services throughout Argyll for 45 years. In 2013 they constructed a new purpose-built workshop to help grow and expand their business. Since 2013 they have steadily grown and now employ a total of 10 local full-time members of staff including several self-employed workers along with an apprentice enrolled with the Scottish Training Federation scheme following success with their previous apprentice winning the prestigious 2018 ‘apprentice of the year’ award for Scotland. Their modern workshop facility provides a key platform for the younger generation to learn welding and fabrication skills. MacKenzie Welding work throughout Argyll and the Islands and has recently been working toward and achieved CE accreditation for structural steel fabrication. Their current workshop facility is limited in external storage space which is a fundamental requirement to the business operations. In order to continue growing and expanding the business, whilst enhancing the long-term sustainability of the village, they have been using the ground to the north east of the workshop know as Plot 1, Nant Park which is in ownership of MacKenzie Welding to address their storage needs”. This statement further outlines the proposed design principles and sets out the methodology of the existing welding business and the proposed expansion into the proposed application site. Page 50
Page 51
This statement is available to view in full at the Council’s website via the following link: https://portal360.argyll-bute.gov.uk/my-requests/document-viewer?DocNo=22136444 Officers are sympathetic to the business needs of the developer and have been working with stakeholders to try to facilitate an acceptable development for this site. However, as detailed above, the flood risk and highway safety issues cannot be overcome; certainly not at the present time without the submission and appropriate assessment of the necessary flood risk assessment or traffic management plan and access/turning details. None of these elements can be required by suspensive planning condition as both issues are fundamental to the acceptability or otherwise of the proposed development. Page 51
Page 52
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 53
Page 53
Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
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: 19/02539/MFF Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: The Scottish Salmon Company Proposal: 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. Site Address: Ardyne Fish Farm, Loch Striven, Argyll & Bute ____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ____________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Installation of 14 no. 120m circumference cages in a 75m mooring grid and; Installation of feed pipe (ii) Other specified operations Removal of existing fish farm Maximum biomass 2070 tonnes ____________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to conditions. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: Page 55 Agenda Item 5
Page 56
14/01234/SCRSCO - Extension to marine fish farm, Ardyne, Loch Striven, Argyll & Bute – Opinion Issued 15/00304/SCRSCO - Extension to marine fish farm, Ardyne, Loch Striven, Argyll & Bute – Opinion Issued 16/01320/MFF - Modification of fish farm from 8 x 100m circumference cages to 12 x 100m circumference cages including increase in extent of mooring area, Ardyne Fish Farm, Loch Striven, Argyll & Bute - Application Withdrawn. 16/03426/MFF - Increase in extent of mooring area, Ardyne Fish Farm, Loch Striven, Argyll & Bute - Application Approved 19/00335/SCRSCO - Screening and scoping request for replacement of existing Ardyne Marine Fish Farm - Removal of existing cages and replacing with 14 x 120m circumference cages (feed barge/feed pipe may be installed), Ardyne, Loch Striven, Argyll & Bute - Opinion Issued ____________________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: Marine and Coastal Development Policy Officer (16th January 2020) - No objection – provides advice regarding: Benthic impacts; Water column impacts; Interaction with predators; Interaction with wild salmonids; Impacts upon species or habitats of conservation importance, including sensitive sites; Navigation, anchorage, commercial fisheries, other non-recreational maritime uses (MOD); Landscape & visual impacts; Noise; Socioeconomic, access and recreation; and Pre-application discussion. Marine Scotland Science (MSS) (16th January 2019, 12th March 2020, 24th July 2020, and 19th January 2021) – in their most recent response, MSS acknowledge that the Applicant has supplied an updated version of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the site in question. The Applicant had previously submitted an EMP with their initial planning application, which had initially met MSS minimum criteria for an EMP. The Applicant has now updated the EMP, which has modified their approach to several areas of the originally submitted EMP. Notable amendments include replacing plankton tows with sea lice dispersal modelling as a method to assess lice emissions from the site, the Applicant also put more emphasis on feeding data from the monitoring programs back into the management of the site. The newly submitted EMP still addresses MSS minimum criteria. MSS request that reference is also made to the information provided in their previous responses in respect to other aspects of the planning application. Scientific evidence from Norway and Ireland indicates a detrimental effect of sea lice on sea trout and salmon populations. Salmon aquaculture results in elevated numbers of sea lice in open water and hence is likely to have an adverse effect on populations of wild salmonids in some circumstances. The magnitude of any such impact in relation to overall mortality levels is not known. However, concerns that there may be a significant impact of aquaculture have been raised due to declines in catches of both salmon and sea trout on the Scottish west coast. Information from the west coast of Scotland suggests lice from fish farming can cause a risk to local salmon and sea trout. This information can be used to give an idea of the relative risk to salmon and sea trout, which is governed, and can be mitigated by several factors, in particular the siting of the farm and its ability to effectively control sea lice. The greater the number of lice on the farm the greater the risk to wild salmon and sea trout. Page 56
Page 57
While it is not possible to accurately predict the future lice levels on a farm the performance of existing farms within the area could act as a guide for future performance. The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO) publishes Fish Health Management Reports providing average lice counts for an area, more recent reports include monthly lice counts for each farm. This development has the potential to increase the risks to wild salmonids. The Applicant is aware of the potential impacts on salmon and sea trout, and they currently manage the site as part of the local FMA (area M-45). They undertake to follow the practices recommended in the industry CoGP regarding containment and sea lice control, with the criteria for treatment set at 0.5 adult female per fish (1st February – 30th June) and 1 adult female per fish (1st July – 31st January) and a target of zero adult female lice in the spring. The Applicant has also outlined non-medicinal lice control methods that can be utilised on the site such as biological control as well as mechanical licers. The Applicant has also included a sea lice attestation which indicated their ability to control lice on the site. It should be noted that sea trout are present in these inshore waters all year round, and not just during the spring smolt migration period. MSS therefore suggest that strict control of sea lice should be practiced throughout the year. Additionally, it should be noted that adherence to the suggested criteria for treatment of sea lice stipulated in the industry CoGP may not necessarily prevent release of substantial numbers of lice from aquaculture installations. EMP - The Applicant has supplied an EMP outlining how potential interactions of sea lice arising from the proposal will be assessed with respect to wild salmonids. Marine Scotland expects that as a minimum any monitoring scheme will be able to report on the level of lice released into the environment (i.e., both farmed fish numbers and adult female lice numbers); identify the area(s) of sea lice dispersal from the farm; details how and what monitoring data will be collected to assess potential interaction with wild fish; and details how this monitoring information will feed back to management practice. This plan should also include a regular review process to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. The supplied EMP includes the criteria mentioned above. The Applicant has indicated that they intend counting sea lice stages on wild salmonids. The collection of wild salmonids is a regulated procedure, and the Applicant needs to obtain necessary permissions to conduct this activity with a specific achievable objective. Sea lice on wild fish are likely to be obtained from multiple sources, including other nearby farms. The Applicant appears to be aware that wild fish sampling will generate data that could only be used to inform on general environmental sea lice loads. NatureScot (23rd January 2020, 18th March 2020, 7th May 2020 and 12th January 2021) – in their most recent correspondence NatureScot advise that this proposal could be progressed with appropriate mitigation. However, because it could affect internationally important natural heritage interests of both the Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (Atlantic salmon interest) and the Ailsa Craig Special Protection Area (SPA), NatureScot object to this proposal unless it is made subject to conditions so that the proposal is carried out strictly in accordance with the mitigation detailed in their appraisal. NatureScot remain satisfied that the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the special qualities nor integrity of the Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area (NSA). Page 57
Page 58
In addition, they advise that there should be no use of drift nets, vertical static nets, or gill nets to recapture escaped fish under any circumstances, as this will put a number of marine birds, including guillemots, shags, divers and others at risk. NatureScot has a conditioned objection in relation to both the Endrick Water SAC (Atlantic Salmon Interest) and Ailsa Craig SPA. Argyll & Bute Council is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SAC and SPA before it can be consented (commonly known as a Habitats Regulations Appraisal). In conclusion, the proposal could affect internationally important natural heritage interests and NatureScot therefore object to this proposal unless it is made subject to conditions. If the planning authority intends to grant planning permission against this advice, they must notify Scottish Ministers. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (10th January 2020 and 17th July 2020) - no objection to this planning application. Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board (6th January 2020) - In summary, Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board remind the planning authority that recommendations of the government joint working group that Environmental management Plans (EMP) must include a feedback and adaptive management process based on the results of monitoring of wild fish populations. The EMP proposed in this application does not provide any clear assessment process of sea lice burdens found on wild fish, nor does it provide a process for wild fish data to be taken into consideration or influence on-farm management practices. Given that there is existing evidence that wild salmonids are already being affected by sea lice infestations that are known to affect their health and survival and in addition, the proposed EMP does not meet government guidelines, Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board objects to the proposed increase in biomass in the strongest terms. An effective EMP needs to form a significant part of the planning condition in consideration of the planning authorities’ duties under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 in relation to the furthering of nature conservation and biodiversity. Atlantic salmon are a nationally significant natural heritage resource. There is sound evidence that such development can cause irreversible damage to this resource. Therefore, the precautionary principle should be applied in accordance with the provisions of Para 204 of UN ‘Rio’ Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, to ensure all due consideration is given to wild salmonid fish populations. Northern Lighthouse Board (19th December 2019): No objections. West Highland Anchorages and Moorings Association (17th December 2019): No comment. Royal Yachting Association Scotland (RYAS) (7th January 2020) – no objection. Advise that many recreational vessels heading for the Kyles of Bute cut between the Ardyne Buoy and Ardyne Point. Indeed, the Clyde Cruising Club (CCC) use the buoy as a port hand mark of the course when racing in that direction. RYAS suggest that the Applicant contact the CCC to discuss whether any action could usefully be taken by either party to minimise the risk of adverse interactions. Such actions might include amending the racing instructions, sharing information about racing events and fish farming operations, and setting an additional buoy at the southwest end of the cages to mark the channel for a safe passage. Page 58
Page 59
Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) (18th February 2020) – do not consider that there will be a landscape or visual impact affecting the National Park. LLTNP note that NatureScot (NS) has highlighted that the proposal could affect the Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated for its Atlantic salmon feature and brook and river lamprey. Lamprey within the National Park will be unaffected but this proposal although at Loch Striven could have a significant effect on Atlantic salmon fish passage to the River Endrick SAC which is in LLTNP. In view of LLTNP’s formal agreement on their role as a National Park and NS’s role regarding advice on protected sites outwith the National Park, LLTNP defer to NS to advice on how the proposal can ensure protection of the Endrick Water SAC and its designated features. Argyll & Bute Council Area Roads Officer (30th March 2020) – no objection subject to conditions. This development is accessed from C10 Glen Striven Road within the national speed limit by an existing internal road network. The increased production will create additional traffic movements on the road. Positive measures should be put in place to minimise impact onto the road network especially at peak times. A traffic management plan must be agreed by the Area Roads Manager for the construction phase and for normal operations including harvesting seasons. Argyll & Bute Council Environmental Health Officer (EHO) (16th January 2020) – no objection subject to conditions relating to construction; operating hours during construction; and operating noise. Clyde Fisherman’s Association (CFA) (7th & 31st January 2020) – As the largest fishing association in the Clyde Marine Area, representing just under 60 boats and around 200 fishermen at any one time, many of whom would be further impacted by the proposed enlargement, CFA have not been engaged by SSC and as such have had no relevant negotiation or compromise regarding what would be entailed for the development prior to this formal request. Therefore, CFA cannot support this proposal, for the following reasons: lack of cooperation with the local fishing industry; loss of fishing ground to indigenous wild fisherman; loss of shelter/safe grounds and economic loss; chemical pollution and sewage; and mortality and lice; In summary, CFA cannot support this site for the reasons outlined above. Until the current shortcomings in the regulation of the salmon farming industry are resolved, CFA are of the opinion that there must be an immediate moratorium on any new marine open cage fish farms and any expansion of existing fish farm sites, including any increases in farmed fish biomass at existing sites, as any expansion of the industry will be unsustainable and may result in irreversible damage caused to the environment. CFA would urge that a holistic view is taken in relation to aquaculture and other marine stakeholders/the environment. Clyde Marine Planning Partnership (6th January 2020) – does not have a response to this application. The CMPP is currently developing the Regional Marine Plan for the Clyde Marine Region and as such does not yet have any statutory policy in place. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (19th December 2019) – no comment, however, advise that this should not be taken as HES support, and the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy on development affecting the historic environment together with related policy guidance. Advice should also be sought from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS). The West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) (14th January 2020) – advise that a number of sites are recorded in the HER database from the vicinity of Ardyne Point, including several cairns and a possible dun. However, all of these features are located on the shoreline or further inland, and as a result, would not be affected by the relocation of the fish farm or the installation of additional cages. As a result, WoSAS would not consider this proposal to raise a substantive archaeological issue. Page 59
Page 60
NHS Highland (29th July 2022): In reviewing the report produced by WCA: Assessment of Potential Risk to Human Health following us of Azamethiphos, Deltamethrin and Hydrogen Peroxide in Fish Farms., NHS Highland note that it only considers three chemicals and that any other chemicals used in the fish farming are outside the scope of the report and they would need to be considered separately. The report was commissioned by the industry and so is not independent, but the authors appear to have sought to include a wide body of evidence, including both evidence from available published literature and less accessible evidence. There are assumptions made in the report in connection with the impact of substances on human health. These include the use of animal models, assessing exposure to chemicals and modelling chemical dispersion. NHS Highland is not able to comment on the detailed technical elements of the report, but the overall methods and processes appear reasonable as do the deductions. NHS Highland is not able to give a definitive opinion on the safety of wild swimming in the vicinity of the fish farm simply based on this report. However, based on the available evidence NHS Highland does not wish to object to the application. South Cowal Community Council (SCCC) (9th January 2020) – have considered the proposal which will almost double the output from this fish farm. While SCCC are not objecting in principle, SCCC do think they need answers to the following questions, which assume that doubling the output also means double the pollution from the farm and double the HGV traffic to and from it: Will you ask for a sea bed survey to be carried out under the existing fish cages to both assess the environmental damage that is likely to have occurred and to estimate the environmental impact of a doubling of production?; and will you carry out a formal roads condition and suitability assessment to see if the road, which is poor in places, can accommodate twice the HGV traffic, i.e. tankers and feed lorries etc.? Bute Community Council (BCC) (23rd January 2020) – notes with concern that no previous consultation has taken place with them even though the proposal is directly opposite Rothesay within a distance of around 2-4km. At present BCC objects to this proposal unless sufficient assurance can be provided to address the following concerns: There is no indication that the expanded development would provide any employment opportunities for Rothesay and Bute; the use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) and even the killing of rogue seals is proposed. The BCC has concerns that this could have potentially significant adverse impact on seal populations which are a significant tourist attraction on Bute; the proposed use of ADDs could potentially have an adverse impact on cetacean species including porpoises and dolphins and also basking sharks. This would be of concern as siting’s in the Firth of Clyde appear to have been increasing in recent years and porpoises and dolphins are often seen in Rothesay Bay. These siting's are considered a tourist attraction; Interaction with and adverse impact on wild salmon particularly if there were to be an escape. This would be of general concern as wild salmon populations appear to be decreasing; the proposed site would be visible from much of Rothesay, Ardbeg, and Port Bannatyne. It is considered that the expanded development could have an adverse impact on the fine views across Rothesay Bay towards a Loch Striven. Argyll & Bute Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer – at time of writing no response has been received. Colintraive and Glendaruel Community Council – at time of writing no response has been received. Ministry of Defence – at time of writing no response has been received. Page 60
Page 61
West Coast Regional Inshore Fishery Group - at time of writing no response has been received. Ayrshire Rivers Trust - at time of writing no response has been received. Note: Comments raised by consultees are addressed in Appendix A. ____________________________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: LREG20 - Regulation 20 Advert Local Application – Expired 24th January 2020 ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Representations in relation to 19/02539/MFF At time of writing 46 letters of representation have been received, comprising: 1 general letter, 16 letters of support and 29 letters of objection. Objection 1. Dunoon and District Angling Club, 5 Kirk Gardens, Kirn, Dunoon, PA23 8HG 2. Lily Richards, Conan Beg, Tayvallich, Lochgilphead, Argyll & Bute 3. Mary MacCallum Sullivan, the Sheiling, Glenburn Road, Ardrishaig, Lochgilphead Argyll & Bute 4. Ms Jane Kelly, Shore Cottage, Port Lamont, Toward, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute 5. Theresa Nelson 6. Alistair Lennie, The Old Smiddy, Toward, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute 7. Lucy Hollingworth, Aonach Mor, Hamlet Hill, Cove, Helensburgh 8. Mrs Alison Johnston, 2 Ian Villa, Academy Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute, Argyll & Bute 9. Anne Archer - Sealladh Breagha, Gallanach Road, Oban PA34 4PD 10. Alexander Davey, 32 Ballochgoy Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute, Argyll & Bute 11. Dennis Archer, Sealladh, Briagha, Gallanach Road, Oban, Argyll & Bute 12. Mrs Alison Cross, Marionslea, Ministers Brae, Rothesay, Isle of Bute, Argyll & Bute 13. Mr Richard Cuthbertson, 3 York Terrace, Chapelhill Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute, Argyll & Bute 14. Ms Kirstie McDonald, the Old Schoolhouse, Inverchaolain, Toward, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute 15. Christina Turtle, 24A High Street, Oban, Argyll & Bute PA34 4BG 16. Jenny Meade 17. Gill Stewart, Ardnackaig, Tayvallich, Lochgilphead, Argyll & Bute 18. Elizabeth Wren, Kiln Villa, Kilchattan Bay, Isle of Bute, PA20 9NW 19. Mrs Charlene Woods, Flat 2 3 Stuart Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute, Argyll & Bute 20. Dr John Campbell, Blairbeg House, Lamlash, Isle of Arran, KA27 8JT 21. Mr Aidan Canavan, 45 Mount Stuart Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute, Argyll & Bute 22. Dr Murray Doyle, 33 Shore Road, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute, Argyll & Bute 23. Mr Paul Keatley, Shore Cottage, Port Lamont, Toward, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute 24. Sue Rule, Rosehaugh, Blairmore, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute 25. Mrs Jane Saker Norwood, Kilchattan Bay, Isle of Bute, Argyll & Bute 26. Pete Creech, Crown House, Ford, Lochgilphead, Argyll & Bute 27. Mr Alexander Johnston, Ian Villa, Academy Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute Argyll & Bute 28. Friends of the South of Jura Per John Aitchison 29. Dennis Archer, 2 the Meadows, Toward, PA23 7UP Page 61
Page 62
Support 1. Mr Ewen Ferguson, Ardmaleish Boat Building Company, Rothesay, Isle of Bute, Argyll & Bute 2. Kevin Anderson, Flat 2 3 Montford Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute, Argyll & Bute 3. Mr Finlay Oman, 2 Burnside Way, Largs, KA30 9DL 4. Stewart Shaw, Gowanlea A 4A Wellington Street, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute 5. Steven Shaw, 37 Kilbride Road, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute, PA23 7LL 6. Mr Stuart Drummond, 80 Sandhaven, Sandbank, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute 7. Mr Paul Marietti, 6 Tigh-Na-Cladach, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute, PA23 7QD 8. Michael Macdonald, 43 Cromwell Street, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute, PA23 7AX 9. Cameron Gibb, 3 Dunadd Place, Lochgilphead, Argyll & Bute PA31 8TS 10. Mr Gavin Kerr, Drimdarroch New Build, Strathlachlan, Cairndow, Argyll & Bute 11. Keith McTaggart, Ground Flat, Islay House, Garval Road, Tarbert, Argyll & Bute 12. Mr John Stirling, 7 Victoria Road, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute PA23 7EA 13. Mr George Macdonald, 8 King Street, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute PA23 7BH 14. Mr Malcolm MacKinnon, Unit 4, Trading Estate, Tarbert, PA29 6TX 15. David Forsyth, 14 the Glebe, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute PA23 8DL 16. Yolanda Shoemake, Gowanlea, A 4A Wellington Street, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute Representation 1. Ms C McMaster, the Old Smiddy, Toward, Dunoon, Argyll & Bute (i) Summary of material considerations raised Objections Landscape/seascape and visual amenity National Landscape Designation – adverse landscape & visual impact on Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area Local Landscape Designation – adverse landscape & visual impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality Priority habitats/species and designated sites for nature conservation European designation – adverse impact on Atlantic salmon feature of the Endrick Water Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) – caused by increased sea lice burden (including cumulative impact of all proposed and existing farms in the Firth of Clyde. European Protected Species (EPS) - Adverse Impact on Wildlife/Ecology (non-avian) caused by the increase in biomass on dolphins, seals, otters, porpoises, and other marine life (sea lice and chemicals) Priority Marine Features – Atlantic Salmon - The proposal will contribute to the cumulative impact of parasitic sea lice in the Firth of Clyde, through which wild salmon smolts must migrate when they leave the Endrick Water Special Conservation Area. Sea lice from fish farms can kill wild salmon smolts and harm wild salmon populations. Acoustic Deterrent Devices (24 proposed) – potentially harmful to dolphins, whales, porpoises and seals and harmful to other aquatic life. Page 62
Page 63
Escapes - Potential Adverse Impact of escapes of genetically modified caged fish – adverse impact on wild salmonids/other wild fish – disease and interbreeding Adverse Impact on Wild Trout – Sea Lice Adverse Ornithological Impact – sea birds Ecological status of water bodies and biological carrying capacity Pollution - Algal Blooms - proposed as responsible recently for huge numbers of fish deaths in Loch Fyne. Excess nutrients arising from fish farm feed waste and excrement encourage algal blooms. Pollution – of the Sea from medicinal and other chemicals, or from huge amounts of excrement. The effects of long-term use of chemicals in the open sea by several not too widely separated farms are certainly not known. Commercial and recreational activities Commercial Fishing – Adverse Impact on viability of local fisherman – loss of fishing ground to indigenous wild fishermen; loss of safe and sheltered fishing areas; chemical pollution & sewage; mortality & lice; and cumulative risk of harm to commercially-fished species in the Firth of Clyde, and those whose livelihood depends on them. Tourism & recreation Tourism - Adverse impact caused by damage to the marine environment and landscape & visual impacts will affect other marine users (Waverley, Yachts, Kayakers, Sea Anglers to name but a few) and other general recreation/tourists, and in turn, the tourism economy of Bute Water-based recreational and tourism activities – Adverse impact on Dunoon & District Angling Club, migratory fish stocks lower than in the past. Increase in sea lice is a contributory factor made worse by increase in number and volume of cages. Economic impact Economy – Adverse impact the proposal will have on the tourism economy and risk to Clyde Fishermen jobs cannot be justified by the few jobs (2) this proposal will create. Operational impact (waste, noise, light and odour) Adverse Noise Impact – day and nighttime noise pollution impact on residents Adverse Light Impact – light pollution on local residents Adverse Cumulative Impact - increased commercial activity, noise & light pollution Adverse Traffic Impact Adverse Traffic Impact – on the A815 caused by unrestricted fish farm vehicles, in particular road safety and road condition/damage Page 63
Page 64
Potential Adverse Impact on Human Health caused by Pollution Potential Adverse Impact on Human Health - on those participating in water sports (diving, windsurfing, sailing and fishing) and children playing in the water from chemicals put into the water from the fish farm. National & Local Planning Policy Contrary to Scottish Government’s National Marine Plan, Scottish Planning Policy, Local Development Plan Policy and LDP2 Policies Precautionary Principle Legal Challenge - To approve this proposal, contrary to the advice of the Council’s statutory advisors NatureScot and the District Salmon Fishery Board, is not precautionary – it makes the Council vulnerable to legal challenge. Adverse Impact of Uncontrolled Expansion - target set by Scottish Government to increase Aquaculture by 100% over the 12 years to 2030, nothing was said about the rate of expansion. This could lead to a doubling of capacity much earlier than 2030. The Scottish Government is supposed to apply a precautionary principle. It is extremely irresponsible to allow expansion at such a rate without due monitoring. – unchecked detriment to health, wellbeing and environment. Environmental Management Plan The mitigation measures it suggests in the EMP are too slow and unresponsive and would place an impossible burden on the Planning Authority. In the face of such clear risk of harm, the Council should apply the precautionary principle, in line with its biodiversity duty, and turn down the application to expand Ardyne fish farm. Other Environmental Impact Assessment has not been undertaken. Adverse Impact on welfare of farmed fish – sea lice infestations, published disease and mortality rates Potential Adverse Impact of cages breaking their mooring – hazard to marine traffic, irretrievable cages and engineering damaging to environment Open cage fish farms technology – Open cage fish farming has been shown to be damaging and polluting across the world and has been or is in the process of being banned in some countries. Potential Adverse Impact of Over-fishing to feed farmed fish on marine animals and seabirds (starving and facing extinction) Sustainability – move away from harmful industry and preserve and conserve environment for future generations. The fish farm in its current state is not environmentally sustainable as it has to deliberately remove species from its environment in order to seek profits. Support Economic impact Page 64
Page 65
Employment There is not enough employment in tourism or fishing to support the whole community. This expansion will help maintain full time employment in the local and wider community. It has been in existence for many years and is run and managed in a professional manner, the farm is an important employer in the area, and we should encourage all developments that seek employment. The Scottish Salmon Company is an important employer in this area Economy Expansion of Ardyne Fish Farm can only be beneficial to the local economy and community. SSC are one of the major employers in the area, their business should be encouraged to continue to expand, create more employment and secure jobs. Approving this site will assist the SSC to increase production volumes to a level that will secure a sustainable level of business for them within the worldwide salmon market. The contribution that salmon farming makes to both the local and Scottish economy is significant, providing both direct and indirect employment and wealth generation throughout the supply chain. Benefits to the hauliers, shops, hotels, diving support companies and other small businesses should not be underestimated. Environmental Impact The changes to the site location will benefit the stock in terms of depth and tidal flow. There won’t be a negative impact on the environment or indeed the natural beauty of the area and the proposal should be supported. Being a large responsible company, they will implement and adhere to any restrictions placed upon them by Argyll & Bute Council or the Government. Representation Impact on amenity (noise) caused by lorries travelling to and from the fish farm at unsociable hours (early morning and late evening). The fish farm expansion could result in an increase in traffic. This should be restricted to more sociable hours. Capacity of existing road (A815) which already accommodates a variety of vehicles, including local buses, timber Lorries, farming vehicles, gravel Lorries, NATO employees (cars and Lorries), Council Lorries and general local traffic. The A815 is not wide enough to accommodate large vehicles, should they meet one another using the maximum speed limit available (60mph). There are passing places which are often used as parking spaces. Page 65
Page 66
With all these large vehicles using the road, it will cause faster erosion There are no paths for the many walkers to use and the verges are not maintained well which makes the road narrower than it should be. The route is popular choice for many cyclists that pass by all year round. Note: These issues above are covered in the detailed assessment of this proposal at Appendix A of this report. Note: Full details of all representations received can be viewed on the Council’s public access system at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment: No. A negative screening opinion was issued on 13th June 2022. (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: Yes - Appropriate Assessment was required to be undertaken for: Ailsa Craig Special Protection Area (SPA) The Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC) These assessments are contained within the Appendix of this report. (iii) A design or design/access statement: No (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc.: Supporting Information for Planning Application, Ardyne Marine Fish Farm, Firth of Clyde, November 2019. Appendix A – Figures Appendix B – Equipment - Attestations for: Sealfence (ADD); Cages, Pens, Moorings and Nets. Appendix B – Equipment - Specifications for: ADD Sealfence (x24); Group (fiberglass poles); Pen (fiberglass poles); bird nets; bird net poles; moorings; pen nets; and underwater lighting. Appendix C - Ardyne Example Production Plan Appendix D – EMP: Annex 4 Monitoring Strategy - Sampling Methodology (sweep netting protocol, lice counting procedure and boat-based plankton trawls) and Wild Fisheries/Sea Lice Monitoring Strategy October 2019. Annex 5 Escapes Plan – Escapes Contingency Plan, Ardyne, Sound of Rothesay (27th December 2018); Escapes Contingency Plan Sgian Dubh, Loch Striven (11th December 2018); and Escape Contingency Plan, Strone, Loch Striven (28th December 2018). Page 66
Page 67
Annex 6 Predator Control Plan - Predator Control Plan Ardyne, Sound of Rothesay (17th January 2019); Predator Control Plan Sgian Dubh, Loch Striven (12th December 2018); and, Predator Control Plan Strone, Loch Striven (28th December 2018). Environmental Management Plan, Loch Striven Sites (Ardyne, Strone and Sgian Dubh) (October 2019) Appendix E – Sea Lice Management: Sea Lice Attestation, Ardyne, Sound of Rothesay (May 2019) and Efficacy Statement, Ardyne, Sound of Rothesay (May 2019). Appendix F – Fish Mortality Plan, Ardyne, Sound of Rothesay (28th January 2018) Appendix G – Farm Management Statement, COGP Management Area M45, Disease Management Area 19b, Ardyne, Sound of Rothesay (28th January 2019); Appendix H – Benthic Survey Report (7th & 12th November 2018) Appendix I – Benthic ROV Report (29th January and 20th June 2019) Appendix J – Modelling Report (9th August 2019); Appendix K – Hydrographic Report (9th August 2019); Appendix L – Nutrient Calculations Report (5th August 2019); Appendix M – Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) – Seascape, Landscape and Visual Appraisal (SLVA) (November 2019) Appendix N – ADD Deployment and Usage Plan, Ardyne (April 2019) Appendix O – Navigation Assessment (26th June 2019) Revised Environmental Management Plan (December 2020) Report on the Assessment of Potential Risk to Human Health following use of Azamethiphos, Deltamethrin and Hydrogen Peroxide in Fish Farms (December 2021) SSC response to SNH (10th February 2020) SSC response to SNH (21st April 2020) SSC response to ADSFB (10th February 2020) SSC response to MSS (17th February 2020) ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 Page 67
Page 68
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 8 – Supporting the Strength of Our Communities LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 10 – Maximising Our Resources and Reducing Consumption 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 3 - Management of European Sites SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment SG LDP ENV 9 – Development Impact on Areas of Wild Land SG LDP ENV 11 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) 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 BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Development Impact on Listed Buildings SG LDP ENV 19 - Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage and Collection Facilities within New Development SG LDP CST 1 - Coastal Development SG LDP AQUA 1 – Aquaculture Development Annex A – Planning Process for Aquaculture Development Annex B – Council Adopted Marine and Coastal Plans Annex C – Responsibilities of Statutory Authorities in Relation to Aquaculture Development Annex D – Marine Planning Area for Aquaculture Development (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. 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 19 – Scheduled Monuments Scotland’s National Marine Plan (2015) Scottish Planning Policy (2014) Page 68
Page 69
Scottish Parliament Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee: Salmon Farming in Scotland (November 2018) Circular 1/2007 ‘Planning Controls for Marine Fish Farming’ ‘A Fresh Start – the Renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture’ (Scottish Government 2009) Marine Scotland Science – ‘Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish Farms in Scottish Waters’ (December 2020) ‘Argyll and Bute Economic Strategy 2019 – 2023 Rural Growth Deal Clyde Marine Plan (draft) ____________________________________________________________________________ (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: Yes – Negative Screening Opinion Issued June 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 This is an application for the relocation and enlargement of an existing fish farm. The application has been subject to 29 objections, 1 representation and 16 expressions of support. Many of the objections relate to fish farming in general rather than being site specific. While it is now 7 years since the adoption of the existing plan, the proposed LDP2 contains a very similar criteria-based approach to aquaculture. All of the objections have been addressed in full in the report and having regard to the approved guidelines for hearings, it is considered that a hearing would not add value to this assessment. ____________________________________________________________________________ (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Ardyne was granted planning permission by Scottish Government (FFR/ABC/025) on 13/06/11 for 8, circular 100m circumference cages for Atlantic salmon. Ardyne is currently licensed by SEPA for 1198 tonnes of maximum biomass and is currently comprised of 8 x Page 69
Page 70
100m circumference (15.9m radius) cages. The cages are held within a 10 cell, 60m x 60m mooring grid and are arranged into two groups, both in a 2 x 2 formation. The existing feed system at the site is currently operated from a shore-based system. The current application is proposing to increase the number of pens to 14 x 120m circumference (19.1 radius) plastic cages 365m to the south of the existing site. The proposed site would comprise a 16 cell, 75m x 75m mooring grid layout; both are to be arranged in two groups, one in (2 x4) and one (2 x 3) configurations, with a 75m separation distance. The overall surface area of the fish farm would increase by 0.9639ha, from 0.6354ha to 1.6045ha; with a proposed total surface area of 6,707.3ha. The stocking density of the site will be 15.6kg/m3 and the maximum biomass will increase to 2,070T. An Environmental Impact Assessment was not required for this proposed development. The following have been taken into account when reaching a recommendation: The Supporting Information and appendices submitted November 2019; The Revised Environmental Management Plan (December 2020) The consultation responses from: Marine Scotland Science, NatureScot, SEPA, Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board, Historic Environment Scotland, NHS Highland, Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park, Northern Lighthouse Board, West Highland Anchorages and Moorings Association, Clyde Marine Planning Partnership, Clyde Fishermens Association, Royal Yachting Association, The West of Scotland Archaeology Service, Argyll & Bute Council Environmental Health, Argyll & Bute Marine and Coastal Development Policy Officer, Argyll & Bute Council Area Roads, Isle of Bute Community Council, and South Cowal Community Council. Representations received. 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 LDP, and it is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to conditions. ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 satisfies the criteria set out in Policy SG AQUA 1. It is considered that there would be no significant seascape / landscape or visual impacts raised by the proposal and that effects on habitats, species and nature conservation would be acceptable subject to mitigation. The proposals for sea lice management contained within the Environmental Management Plan provides measures to address elevated sea lice levels should they occur. The positive economic contribution of the fish farm also gives weight in favour of this development. The proposal also complies with other relevant policies of the Council’s Page 70
Page 71
Local Development Plan and there are no material considerations, including matters raised by consultees and third parties, which would indicate that the provisions of the development plan ought not to prevail. ____________________________________________________________________________ (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: Not required. ____________________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 29/7/22 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 4/8/22 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 71
Page 72
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 19/02539/MFF 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 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. Page 72
Page 73
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 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 Page 73
Page 74
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. 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 Page 74
Page 75
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 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 75
Page 76
(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. NOTES TO APPLICANT 1. The length of this planning 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).] 2. 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 Page 76
Page 77
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. 3. 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. 4. The Aquatic Animal Health (Scotland) Regulations 2009 requires the authorisation of all Aquaculture Production Businesses (APBs) in relation to animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals. The authorisation procedure is undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) at Marine Scotland Marine Laboratory. To apply for authorisation for an APB or to amend details of an existing APB or any site that an APB is authorised to operate at, you are advised to contact the FHI as follows: Fish Health Inspectorate, Marine Scotland Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB Tel: 0131 244 3498; Email: ms.fishhealth@gov.scot 5. All marine farms, whether finfish, shellfish or algal, are required to apply for a marine licence under Part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. To apply for a marine licence, or to amend details of an existing marine licence (formally Coast Protection Act 1949 – Section 34 consent), please visit the Scottish Government’s website at http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/Applications where application forms and guidance can be found. Alternatively you can contact the Marine Scotland Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT) by emailing MS.MarineLicensing@gov.scot; or calling 0300 244 5046. 6. It is an offence to recklessly or intentionally disturb a European Protected Species, other than in the event of an activity subject to a European Protected Species Mitigation Licence. It is open to the operator to apply for such licensing from the Scottish Government in circumstances where operational activity would have impacts upon a European Protected Species which would otherwise be illegal. This could arise from, for example, de-equipment of the existing farm during a sensitive time of year for protected birds or by activity likely to disturb cetaceans. 7. Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on the Regulatory section of SEPA’s website. If you are unable to find the advice you need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the regulatory services team in your local SEPA office at: Kilbrandon House, Manse Brae, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8QX. Tel: 01546 602876 8. The Northern Lighthouse Board has recommended the following: The site should be marked with 2 lit yellow poles fitted with yellow ‘X’ topmarks. Each light should display a character of flash one yellow every five seconds (FI Y 5s). The poles should be positioned at the Northwestern and Southwestern seaward corners of the cage group. Each light should be 1 metre above the site equipment handrails and installed to be clearly seen by vessels approaching from all navigable directions. Poles should be ≥75mm diameter, the ‘X’ topmark should be ≥75cm length by 15cm width. The feed pipes from shore should be marked using high visibility yellow mooring buoys of minimum diameter 30cm and spaced at 10m intervals between the cages and the low water mark. A weekly check of the site’s marking equipment shall be performed and records kept of its physical and working status for audit purposes. Page 77
Page 78
Outlying anchor points should not be marked with buoys, unless specifically requested by local users, and alternative means to locate anchors should be utilised. Loose floating lines around site equipment are strongly discouraged as this can cause serious safety implications for other mariners. 9. Planning authorities’ are looking further to reduce fish farm infrastructure becoming separated from moorings and being deposited on our regional shorelines. Highland Council and Argyll & Bute Council are taking steps to encourage good practice in relation to farm related waste materials. Future planning consent is therefore likely to include individual identification embossing to be applied to all pen infrastructure. 10. In the event of an escape, the company should liaise with Argyll and Bute Council’s Environmental Health service. 11. The Royal Yachting Association has advised that that many recreational vessels heading for the Kyles of Bute cut between the Ardyne Buoy and Ardyne Point. Indeed, the Clyde Cruising Club (CCC) use the buoy as a port hand mark of the course when racing in that direction. RYAS suggest that the Applicant contact the CCC to discuss whether any action could usefully be taken by either party to minimise the risk of adverse interactions. Such actions might include amending the racing instructions, sharing information about racing events and fish farming operations, and setting an additional buoy at the southwest end of the cages to mark the channel for a safe passage. 12. NatureScot has advised that based upon current evidence, the adoption of smaller mesh ceiling nets of less than 200mm could reduce the theoretical risk to gannets. (see NatureScot’s consultation response dated 12/1/21) Page 78
Page 79
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 19/02539/MFF A. Introduction 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 existing site was granted planning permission by Scottish Government (FFR/ABC/025) on the 13th June 2011 and comprises 8 x 100m circumference pens in a 60m mooring grid for Atlantic salmon. The existing feed system is a shore based system, located on the quayside. The application site is located approximately 365m 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 feed system associated with the existing site Ardyne is currently licensed by SEPA for 1198 tonnes of maximum biomass and is currently comprised of 8 x 100m circumference (15.9 radius) cages. The cages are held within a 10 cell, 60m x 60m mooring grid and are arranged into two groups, both in a 2 x 2 formation. The existing feed system at the site is currently operated from a shore-based system. The current application is proposing to increase the number of pens to 14 x 120m circumference (19.1 radius) plastic cages 365m to the south of the existing site. The proposed site would comprise a 16 cell, 75m x 75m mooring grid layout; both are to be arranged in two groups, one in (2 x 4) and one (2 x3) configurations, with a 75m separation distance. The overall surface area of the fish farm would increase by 0.9639ha, from 0.6354ha to 1.6045ha; with a proposed total surface area of 6, 707.3ha. The net depth at the site is to be between 30-40m approximately. The stocking density of the site will be 15.6kg/m3 and the maximum biomass will increase to 2,070T. An Environmental Impact Assessment was not required for this proposed development. B. Planning Policy The proposal benefits from general support from the Scottish Government’s National Marine Plan and from Scottish Planning Policy which together recognise the contribution of the aquaculture sector to the rural economy and which seek to support sustainable economic development. The National Marine Plan and Scottish Planning Policy both support the expansion of marine fish farming where it can take place in environmentally sustainable locations, where it does not exceed the carrying capacity of the water body within which it is to be located, and where it does not give rise to significant adverse effects upon nature conservation, wild fish, historic environment or other commercial or recreational water users. LDP Supplementary guidance SG LDP AQUA 1 – Aquaculture Development provides a general framework against which fish farm applications should be considered, along with other relevant LDP policy and SG. The following Local Development Plan provisions are applicable to this development: Policy LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development supports the presumption in favour of sustainable economic development established by Scottish Planning Policy and lends weight to aquaculture developments unless there are environmental considerations which outweigh this presumption. Page 79
Page 80
Policy LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones – Land adjacent to the site is designated as ‘very sensitive countryside’ zone. Policy LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment – seeks to control development in a manner which protects, conserves or where possible enhances the built, human and natural environment. Policy LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy – requires regard to be had to economic benefit and the spatial needs and locational requirements of business sectors. Policy LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design – requires that regard should be had to the setting of developments, the sensitivity of the receiving environment and the need to secure appropriate forms of scale, design and appearance. Supplementary Guidance SG LDP AQUA 1 – Aquaculture Development stems from Policy LDP 5 which identifies aquaculture as a key economic sector in Argyll & Bute. It sets out criteria against which the locational and operational characteristics of a development require to be assessed. Proposals are to be supported if direct, indirect or cumulative significant effects are avoided, or adverse effects can be minimised or mitigated by operational measures. The Council’s proposed LDP2 now represents the settled view of the Council and policies which had not been objected to carry significant weight. However, the majority of the policies which would apply to this development have been objected to and currently carry little weight. Those which have not been objected to are listed in the “other material considerations” section of this report. Beyond development plan considerations, in determining the application regard has to be had to the Council’s Economic Development Action Plan which identifies aquaculture as an important contributor to the local economy, and to national government economic and sectoral policy, the stated intention of which is to seek to expand the finfish sector substantially to meet internal and export demands and to help sustain direct and indirect employment in rural areas. In addition, one of the proposals contained within the recently signed Rural Growth Deal for Argyll & Bute relates to a vision for Argyll & Bute to be the leading region for innovation in marine aquaculture in Scotland, UK and globally, by underpinning sustainable, inclusive business growth through investment in world class marine science and technology. This includes a commitment to a Marine Industry Needs Assessment. This study will provide the evidence base for industry needs to inform future investment outcomes and the potential options available to deliver these outcomes. This will assist in identifying the key priorities for Rural Growth Deal investment and where this should be targeted to support sustainable growth of this sector. The Council agreed the Heads of Terms for the deal with the Scottish and UK Governments in February 2021 with the full deal due to be signed during the 2022/23 financial year. A further consideration prompted by continuing demands from wild fish interests for more stringent controls over marine fish farming, has been the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee Inquiry into Salmon Farming in Scotland, the adopted remit of which is: ‘to consider the current state of salmon industry in Scotland, identify opportunities for its future development and explore how the various fish health and environmental challenges it currently faces can be addressed’. The report on salmon farming in Scotland was published on 27th November 2018. This contains 65 recommendations for the Scottish Government to consider. Whilst the report is critical of the way in which the salmon industry is regulated, recommendation 3 Page 80
Page 81
concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support a moratorium on new salmon farm development and the expansion of existing sites. C. Assessment Against Policy Criteria Assessment of the proposal in this case will primarily be against the criteria set out in sector specific supplementary guidance SG LDP AQUA1. There is a requirement to consider the locational and operational characteristics of the development against each of the specified criteria with the presumption that proposals will be supported where: - Direct, indirect or cumulative significant adverse effects on the criteria are avoided in relation to the locational characteristics of the development (this would be relevant in this case in terms of the impact of the development upon nature conservation designations, for example); - The applicant can demonstrate that the level of risk of potential impacts on criteria relating to the operation of the site can be effectively minimised or mitigated by appropriate operational measures (this would be relevant in this case to the impact of the operation of the development upon wild fish interests); - Proposals are consistent with other local and national policies and guidance The eight development criteria set out in SG LDP AQUA 1 are reviewed in the sections below. 1) Landscape / Seascape and Visual Amenity A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, including Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) images and photomontages from key viewpoints has been included with the Supporting Information. The site proposal is located outwith the Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area (NSA) and is situated adjacent to the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan, Bute and South Cowal Area of Panoramic Quality, and the Cowal Countryside Zone. It is likely that there may be some visual impacts to walkers along the West Island Way National Trail that runs close to the foreshore on the Isle of Bute to the west of the proposed Ardyne farm, predominantly along the A886. Further visual impacts are likely on the opposing shorelines of Rothesay, Port Bannatyne and Kames Bay. It is accepted that the following factors combine to mitigate landscape impacts from the proposed expansion of the Ardyne farm: regular shape of the coastline; wider expanse of water in this part of lower Loch Striven/Sound of Rothesay; limited visibility of the Sound from the road; and the modified and industrial character of the coastline which backdrops the development. It is therefore unlikely that the proposal will adversely affect the integrity of the Kyles of Bute NSA (which lies approximately 3.9km north-west of the development) or result in significant adverse effects on landscape character. Cumulative Landscape & Visual Impact The Seascape, Landscape and Visual Appraisal (SLVA) submitted with the Application concludes no adverse cumulative effects will occur as a result of the replacement site. NatureScot are satisfied that the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the special qualities nor integrity of the Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area (NSA). Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park have considered the proposal and do not consider that there will be a landscape or visual impact affecting the National Park. Page 81
Page 82
Taking account of the above, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant effect on the Kyles of Bute NSA or the local landscape. Visual effects would also not be significant especially given presence of the existing fish farm on the site. This would accord with Policies AQUA 1, LDP 3, SG LDP ENV 11, SG LDP ENV 12 and SG LDP ENV 14. 2) Isolated Coast and Wild Land There are no areas of wild land or isolated coast which would be impacted by the proposal. It is considered that the proposal would accord with SG LDP AQUA 1. 3) Historic or Archaeological Sites and their settings Historic Environment Scotland (HES) make no comment, however, advise that this should not be taken as their support, and the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy on development affecting the historic environment together with related policy guidance. Advice should also be sought from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS). The West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) advise that a number of sites are recorded in the HER database from the vicinity of Ardyne Point, including several cairns and a possible dun. However, all of these features are located on the shoreline or further inland, and as a result, would not be affected by the relocation of the fish farm or the installation of additional cages. As a result, WoSAS would not consider this proposal to raise a substantive archaeological issue. Taking account of the above, it is not considered that the relocation and expansion of the fish farm would have an adverse impact on the setting of cultural heritage assets and therefore the proposal would not conflict with policies SG LDP AQUA 1, SG LDP ENV 16(a) and SG LDP ENV 19. Policy 19 - Scheduled Monuments takes a similar approach to Policy SG LDP 16(a). 4) Priority Habitats and Species (including wild migratory salmonids) and designated sites for nature conservation European Designations Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) Designated by Scottish Ministers under the EC Habitats Directive, these areas represent the range and variety of habitats and (non-bird) species within the EU, as listed in Annexes I & II of the Directive. NatureScot has advised that this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on The Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its Atlantic salmon feature. Special Protection Areas (SPAs) Classified by Scottish Ministers under the EC Birds Directive, these are areas identified as the most important for rare and regularly occurring migratory birds in the EU. NatureScot has advised that this proposal may have a likely significant effect (LSE) on the qualifying features of the Ailsa Craig SPA (with the exception of Kittiwake where no LSE is predicted). NatureScot has advised that the proposal is likely to have significant effect on the qualifying interests of these designations. In these circumstances Argyll and Bute Council, as competent authority, is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interests. These Appropriate Assessments are contained within the appendix of this report. The conclusion of these is that, subject to the specified mitigation which are included as proposed conditions, the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of these designations. Interaction with Predators Page 82
Page 83
Overall, it is considered that the proposed change in equipment and increase in biomass is unlikely to significantly increase the existing level of interaction with predators. Predator Control Plan The applicant has submitted Predator Control Plans for the Loch Striven and Sound of Rothesay Sites (Annex 6), including a Predator Control Plan for Ardyne, Sound of Rothesay (17th January 2019) in support of this planning application. These plans cover all of the existing developments in this area and the proposed Ardyne development and identifies fish eating birds and seals as the main potential predators in this area. The Predator Control Plan for the Existing Site has been amended to take into account the Replacement Equipment. The PCP is included within the EMP (Appendix D) and details the sequential steps and triggers for specific control measures to be implemented: The PCP contains a wildlife assessment, based on sightings recorded in the site wildlife log and publicly available information. Any effects on seals during the operation of the Replacement will be associated with the management and mitigation measures detailed in the PCP. These measures include: appropriate husbandry practices which aim to reduce stock mortality that may inadvertently attract predators; Selection of the most appropriate new designs and tensions with installation of Seal Blind (false bottom nets); Tensioned top nets with supports to prevent surface attacks; Use of ADDs to deter seal attacks; and Maintenance of a Wildlife Log to help assess and monitor changes in wildlife occurrence and distribution in marine habitats surrounding the development over time. The above measures are applicable to mitigate any impact on harbour seals should they be recorded. Since this application was first submitted in 2019, the Applicant has advised that they do not intend to use Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) and on this basis a condition has been recommended to prevent their use. Should the company wish to use them in the future, a further planning application would be required to remove this condition. Priority Marine Features Given that the proposed expansion is for an existing site and that the cage group is being moved 365m to the south, it is considered unlikely that the proposed expansion of the Ardyne farm will significantly impact the surrounding features of interest: Priority Marine Habitats (Burrowed Mud) and Priority Marine Features (PMFs) (Seapens and burrowing megafauna in circalittoral fine mud), as agreed by NatureScot. Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park note that NatureScot has highlighted that the proposal could affect the Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated for its Atlantic salmon feature and brook and river lamprey. Lamprey within the National Park will be unaffected but this development although at Loch Striven could have a significant effect on Atlantic salmon fish passage to the River Endrick SAC which is in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. The National Park defer to NatureScot to advise how the proposal can ensure protection of the Endrick Water SAC and its designated features. SEPA have advised that they have no objection to this proposal. In respect to Shellfish Interests the fish farm is situated 2km south east of the Kyles of Bute Shellfish Water Protected Area (SWPA) and 3km south of the Loch Striven SWPA. In respect to Natural Heritage Interests they advise that there are no marine sites, designated under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), or the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, of concern within a 3km search radius of the proposed fish farm. Consequently, SEPA are satisfied with the proposal in regard to Shellfish and Natural Heritage Interests. Page 83
Page 84
Taking account of the above, it is considered that the proposal would accord with policies LDP 3, SG LDP AQUA 1, SG LDP ENV 1 and SG LDP ENV 2. 5) Wild Fish Interactions a) Containment and risk of escapes Escape Contingency Plan The Escapes Contingency Plan (ECP) for the Existing Site has been amended to take into account the proposed replacement equipment. The ECP is contained within the Environmental Management Plan (Appendix D). Site specific attestations have been submitted from the applicant which confirm that the equipment will be suitable for the conditions they are to be placed in. The applicant has also confirmed that the equipment will meet the design requirements specified by ‘The Technical Standard for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture’. MSS has confirmed that these issues are acceptable. Taking account of the above, it is considered that the measures for containment and dealing with the risk of escape is acceptable. b) Sea Lice Management Wild salmon and sea trout are priority marine features, and having regard to the division of regulatory responsibilities acknowledged in the National Marine Plan, and as part of its biodiversity duty, the Council in its capacity as Planning Authority must assume responsibility for the consideration of the implications of aquaculture development for the conservation of these species. In considering aquaculture applications, the Council therefore has to satisfy itself that there is both an effective and a consentable sea lice strategy identified, and that there are controls in place to ensure that necessary steps are taken in the event that sea lice levels prove not to be capable of being controlled in a satisfactory manner using the measures identified at the application stage. Similarly, the Council has to satisfy itself that proposed containment is adequate in order to minimise the risk of escape events. Marine Scotland’s Fish Health Inspectorate have the responsibility for regulating the health of fish being produced on the farm, but this responsibility does not extend to the consideration of the effects of fish farming upon wild fish; although Marine Scotland does provide wild fish interaction advice to the Council to inform decision-making. SEPA are the regulatory body responsible for licensing biomass permitted to be held on farms and for the permitted use of chemicals, but the propagation of sea lice into the wider environment from within farms is not construed to be ‘pollution’, and therefore wild fish impacts are not considered as part of their licensing process. The government is a participant in North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) established by an inter-governmental Convention in 1984. The objective of NASCO is to conserve, restore, enhance and rationally manage Atlantic salmon through international co- operation, taking account of the best available scientific information. It seeks to avoid lice induced mortality which is attributable to the operation of marine farms. In 2016, in response to declining wild salmonid numbers, NASCO urged operators and regulators to adopt additional corrective measures to ensure that convention obligations can be met. In response, in July 2017, having regard to the demand by NASCO for more stringent controls, and the government’s obligations under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007, Marine Scotland’s Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) introduced a new Sea Lice Management Policy which now obliges salmon farmers to develop site specific escalation action plans to be implemented when sea lice levels rise above specified levels. This can include inter alia a requirement for measures such as medicinal treatment, topical bath treatment, mechanical removal, biological interventions, or reduction of the biomass held on the site. The FHI lice control standards have been prompted by Marine Scotland’s responsibility for the health of farmed fish. Page 84
Page 85
They do not specifically take into account the conservation interests of wild fish, which are the separate responsibility of Planning Authorities. These new standards do, however, provide a regulatory ‘backstop’ which indirectly benefits wild fish, insofar as they prompt action when lice numbers on farmed fish are elevated beyond CoGP limits. Marine Scotland Science (MSS) has advised that the site is located in farm management area (FMA) M-45. Sea lice numbers above the suggested criteria for treatment as detailed in the CoGP have been observed in M-45 in past production cycles. However, in the most recent production cycle numbers of adult female lice have been below CoGP suggested criteria for the majority of the cycle on site and in the FMA according to SSPO published data, and have not risen above the MSS reporting levels to the knowledge of the FHI. The applicant has submitted a Revised Environmental Management Plan (December 2020). An EMP ensures that appropriate environmental management practices are adhered to during the construction and operation of the development. Marine Scotland has set minimum requirements for the content of these EMPs and advise the planning authority if they consider that a particular EMP meets these requirements. MS expects that as a minimum EMPs should be able to: • Report on the level of lice released into the environment (i.e. both farmed fish numbers and adult female lice numbers); • Identify the likely area(s) of sea lice dispersal from the farm; • Provide details of how and what monitoring data will be collected to assess potential interaction with wild fish; • Provide details on this monitoring information will feed back to management practices; • Include a regular review process so that the EMP remains fit for purpose. MSS has confirmed that the EMP submitted in support of this application meets these criteria. Interaction with Wild Salmonids The Applicant has identified two principal salmonid rivers in the area; the River Ruel (which flows into Loch Riddon) and the River Echaig (which flows into Holy Loch). The proposed farm is approximately 15.7km and 23.4km respectively from both of these interests. The Applicant proposes to increase the maximum biomass of fish by 872 tonnes. An increase in tonnage may present a greater risk to the health and survival of wild migratory salmonids, due to an increase in the number of hosts, which in-turn may increase infection levels on wild fish. Marine Scotland Science advice identified that the greater number of lice on a farm, the greater the risk to wild salmon and sea trout. While it is not possible to accurately predict the future lice levels on a farm, the performance of existing farms within the area could act as a guide for future performance. The Applicant has detailed a number of satisfactory mitigation measures to limit potential effects on wild salmonids from the operation of the farm. Further supporting information has been provided within the Applicant’s final planning application which includes: Final EMP; Farm Management Statement; Sea lice attestation; Escapes Contingency Plan; Final site specific sea lice action/management plan; Updated sea lice efficacy statement in terms of availability of chemical treatments; Operational details for other sea lice management measures including cleanerfish & mechanical removal; Evidence of effectiveness of more recent sea lice management measures (cleanerfish & mechanical removal), and Details on lice levels during the most recent production cycle at the Ardyne site have been provided as part of this application. The Applicant should look to further develop and consider: 1. Interactions with wild migratory salmonids (sea lice and escapes), with possible affects to the migratory path of the salmonid population in the Sound of Rothesay; Page 85
Page 86
2. How and what monitoring data will be collected to asses potential interactions with wild fish and, how this monitoring information will feed back to management practice; 3. A regular EMP review process to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. A detailed Sea Lice Management Strategy and Seal Lice Attestation have also been submitted by the Applicant that demonstrated a range of different measures which can be changed or added to if lice levels are higher than expected and additional action is required. The Applicant confirmed that sea lice counts will be recorded on a weekly basis (dependent on weather and harvesting operations). Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) prior to submission of the Revised EMP advised that given that there is existing evidence that wild salmonids are already being affected by sea lice infestations that are known to affect their health and survival and in addition, the proposed EMP does not meet government guidelines, Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board objected to the proposed increase in biomass in the strongest terms. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board were consulted on the revised Environmental Management Plan. However, at time of writing no response has been received. In support of this application, the planning authority has received expert advice from Marine Scotland Science on the acceptability of proposed EMP who have confirmed that they are satisfied with it. Officers acknowledge the tension between these two consultees’ responses, however, the planning application has been assessed using current guidance from the Scottish Government. EMPs were introduced in order to provide an interim measure to mitigate the risk relating to wild fish interactions. No moratorium has been introduced for marine fish farms and EMPs will continue until such time that SEPA take over the regulation of wild fish interactions. Marine Scotland Science has specified the minimum requirements of an EMP and the planning authority has been advised that the submitted EMP satisfies these requirements. Taking account of the above, it is considered that the proposal would accord with polices LDP3, SG LDP AQUA 1 and SG LDP ENV 1. 6) Ecological Status of Water Bodies and Biological Carrying Capacity All aquaculture developments rely on high water quality and a degree of tidal flushing. In inshore marine locations, it is important to select sites with good water exchange characteristics where tidal currents can disperse waste materials, maintain well-oxygenated water conditions. SPP states that when determining planning applications, authorities should take into account the effects of the proposal on the environment, including carrying capacity. For finfish development, impacts on the water column from nutrient enrichment and discharge of chemical treatments will be considered and proposals should be consistent with SG LDP ENV 7 - Water Quality and Environment. Developments that may have a significant detrimental impact on the water environment will not normally be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the impacts can be fully mitigated so as to ensure non-deterioration of waterbody status as required by the EU Water Framework Directive. The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR) provide SEPA with powers to ensure that activities which may pose a risk to the water environment are controlled. With regard to fish farming, SEPA sets limits on the amount of fish that can be held in the cages, the amount of food used and the amount of certain medicines that can be administered and discharged. The CAR licensing process takes account of the likely effects of discharges from the proposed development on both the water column and benthic environments. Water Column Impacts SEPA have advised that the fish farm is located in the Water Framework Directive water body Rothesay (water body 200030), which has been classified as “Good” status in the 2017 Page 86
Page 87
classification scheme year. There are a no other active fin fish or shellfish farms within Rothesay water body. SEPA are responsible for controlling water column impacts via the CAR licensing process and have provided advice in this regard. They note that the fish farm is situated in the receiving waters of Loch Striven, which is a Marine Scotland Science Location Guideline category 3 water body, with a nutrient enhancement index of 2 and a benthic impact index of 2. The Applicant has submitted an Equilibrium Concentration Enhancement (ECE) estimate of the input of dissolved inorganic nitrogen from the fish farm (including the proposed increase in biomass), as well as cumulative inputs from the other fish farms with active CAR licences in the water body. The ECE was calculated as 1.68µg/l, which when added to the UKTAG background level of 168µg/l, is well below the UKTAG threshold (50% above background) of 252µg/l. SEPA are therefore satisfied that nutrient inputs from the current biomass (including that proposed for this site) will be unlikely to result in a downgrade to the status of the water body under the Water Framework Directive. The Applicant’s ECE calculation does not take into account the existing sites (Strone and Sgian Dubh); it identifies that there will be a small increase in the level of nutrients released, but is below the SEPA Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) for Dissolved Available Inorganic Nitrogen threshold level, and therefore the predicted nutrient enhancement from this proposal is not likely to be significant. The Sound of Rothesay is an uncategorised Area water body under Marine Scotland’s Locational Guidelines for December 2019. Loch Striven is a Category 3 Area water body (December 2019); where a total maximum biomass of 4, 673T is permitted. As the site proposed is just out-with Loch Striven, and the proposed increase in biomass of 872T, impacts to the Category 3 Area water body are not likely to be significant. Benthic Impacts Aquaculture can impact on the seabed (benthic impact) by means of carbon deposition (from waste feed and faecal material) and from chemical toxicity. For finfish development, SEPA regulate these matters by way of a CAR licence which is determined by approved modelling methods which are precautionary and site specific in order to ensure levels permitted are strictly controlled and set environmental limits are not breached. In support of this application the Applicant has submitted full modelling reports (benthic, pollution, chemical & hydrographic). SEPA advise that the fish farm is situated at the mouth of Loch Striven on the east side of Bute and that the Applicant has submitted two baseline surveys (benthic and visual), carried out in 2018 due to the relocation of this site: The baseline visual survey indicated a seabed of burrowed mud (a PMF) with component feature Nephrops norvegicus found frequently across all transects; The baseline benthic survey indicated some enrichment at the stations nearest the existing cages and a diverse faunal community at stations further south. Furthermore, SEPA advise that they hold a number of compliance surveys for the existing fish farm, dating back to 2000. These benthic surveys have met SEPA’s benthic faunal criteria since 2012. Modelling of the proposed location and cage configuration predicts a benthic footprint area of 216,250m2 around the cage group. The Council’s Marine & Coastal Development Officer notes that the Applicant has submitted the full modelling reports (benthic, pollution, chemical & hydrographic) in support of the planning application, and advises that Benthic impacts from deposition of waste and chemical treatments will be considered by SEPA as part of the CAR licence determination. Furthermore, that the benthic survey has met SEPA’s benthic faunal criteria. Page 87
Page 88
In these circumstances it is not considered that the proposal would conflict with policy SG LDP ENV 7 which resists development which would have a detrimental impact on the water environment. The proposal would also accord with policy SG LDP AQUA 1. 7) Commercial and Recreational Activity The marine environment is increasingly used for commercial and recreational purposes and represents an important social and economic resource in Argyll and Bute. SPP requires that a range of other marine interests are taken into account in determining the appropriateness of new fish farming development in the marine area. These include recreation; tourism; navigation and commercial fisheries as well as MOD activities. This does not however mean that aquaculture should be excluded wherever another activity occurs. The Council will promote multiple use of space where activities are considered compatible or following appropriate mitigation of negative interactions. Developers should demonstrate that any potential impacts of proposals on other users of the marine environment have been identified and where conflicts of interest are likely, should provide details of likely impact and any proposed mitigation measures. Attention must be paid to public safety considerations as well as ensuring that access to the foreshore for recreational activities is not impeded. Commercial fishing There is potential for conflict between aquaculture developments and local fishing interests, including commercial inshore fishing and recreational fishing. New aquaculture developments, and other forms of marine development, have the potential to restrict access to existing fishing grounds. Although some developments may involve relatively small areas of seabed, the restriction of mobile gear fishing in particular, can be well beyond its location and the cumulative effect of many developments can be an issue. Restricting access to fishing grounds can have an economic impact on local fishermen, the scale of which will depend on factors including the size of the area affected; importance and productivity of the fishing grounds; intensity of fishing; and the number of vessels it supports The Clyde Fishermans Association does not support this site. Until the current shortcomings in the regulation of the salmon farming industry are resolved, CFA are of the opinion that there must be an immediate moratorium on any new marine open cage fish farms and any expansion of existing fish farm sites, including any increases in farmed fish biomass at existing sites, as any expansion of the industry will be unsustainable and may result in irreversible damage caused to the environment. CFA would urge that a holistic view to be taken in relation to aquaculture and other marine stakeholders/the environment. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board were consulted on the revised EMP, however at time of writing no response has been received. Marine Scotland are satisfied with the Revised EMP. Navigation, Anchorage, Commercial Fisheries, other non-recreational maritime uses (MOD) A satisfactory Baseline Marine Activity Assessment has been undertaken by the Applicant. The report indicates a low level of use for commercial vessels within the immediate vicinity of the development area. However, high numbers of recreational passenger craft pass through the moorings area. Therefore, large passenger craft and the RYA should make arrangements to alter the passage of vessels passing the new site. ScotMAP date (December 2019) has identified the surrounding marine area of the farm as being of very high value for nephrops trawls and low to medium value for creel fishing. However, the overall moorings are (0.9639ha), which might interact with fishing activity, is not considered significant. The Applicant has submitted equipment attestations; mooring and cage coordinates, including maps detailing pen group. In addition, the Applicant has provided full details of underwater and navigation lighting within the final application. Page 88
Page 89
No significant environmental effects are considered likely in relation to risk to navigation and anchorages, and other marine users, subject to advice by the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB). Subsea Power Cables and Pipelines Numerous domestic subsea power cables exist within inshore waters in this region, connecting areas of the mainland on the West coast and connecting the mainland to islands off the West coast. These cables could be damaged by aquaculture moorings or anchors and development which overlaps with active power cables will be resisted. There are two subsea power cables to the north of the site: Bute Ardyne South and Bute Ardyne North base on Marine Scotland’s most recent Power Cables map. The proposal does not overlap with the power cables and will move the aquaculture site further away from them. MOD activity Although MOD activity is widespread in Argyll and Bute coastal waters restrictions on marine development are limited to MOD noise ranges in Loch Goil and Loch Fyne and HMNB Clyde at Faslane. These areas are identified on Map DC6c. Based on Map DC6c the site is not in an area where aquaculture development is restricted by MOD activity. The MOD have been consulted on this application and at time of writing this report had not provided any response. Taking account of the above, it is considered that the impacts on commercial and recreational vessels will not be significant and that the proposal is in accordance with the development plan on this issue. 8) Amenity issues arising from operational effects (waste, noise, light and odour) New aquaculture developments should be designed so as to minimise any negative impacts arising from their operation and will be assessed to ensure adequate waste management measures; no significant adverse environmental or amenity impacts arising from the servicing and operation of the site; and satisfactory measures for the restoration of the site, including removal of redundant equipment. Noise and lighting The potential impacts of noise from fish farming activities both on and off shore can be detrimental to neighbouring uses, while inappropriate lighting can cause neighbour nuisance and/or be visually intrusive in the landscape. With the exception of navigation lights, surface lighting should be directed downwards by shielding and be extinguished when not required for the purpose for which it is installed on the site. Generators on fish farms close to the shore have potential to cause a noise nuisance, in particular where there are residential properties close to the site. Noise and lighting impacts are assessed by comparing the background noise and lighting levels against proposed levels associated with the development. The significance of an impact is therefore site specific. In some coastal areas where the background noise levels are low, sound will be a greater issue and night time limits may be appropriate. Lighting - The Applicant has advised that it may be necessary during periods of reduced daylight hours to use underwater lighting for the pens. The equipment will be the same that is used at the Existing Site. The lights will be downward facing and will not be directed off-site. The potential effect will be a slight underwater illumination seen as a green glow, with minimal visibility from the surface. Surface lighting will only be used in accordance with Northern Lighthouse Board recommendations as specified on the Marine Mooring and Navigation Licence. Navigation lighting requirements for the Replacement Site will be as agreed with the Northern Lighthouse Board. Noise - Based on the information provided by the Applicant, it is considered unlikely that the proposed relocation and enlargement of this farm will result in increased levels of noise compared to the existing development. Page 89
Page 90
The Environmental Health Officer has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions relating to nuisance during construction (including noise/vibration, dust and any temporary lighting); operating hours during construction; and operating noise. These are included in the recommended conditions. Policy SERV 5b requires developers to make provision for the management of waste. It 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). A condition requiring the submission of a Waste Management Plan is therefore recommended. Taking account of the above, it is considered that proposal would accord with policies LDP 8, LDP 10, SG LDP BAD 1, SG LDP SERV 5(b) and SG AQUA 1. In addition, the proposal would accord with policy 14 of the proposed LDP2 which maintains a similar policy approach to the existing bad neighbour policy. 9) Economic Impact It is necessary to have regard to net economic impacts, taking account of any negative effects imposed upon existing businesses as well as economic benefits accrued by the applicants and any indirect benefits to the manufacturing/service sector. The expansion of the aquaculture sector is being actively encouraged by government policy in view of the contribution it makes to the national and export economy and in view of the employment it sustains. It is supported by development plan policy unless there are locally significant adverse effects which cannot be avoided, reduced or mitigated to an extent which renders development acceptable. The Council’s Economic Development Strategy identifies the food and drink sector as being one of the areas of key sustainable economic assets helping to retain and create jobs in rural areas. The Applicant has not provided supporting information on the socio-economic benefits of the proposed development, as no specific request was made for this information at the scoping stage. This said, The Scottish Salmon Company (SSC) is one of the leading Scotland based producers of fresh Scottish Salmon, employing a team of over 600 staff across 60 sites on the West Coast and Hebrides. A total of 15 staff are currently employed across the three existing marine sites in Loch Striven/Sound of Rothesay. There have been marine aquaculture operations at the Existing site location for over 34 years. The SSC operates two other sites in the surrounding area: Strone (approximately 3.5km to the north-east) and Sgian Dubh (approximately 5.5km to the north). In the wider area, SSC operates sites at Lamlash (approximately 40km to the south, on the east coast of the Isle of Arran) and in Loch Fyne. While no additional jobs will be created on the Ardyne farm, the Applicant has confirmed that 10 FTE staff will be maintained across its three sites in the area (Ardyne, Strone and Sgian Dubh). Taking account of the above it is considered that the proposal would accord with policies LDP 5 and SG LDP AQUA 1. D. Effects of Fish Farm Medication on Human Health A number of representations associated with this planning application have raised concerns about adverse effects of fish farm medications on human health. This issue arose after the submission of the planning application. A further report was commissioned by the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (now Salmon Scotland) and submitted by the applicant. This report relates to three fish farm planning applications which have been subject to similar objections. The objective of Page 90
Page 91
the report was to assess the potential health risk to open water swimmers in the vicinity of fish farms in Scotland in relation to medicinal treatments applied for the control of sea lice on salmon. The report has considered three substances, namely azamethiphos, deltamethrin and hydrogen peroxide. Medicinal sea lice treatments using known amounts of the substances are carried out in one of two ways: Bath treatments in-situ. By enclosing the pen in question fully with a large tarpaulin. The net is lifted to gently crowd the fish together in the smallest safe volume. The tarpaulin is passed underneath the net and pulled up around the pen above the water level. When the fish are totally enclosed in the tarpaulin, treatment can begin. Once the treatment is completed the tarpaulin is removed and the treatment water released into the sea. Fish may be treated in tanks on board specialist wellboats. Following treatment, the dislodged lice are collected and disposed of, then the treatment water is released into the sea. With regard to azamethiphos and deltamethrin the report concludes that the concentrations used to treat fish are safe for open water swimmers, even before dilution and dispersion occurs in open waters. However, for hydrogen peroxide there is a risk associated with the concentrations of hydrogen peroxide used in the fish treatment paths, therefore, characterisation of dilution and dispersion are likely to be required to be taken into account to demonstrate that discharges of hydrogen peroxide are safe for open water swimmers. A Hydrogen Peroxide dispersion model report produced by Salmon Scotland was included as an Appendix the supporting fish farm medication report. In order to place the results in the main report into context, the dispersion of hydrogen peroxide from a pen following a tarpaulin treatment was assessed using a modified version of “BathAuto” model. This model has been used by SEPA for regulatory purposes (to calculate short-term dispersion of bath treatments from marine pen fish farms) for around 25 years. The spatial and temporal scale of impact relative to the No Effects Level (NEL = 59.84 mg l-1) was computed. The model allows for a generic risk assessment approach for a range of initial treatment quantities and environmental conditions (mean current speeds) typical of marine fish farms. For both pen sizes considered, peak concentration within the patch is predicted to be below the NEL in around 30-60 minutes for most scenarios, with a maximum time of 100 minutes. The distance travelled by the patch centre during this time ranged from 164-378 m. Peak and average concentrations within the patch were correspondingly well below the NEL at the 2 hr point. The 2 hr average of peak patch concentration was over the NEL (1.2-2.4 x for 120 m pens, and higher(1.5-3.2 x) for 160 m pens due to greater treatment mass and volume). The 2 hr average of mean patch concentration was below or very close to the NEL for 120 pens in all but the slowest current scenario (where it was 1.4 x NEL over 2 hrs). For 160 m pens, 2 hr average of mean values was only below the NEL at the fastest current speed (worst case 1.9 x at slowest current speed). It is clear from the results that while pen concentrations of H2O2 are much higher than the reported NELs, dispersion in an open-water environment is expected to reduce concentration below the NELs quickly, in as little as 30 minutes and generally within a distance of 2-300 m from the treated pen centre point. Moreover, in many cases (and particularly the smaller pen scenarios, which are more realistic for the types of environment which swimmers will use), the 2 hr average of the mean patch concentration is below the reported NEL. Even in the worst-case scenario (an unrealistic combination of very large pen and very slow current speed), the average of the peak concentration over 2 hrs is 3.2 x NEL. Through the processing of the planning application for the Dunstaffnage Fish Farm (20/02358/MFF) which was determined by Members at the June PPSL committee, further Page 91
Page 92
clarification on this issue was provided. In supplementary report no.1 it was explained that the WCA report concludes that the concentration of medicines Azamethiphos and Deltamethrin used in a pen bath treatment are lower than the DNEL and therefore there is no unacceptable risk to wild swimmers, at any distance from the farm, from the release of medicine residues from a farm pen following completion of a treatment. The DNELs for oral and dermal exposure have been calculated using a 2-hour swim scenario for a 71.8kg. While a swimmer of lower weight would have an increased risk from the same level of exposure to medicine residues, the DNELs are still based on a number of highly precautionary assumptions, including: There is no dilution of medicine concentration, or degradation of residues; Water concentration of medicines is constant and static (no movement and circulation of medicine residues); That a swimmer would remain in an area of the highest concentration for two hours; 100% absorption of residues by dermal and oral routes of exposure. For hydrogen peroxide the concentration used in the treatment pen is higher than the DNEL so the risk to wild swimmers depends on the dilution and dispersion of medicine residues in relation to the proximity of a wild swimmer, and the time for which the swimmer might be exposed to medicine residues. Appendix 1 of the WCA fish farm medication report identifies some calculated statistics of the dispersion and concentration of hydrogen peroxide for a range of environmental conditions typical of marine fish farms. It should be noted that guidance for wild swimmers strongly advises that swimmers should always undertake a risk assessment of their proposed swim before entering the water which should consider any potential risks related to water quality, weather conditions, temperature and other marine users and activities. It is reasonable to expect that water users, including wild swimmers stay a safe distance from a salmon farm to avoid any risk of collision with workboats or entanglement in farm equipment (pens, ropes, moorings, nets). The same principle would apply to wild swimming in a working harbour or adjacent to sewage outfalls. Wild swimmers should therefore not be swimming within the planning/moorings boundary of the farm and to do so would be irresponsible. A farms boundary is typically 150-300m from the edge of the farm pens and therefore if swimmers stay out with the farm boundary then they should not be exposed concentrations of hydrogen peroxide above the DNEL. A number of vessels will be active around the farm pens at the time of a bath medicine treatment and therefore will be very obvious to other water users that for their own safety they should maintain a safe distance from the fish farm pens. NHS Highland were consulted on this report and have advised that while they are not able to comment on the detailed technical elements of the report, the overall methods and processes appear reasonable as do the deductions. NHS Highland advised that they were not able to give a definitive opinion on the safety of wild swimming in the vicinity of fish farms simple based on the report, however, based on the available evidence NHS Highland does not wish to object to the application. Given the above and taking account of the fact that NHS Highland has not objected to the application on public health grounds, the risk to wild swimmers is considered to be within acceptable limits. However, in order to ensure that the risks are even further mitigated, a condition is proposed that the applicant produces a communication strategy with other marine users advising when bath medicines will be actively used at the site as well as advising on other health and safety issues associated with fish farms. In these circumstances it is considered that it would be unreasonable and unsustainable to refuse the application on these grounds. E. TRAFFIC Page 92
Page 93
This development is accessed from C10 Glen Striven Road within the national speed limit by an existing internal road network. The increased production will create additional traffic movements on the road. Positive measures should be put in place to minimise impact onto the road network especially at peak times. A Traffic Management Plan must be agreed with the Area Roads Manager for the construction phase and for normal operations including harvesting seasons. The Area Roads Engineer has no objection to this proposal subject to conditions to ensure that positive measures are put in place to minimise impact on the road network, especially at peak times and a Traffic Management Plan. Relevant conditions are recommended to secure the requirements of the Area Roads Engineer. F. CONCLUSION The removal of existing equipment and replacement with new equipment at a long-established site, is of a relatively small scale. Argyll & Bute Council provided a Screening Opinion that the application did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment and that it would be sufficiently supported by the provision of specific supporting information. SSC has provided this supporting information as well as further information to assist in the determination process, as requested by the Statutory Consultees. All technical assessments conclude that no significant impacts will result from this proposed development. The design and assessment process adopted by SSC has represented a good practice approach to the responsible development of marine aquaculture. All potential areas of interaction between the Replacement and the environment have been addressed, resulting in a well-designed development incorporating appropriate mitigation measures, at a suitable site. The Replacement complies with, and is supported by, the aims and objectives of both national policy and the Development Plan, and would make a valuable contribution towards the ambitious growth targets set for the aquaculture industry. Page 93
Page 94
HABITATS REGULATIONS ‘APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT’ HABITAT DIRECTIVE 92-43-EEC THE CONSERVATION (NATURAL HABITATS AND C.) REGULATIONS 1994 AS AMENDED Ailsa Craig Special Protection Area (SPA) Purpose of the designation The Habitats Directive aims to conserve biodiversity by maintaining or restoring species to favourable conservation status. The Ailsa Craig Special Protection Area (SPA) was classified 25th April 1990 and extended 25th September 2009. It covers the Ailsa Craig Island and approximately 2km into the marine environment, including the seabed, water column and surface. It has a qualifying interest by regularly supporting populations of migratory species namely; northern gannet (Morus bassanus) and lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus). If also has a qualifying interest at regularly supports in excess of 20,000 individual seabirds including common guillemot (Uria aalge), black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) and herring gull (Larus argentatus). The purpose of the designation is to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained: Population of the species as a viable component of the site; Distribution of the species within site; Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; No significant disturbance of the species. Consequences of the designation In circumstances where European Protected Species could be subject to significant effects as a consequence of development proposals, the competent authority, in considering whether development should be consented, is required to undertake an ‘appropriate assessment’ to inform its decision-making process, on the basis that where unacceptable effects are identified, or in cases of ‘reasonable scientific doubt’, then permission ought not to be granted. An ‘appropriate assessment’ is required to be undertaken in cases where any plan or project which: (a) Either alone or in combination with other plans or projects would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site designated for nature conservation; and (b) Is not directly connected with the management of the site. The proposed fish farm would be situated approximately 70km north of Ailsa Craig Special Protected Area (SPA), which is classified for breeding Gannet, breeding lesser black-backed gull and a seabird assemblage including nationally important populations of Guillemot, Kittiwake and Herring gull. It is considered by NatureScot that the development proposed by means of planning application ref: 19/02539/MFF may have a likely significant effect (LSE) on the qualifying features of the Ailsa Craig SPA (with the exception of Kittiwake where no LSE is predicted). The reasons for this are that the proposal is located within the mean maximum foraging range of the qualifying interests of the Ailsa Craig SPA. Furthermore, for gannets, kittiwakes, lesser black-backed gulls Page 94
Page 95
and guillemots, the proposal is within their mean foraging distance (plus one standard deviation) from the Ailsa Craig SPA. This proposal could therefore affect the qualifying interests of the Ailsa Craig SPA. As a consequence, Argyll & Bute Council has conducted an ‘appropriate assessment’, as per the Conservation (Habitats and C.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), having regard to the anticipated effects of development and the conservation objectives for the site’s qualifying interests. This assessment is detailed below. Characteristics of the development The current application is proposing to increase the number of pens to 14 x 120m circumference (19.1 radius) plastic cages 365m to the south of the existing site. The proposed site would comprise a 16 cell, 75m x 75m mooring grid layout; both are to be arranged in two groups, one in (2 x 4) and one (2 x3) configurations, with a 75m separation distance. The overall surface area of the fish farm would increase by 0.9639ha, from 0.6354ha to 1.6045ha; with a proposed total surface area of 6, 707.3ha. The net depth at the site is to be between 30-40m approximately. The stocking density of the site will be 15.6kg/m3 and the maximum biomass will increase to 2,070T. Pole mounted top nets are proposed. Assessment In August 2019 an unknown, but substantial, number of Gannets and Gulls were entrapped and/or entangled in pole-mounted top nets at a fish farm in Kintyre. The Planning Authority must therefore assess the potential risk to the qualifying interests of the SPA from the use of pole- mounted top nets at the proposed fish farm. NatureScot’s understanding of how gannets interact with pole-mounted top nets is limited and it based on information for a couple of sites. However, there appears to be significant risk of entrapment and / or entanglement to gannets associated with ceiling mesh sizes of between 200mm or more and an unknown, but potentially significant, theoretical risk to gannets for ceiling mesh sizes of between 100mm and 200mm. NatureScot therefore advise a conclusion of Likely Significant Effect (LSE) with respect to the proposed use of 300mm ceiling nets in a pole- mounted system at this site. On theoretical grounds NatureScot advise that the risk to gannets can be reduced by using the smallest ceiling net mesh size possible, ideally of less than 100mm and would strongly advocate the adoption of smaller mesh size ceiling nets at this site in light of the previous incident in the Firth of Clyde area. However, given currently limited evidence with respect to effects of mesh size on how gannets interact with pole-mounted top net systems, NatureScot cannot with certainty conclude that this would eliminate the risk. NatureScot’s assessment concludes that the use of top nets at this fish farm alone would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. Gannet populations are generally increasing and NatureScot’s understand in the two incidents they were aware of is that the majority of birds were released alive. There could still be some longer term population impacts but immediate mortality from single incidents is deemed insufficient to result in an adverse impact on site integrity. However, it is NatureScot’s view that there is a potential risk to gannet populations either as a consequence of repeated incidents at vulnerable sites (i.e cumulatively) and / or in combination with other fish farms that may also use these nets. NatureScot therefore advise that any permission for use of pole-mounted top nets should be conditional on monitoring, notification to Argyll and Bute Council and NatureScot in the event of serious incidents, and provision of adaptive management to be implemented (e.g. replacement of nets) if required to avoid repeated incidents occurring which could increase the risk of resulting in an adverse effect on site integrity. It is highlighted that, on current evidence, the risk to the applicant of adaptive management being required would be substantially reduced by adoption Page 95
Page 96
of smaller mesh ceiling nets and that the proposed use of 300mm nets poses a potentially higher risk of gannet incursion into the cages. Mitigation NatureScot has advised that taking account of the assessment above, provided the proposal is undertaken strictly in accordance with the following mitigation, then the proposal will not affect the integrity of the site. 1. The operators will maintain daily records of wildlife entanglement or entrapment using a standardised pro forma which can be supplied by NatureScot and submit regular (typically six monthly) returns to Argyll and Bute Council, copied to NatureScot; 2. The operators will immediately notify Argyll and Bute Council and NatureScot in the event of any significant entrapment or entanglement of any bird species, but particularly gannets, herring gulls or lesser black-backed gulls as the Ailsa Craig qualifying interests likely to be affected by the proposal (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). NatureScot will advise on the thresholds that will constitute an adverse impact on site integrity (how many repeated incidences at one particular fish farm or how many incidences at other fish farms in-combination) because it is important that action is taken before the threshold for an adverse impact on site integrity is reached; and 3. Adaptive management approaches will be agreed between Argyll and Bute Council and the Applicant in consultation with NatureScot to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations; and 4. There should be no use of drift nets, vertical static nets, or gill nets to recapture escaped fish under any circumstances, as is suggested in the Applicant’s escape plan, because this will put a number of marine birds, including guillemots, shags, divers and others at risk. Conclusion The potential impacts of the development in relation to the conservation objectives cited in the SPA designation have been considered in the light of the above and it has been concluded that with identified mitigation measures in place the impacts arising from the operation of the development as proposed, in combination with the operation of other farms nearby will not, with identified mitigation in place, have a significant impact upon qualifying interests, and accordingly there is no reason to withhold permission on European nature conservation grounds. Page 96
Page 97
HABITATS REGULATIONS ‘APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT’ HABITAT DIRECTIVE 92-43-EEC THE CONSERVATION (NATURAL HABITATS AND C.) REGULATIONS 1994 AS AMENDED The Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Purpose of the designation The Habitats Directive aims to conserve biodiversity by maintaining or restoring species to favourable conservation status. The Endrick Water was classified as a Special Area of Conservation for three species of freshwater fish in 2005. The primary qualifiers for this site are brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) and river Lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis). Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) are a secondary qualifier for this site. Neither brook nor river lamprey will be impacted by the proposal. The purpose of the designation is to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features; and to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: Population of the species, including range of genetic types for salmon, as a viable component of the site; Distribution of the species within site Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; No significant disturbance of the species. Consequences of the designation In circumstances where European Protected Species could be subject to significant effects as a consequence of development proposals, the competent authority, in considering whether development should be consented, is required to undertake an ‘appropriate assessment’ to inform its decision-making process, on the basis that where unacceptable effects are identified, or in cases of ‘reasonable scientific doubt’, then permission ought not to be granted. An ‘appropriate assessment’ is required to be undertaken in cases where any plan or project which: (a) Either alone or in combination with other plans or projects would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site designated for nature conservation; and (b) Is not directly connected with the management of the site. It is considered by NatureScot (SNH) that the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the Atlantic Salmon qualifying interest of the site development proposed by means of above planning application (ref: 19/02539/MFF) could affect the qualifying interests of Endrick Water SAC. The proposed site lies approximately 40km to the south-west of the boundary of the SAC as the crow flies. However, wild salmonids and Atlantic salmon smolts emigrate through the Firth of Clyde. Page 97
Page 98
As a consequence, Argyll Bute Council has conducted an ‘appropriate assessment’, as per the Conservation (Habitats and C.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), having regard to the anticipated effects of development and the conservation objectives for the site’s qualifying interests. This assessment is detailed below. Characteristics of the development The current application is proposing to increase the number of pens to 14 x 120m circumference (19.1 radius) plastic cages 365m to the south of the existing site. The proposed site would comprise a 16 cell, 75m x 75m mooring grid layout; both are to be arranged in two groups, one in (2 x 4) and one (2 x3) configurations, with a 75m separation distance. The overall surface area of the fish farm would increase by 0.9639ha, from 0.6354ha to 1.6045ha; with a proposed total surface area of 6, 707.3ha. The net depth at the site is to be between 30-40m approximately. The stocking density of the site will be 15.6kg/m3 and the maximum biomass will increase to 2,070T. Assessment of Impacts It is not considered that there would be any impact on the brook or river lamprey interest of the SAC. NatureScot has advised that this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on The Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its Atlantic salmon feature. Consequently, Argyll & Bute Planning Authority is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interest(s). To help the Planning Authority to do this, they advise that in their view, on the basis of the additional information provided, if the proposal is undertaken strictly in accordance with the following mitigation, then the proposal will not adversely affected the integrity of the site: 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. The Wild Fisheries Seal Lice Monitoring Strategy should include monitoring of the juvenile freshwater population and the final monitoring plan must be agreed with all relevant parties, including NatureScot, prior to the site being stocked. Adherence to the Technical Standards as referred to in the Escape Contingency Plan for Ardyne. NatureScot would expect this as a minimum measure, however, whilst Technical Standards may well be followed, issues can still arise which lead to the escape of fish. A recent equipment failure at a fish farm site on the east coast of the Kintyre peninsula led to the escape of 48, 834 farmed salmon. Subsequent reports suggest that potentially significant numbers farmed fish returned to fresh water environments, including the Endrick Water SAC. Significant work is now ongoing to assess the extent of any genetic introgression that took place as a result of this incident. To mitigate this risk to the SAC NatureScot would expect confirmation that the proposed fish farms will comply with the current Scottish Technical Standard, in order to ensure that any equipment used is robust and will reduce the risk of escapes occurring and any subsequent interbreeding with salmon in the SAC. Locating fish farms in higher wave energy marine environments that are more likely to be adversely affected by the changing environmental conditions requires that all new consented fish farm infrastructure must be fit for purpose and reflect future climate scenarios. NatureScot advise that Argyll & Bute Council seeks further assurance from the Applicant with regards to this aspect. Page 98
Page 99
The above mitigation measures should be enforceable by means of appropriate planning conditions. The appraisal NatureScot carried out considered the impact of the proposal on the Endrick Water SAC. Conclusion The potential impacts of the development in relation to the conservation objectives cited in the SAC designation have been considered in the light of the above and it has been concluded that with identified mitigation measures in place the impacts arising from the operation of the development as proposed, in combination with the operation of other farms nearby will not, with identified mitigation in place, have a significant impact upon qualifying interests, and accordingly there is no reason to withhold permission on European nature conservation grounds. Page 99
Page 100
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 101
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 101 Agenda Item 6
Page 102
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 102
Page 103
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 103
Page 104
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 104
Page 105
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 105
Page 106
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 106
Page 107
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 107
Page 108
(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 108
Page 109
(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 109
Page 110
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 110
Page 111
(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 111
Page 112
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 112
Page 113
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 113
Page 114
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 114
Page 115
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 115
Page 116
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 116
Page 117
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 117
Page 118
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 118
Page 119
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 119
Page 120
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 120
Page 121
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 121
Page 122
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 122
Page 123
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 123
Page 124
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 124
Page 125
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 125
Page 126
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 127
Page 127
Page 128
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 129
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: 22/00231/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Kilbowie Development Company Ltd Proposal: Alterations to Increase Roof Pitch of Dwellinghouses Site Address: 1-7 Kilbowie Shore, Gallanach Road, Oban DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Alterations to increase roof pitch of dwellinghouses (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 and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: N/A (D) HISTORY: 21/02074/NMA Non material amendment to 17/03068/PP (Erection of 7 dwellinghouses comprising two terraces, installation of air source heat pumps, sewage treatment plant and formation of access) Replace zinc roof coverings with Sarangi small ply membrane incorporating seam detail – Granted: 09/11/21 19/00818/NMA Non material amendment for slight change to footprint of Terrace 2 approved under 17/03068/PP – Granted: 23/05/19 19/00032/NMA Page 129 Agenda Item 7
Page 130
Non material amendment for slight increase in height to Terrace 1 approved under 17/03068/PP – Granted: 17/01/19 17/03068/PP Erection of 7 dwellinghouses comprising two terraces, installation of air source heat pumps, sewage treatment plant and formation of access – Granted: 19/02/18. 15/01448/PP Conversion of Kilbowie House to form 8 residential flats, erection of 2 dwellinghouses, installation of 3 sewage treatment plants and associated works – Granted: 27/08/15 (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of development affecting the setting of a Listed Building, closing date 19/05/22. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: 13 objections from 7 households and 9 expressions of support from 5 households have been received. OBJECTION Malcolm Macalpine, 1 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4PB (09/05/22) Margaret Macalpine, 1 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4PB (09/05/22) Mr Alex Campbell, 2 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4PB (09/05/22) Catherine Campbell, 2 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4PB (09/05/22) Mr Arran Campbell, 2 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4PB (09/05/22) Mr Kenneth Campbell, 2 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4PB (09/05/22) Mr Lewis Campbell, 2 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4PB (09/05/22) Mr Alistair Boyd, 4 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4PB (02/05/22) Rae Boyd, 4 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4PB (03/05/22) Mr David Mason, 5 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4PB (27/04/22) Mr Cameron Boyd, 37 Creag Bhan Village, Oban, PA34 4BF (02/05/22) Fiona Macalpine, 8 Fleming Court, Lochgilphead (09/05/22) Mary Boyd, 20 Lia Fall Court, Oban (03/05/22) Additional joint letter from Residents of 1, 2 and 4 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4BF (21/06/22) Summary of issues raised: IMPACT ON DAYLIGHTING/AMENITY OF NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES The increase in height will cast a shadow and reduce the amount of daylight to the properties at Dungallan Terrace. If approved the proposal will result in a prominent development within the landscape which will have a serious impact on the residents of Dungallan Terrace and resulting in the dwellinghouses being visible from Gallanach Road. Page 130
Page 131
The proposed rooflights will impact on the privacy of the dwellinghouses at Dungallan Terrace. The proposal will dominate the outlook from the properties at Dungallan Terrace drawing the properties closer and impacting on the perception of space and potentially becoming overbearing. This would pose significant difficulties for the health and wellbeing of residents. Officer Comment: Whilst the overall height of the dwellinghouses will increase as a result of the new hipped roof, the increase in height, approximately 1.57 metres, is not considered to be so significant that the overall appearance of the dwellinghouses, or their setting within the site and wider landscape will be adversely affected. With regards to the rooflights, these are purely to provide light to the existing accommodation within the dwellinghouse. The roofspace which will be created as a result of the increased roof pitch is not sufficient to be used for any habitable purposes and therefore these rooflights will not result in any overlooking or privacy issues with neighbouring properties. The dwellinghouses are set lower down than the nearest residential properties at Dungallan Terrace, which, together with the distance involved, will ensure that no daylighting/overshadowing issues arise. Whilst it is accepted that the increase in height may affect the outlook from some of the dwellinghouses at Dungallan Terrace, it should be noted that in planning terms there is no right to a private view. IMPACT ON LANDSCAPE & WILDLIFE The original approved plans stated that the dwellinghouses were to be at a low site level with the aim to reduce the impact on the surrounding landscape and visual public amenity. The proposal will detract from the natural beauty of the landscape. The proposal will have an adverse impact on birds and insects, some of which are starting to frequent the area again and will be scared off. As a result of the development wildlife has been affected with some birds and red squirrel not having been since construction. Officer Comment: Whilst the original design concept for the dwellinghouses was to keep them low to minimise their impact, it is not considered that the increase in roof pitch proposed is so significant that it would have a significant adverse impact on the appearance of the dwellinghouses in the site and wider landscape. As the proposal is merely increasing the height of the roof of the existing dwellinghouses, it is not considered that this amendment will have any significant adverse impact on wildlife. INAPPROPRIATE DESIGN AND MATERIALS Page 131
Page 132
From the outset, these two buildings have shown up as a horrible and absurd creation with absolutely no sympathy for their effect on the natural local environment and the introduction of an increased roof height will draw further attention to them and detract from public amenity. These are an over ambitious design which have been fraught with problems from the beginning. The roofs leaked under construction, leaked on completion and leaked when the owners moved in. There has to be a clear case of incompetent design and incompetent construction and it should be questioned as to why a Completion Certificate was issued. The materials used in the construction of these properties are not in keeping with the current surrounding infrastructure and natural environment. The unnecessary addition of further materials of similar inappropriate nature through constructing larger roofs will only compound this problem further. Some of the letters of support state that a flat roof is not appropriate for the west of Scotland, there was no problem when planning was applied for and secured or when the owners purchased the properties, it was clear they were flat roofs. Officer Comment: The comments regarding the design of the dwellinghouses are noted but are subjective and not something the Planning Authority will comment on. With regards to construction and workmanship, these are not matters for the Planning Authority. POOR WORKMANSHIP It is difficult to comprehend that a water tight roofing solution cannot be achieved in keeping with the original design of these new structures. Unpitched roofs are commonplace in modern day infrastructure, including within Oban, and therefore can absolutely be accepted as an appropriate solution for protection the property from damage from prevailing weather. It is obvious that the problem here is not with the design but rather with the installation. Perhaps the property owners should consider employing an alternative contractor of sufficient competence to install the roof to reflect the original design specification. Surrounding residents should not have to tolerate another eyesore in front of them, if owners are angered at their roofing problems they should raise litigating and sue the developer for compensation and for a simplified roof which will work. Officer Comment: These subjective comments are noted by the Planning Authority, however it is necessary for the Planning Authority to consider the subject of the current planning application before them and not to investigate alternative designs/solutions. With regards to construction and workmanship, these are not matters for the Planning Authority. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION Page 132
Page 133
The answer to the problem would be to remove the faulty roofs in their entirety and replace them with a roof composed of a fraction of the number of pieces, thus hugely reducing the potential for leakage. This would work and the height would not have to be increased. A solution within the original planning restriction should be sought, addressing the problems and giving consideration to the landscape and the neighbouring properties. Could the Sarnafil membrane (previously approved by the Planning Authority), or a similar approach, be tried before increasing the roof pitch by 1.6 metres. Officer Comment: These comments are noted, however, the Planning Authority has to consider the proposal subject of the current planning application before them and not investigate alternative designs/solutions. With regards to the Sarnafil membrane previously approved, the Agent has confirmed that residents expect the roofs to be finished in zinc as originally proposed. The Planning Authority cannot make the developer implement the permission to use Sarnafil membrane. GENERAL COMMENTS If approved this application will make a mockery of the whole planning process and will serve only as an insult to those unfortunate enough to have to live with it. The dwellinghouses are already higher than originally proposed and will now be extended further in height. Officer Comment: The planning application will be assessed against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and all material planning considerations, and should the proposal not comply with these, the application will not be supported by the Planning Authority. With regards to the previous increase in height this was addressed through the submission of an application for non-material amendment as the change was not considered to be so significant to warrant submission of a further planning application. VISUALISATIONS Concerns raised over the additional visualisations submitted by the Agent as not being accurate. Officer Comment: The 3D visualisation submitted in support of the application have since been withdrawn by the Agent. SUPPORT Shazia Ahmed, 2 Kilbowie Shore, Oban, PA34 4PE (30/04/22) Faisal Ahmed, 2 Kilbowie Shore, Oban, PA34 4PDE (30/04/22) Mr Brendan Martin, 3 Kilbowie Shore, Oban, PA34 4PE (29/04/22) Mrs Anne Martin, 3 Kilbowie Shore, Oban, PA34 4PE (29/04/22) Page 133
Page 134
John MacKay, 4 Kilbowie Shore, Oban, PA34 4PE (03/05/22) Irene MacKay, 4 Kilbowie Shore, Oban, PA34 4PE (03/05/22) Mr Graham Heron, 6 Kilbowie Shore, Oban, PA34 4PE (28/04/22) William Findlay (no address given) 29/04/22 Rhona Findlay (no address given) 29/04/22 Summary of issues raised: The proposed works are necessary to rectify ongoing roof failure which has resulted in water ingress and damage at Kilbowie Shore. A flat roof was wholly inappropriate in the first place for the west coast of Scotland due to the high levels of rain fall. A sloped roof with a minimum of a 15 degree pitch is the only solution to stop the water ingress. The proposed works should be carried out immediately to minimise any further damage to the properties. Without the increase in roof pitch there could be more regular and serious issues. Officer Comment: These expressions of support, all from residents of the properties subject of the planning application, are noted by the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority has to determine the proposal subject of the current application, however, should the application be supported, this in no way infers that a flat roof is not an appropriate design solution for developments. The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the letters of representation are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A design or design/access statement: Yes – A Supporting Statement outlining the proposal has been submitted with the application. (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Page 134
Page 135
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 ‘Supplementary Guidance to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2015’ (Adopted March 2016) Landscape and Design SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape Historic Environment and Archaeology SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Impact on Listed Buildings General Housing Development SG LDP HOU 1 – General Housing Development Including Affordable Housing Provision 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. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), 2014 Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guidance, 2006 Third Party Responses 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 Page 135
Page 136
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. There are no provisions of pLDP2 that may be afforded significant weighting in the determination of this application. (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No (M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (O) Requirement for a hearing: No In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing Members should consider: 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. 13 objections from 7 households and 9 expressions of support from 5 households have been received regarding the proposed development. 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 it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process. Page 136
Page 137
The proposal has elicited 13 objections from 7 households and 9 expressions of support from 5 households. In this instance the proposed change is considered to be acceptable alteration to the dwellinghouses and will have no significant adverse impact on the appearance of the dwellinghouses or their setting within the site or wider landscape at this location nor will the change give rise to any privacy or amenity issues with neighbouring residential properties. The proposal is deemed to be in accordance with the adopted Local Development Plan. (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Planning permission is sought for the increase in the pitch of the roof of two existing terraces of dwellinghouse at numbers 1 to 7 Kilbowie Shore, Gallanach Road, Oban. The dwellinghouses as existing comprise two blocks. Terrace 1 comprises four units with Terrace 2 comprising 3 units. The dwellinghouses are two storey split level contemporary designed structures taking a rectangular ‘box’ form with a flat standing seam zinc roof. 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 finished in standing seam zinc. The proposed change results in an overall increase in height of 1.57 metres. In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (LDP) 2015, the application site is located within the settlement of Oban where Policy LDP DM 1 gives encouragement to sustainable forms of development subject to compliance with other relevant policies and supplementary guidance (SG). Policy LDP 3 assesses applications for their impact on the natural, human and built environment. The site is within close proximity to Kilbowie House a Category B Listed Building and therefore the provisions of SG LDP ENV 16(a) require to be considered which seek to ensure developments preserve the setting of listed buildings. Policy LDP 9 and SG 2 seek developers to produce and execute a high standard of appropriate design and ensure that development is sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located with development layouts reflecting the local character and patterns and being sympathetic to the landscape and compatible with neighbouring uses. 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 site or wider landscape at this location Page 137
Page 138
nor will the change give rise to any privacy or amenity issues with neighbouring residential properties. The proposal has elicited 13 objections from 7 households and 9 expressions of support from 5 households. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes (R) Reasons why Planning Permission 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, including issues raised by third parties, to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 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: Fiona Scott Date: 2nd August 2022 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 2nd August 2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 138
Page 139
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 22/00231/PP 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. 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).] 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. Both the Notification of Initiation and Notification of Completion forms referred to above are available via the following link on the Council’s website: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/make-planning- application Page 139
Page 140
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER 22/00231/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT A. Settlement Strategy In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (LDP) 2015, the application site is located within the settlement of Oban where Policy LDP DM 1 gives encouragement to sustainable forms of development subject to compliance with other relevant policies and supplementary guidance (SG). Policy LDP 3 assesses applications for their impact on the natural, human and built environment. The site is within close proximity to Kilbowie House a Category B Listed Building and therefore the provisions of SG LDP ENV 16(a) require to be considered which seek to ensure developments preserve the setting of listed buildings. Policy LDP 9 and SG 2 seek developers to produce and execute a high standard of appropriate design and ensure that development is sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located with development layouts reflecting the local character and patterns and being sympathetic to the landscape and compatible with neighbouring uses. The proposal has elicited 13 objections from 7 households and 9 expressions of support from 5 households. B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development Planning permission is sought for an increase in the roof pitch of 7 existing dwellinghouses at Kilbowie Shore, Gallanach Road, Oban. The dwellinghouses as existing comprise two blocks. Terrace 1 comprises four units with Terrace 2 comprising 3 units. The dwellinghouses are two storey split level contemporary designed structures taking a rectangular ‘box’ form with a flat standing seam zinc roof. The dwellinghouses have been cut into their site situated below the level of the U116 public road which serves Dungallan Terrace which minimises their impact within the site and wider landscape. Only Terrace 2 is near to Dungallan Terrace where it is situated in front of numbers 1 and 2 Dungallan Terrace and not in front of any other properties within the Dungallan Terrace development. Terrace 1 is situated further to the west where it has no direct association with Dungallan Terrace. 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 finished in standing seam zinc. The proposed change results in an overall increase in height of 1.57 metres. In support of the application the Agent has submitted a statement advising that, following a persistent and recurring failure of the existing zinc roof, investigations were undertaken to identify the cause and any potential remedial works necessary to prevent further water ingress. The Agent advises that, having conducted various exploratory and remedial works without success, and following consultation with zinc roofing specialists, it was agreed that reforming the roof with a steeper pitch and removing the Page 140
Page 141
internal gutters would be the only way forward to ensure that there would be no future problems. A report was also submitted by Base Metal Roofing who advise that “the existing roof has failed causing water ingress due to the pitch of the roof being too low for a traditional standing seam roofing system. The Federation of Traditional Metal Roofing Contractors (FTMRC) guide to good practice recommends a minimum 3 degree pitch and between 3 and 5 degrees, a mastic tape must be applied into the seams at the point of installation, before closure. The recommendations of Base Metal Roofing, based on over 30 years experience installing up and down the West coast of Scotland, is to build all roof substrates to a minimum 7 degree pitch which allows a builder’s tolerance to achieve at least 5 degrees. On the Kilbowie Shore project, the architects have elected to remove the gutter sections that are positioned directly over the resident’s properties along with raising the rooflights from the internal gutter to the upper end of the new proposed slopes, which are now 15 degrees. These changes are the optimal choice to enhance the performance and capability of an already robust system. Internal gutters are always risky and extreme care is required with the detailing and execution of this type of design. To conclude, moving the gutters to the perimeter edges eliminates the risk of water ingress. Raising the roof slopes to 14 degrees or above is the optimal range for traditional standing seam detailing, creating far more robust conditions for the roof to perform against the ever increasing extremes of our weather, especially in this exposed marine location. Coincidentally, wind and rain figures have increased by approximately 30% in the previous 30 years”. Base Metal Roofing conclude by strongly endorsing and recommending all changes proposed in the application and also add that, following the changes, the pleasing aesthetic appearance of the zinc roof will be more visible from ground level. In this instance the proposed change in roof pitch is considered to be an acceptable alteration to the dwellinghouses and it is not considered to be so significant that it will have an adverse impact on the appearance of the dwellinghouses or their setting within the site or wider landscape at this location nor will the change have any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of Policies LDP DM 3, LDP 9, SG 2 and SG LDP ENV 14 which, collectively, seek to ensure that the scale, location and design of proposed developments to not have a significant adverse impact on the site and wider landscape within which they are proposed or result in any adverse amenity issue with neighbouring properties. C. Historic Environment The dwellinghouses are situated to the north east of Kilbowie House which is a Category B Listed Building (LB) which requires the provisions of Policy SG LDP ENV 16(a) to be considered which seeks to ensure that development affecting a LB, or its setting, shall preserve the building or its setting and any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. Page 141
Page 142
However, as the application merely represents an increase to the pitch of the roof on the existing dwellinghouses, it is not considered that the change is so significant to affect the setting of the LB. It is not considered that the proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the appearance or setting of the LB consistent with the provisions of SG LDP ENV 16(a) which seek to ensure that developments do not have an adverse impact on the character of the built environment. Page 142
Page 143
Page 143
Page 144
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 145
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 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 22/00921/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mr Paul David Barker Proposal: Application for Discharge of Section 75 Obligation relative to Planning Permission 97/01526/DET Site Address: Melda House, Kilfinan, by Tighnabruaich ____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ____________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Discharge of Section 75 Obligation relative to Planning Permission 97/01526/DET (ii) Other specified operations None ____________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Section 75 obligation relative to Planning Permission 97/01526/DET be discharged. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: Planning Permission (ref: 01/92/0293) was granted on 11th August 1992 for the formation of a car park at the site. Planning Permission (ref: 01-93-0363) was granted on 1st July 1993 for the formation of fishing facilities at the site for a temporary period of three years. An application for Planning Permission (ref: 97/00968/DET) was refused on 8th September 1997 for a dwellinghouse, office and shop on the site. Planning Permission (ref: 97/01526/DET) was granted on 7th April 1998 for the erection of a dwellinghouse, office and shop on the site. The approval was issued upon the Page 145 Agenda Item 8
Page 146
conclusion of a Section 75 obligation tying the ownership of the dwellinghouse, office and shop to the fishing enterprise that existed at Loch Melldalloch. Planning Permission (ref: 02/01555/DET) was granted on 10th October 2002 for amended access arrangements and the removal of Condition 2 in relation to permission 97/01526/DET. Non Material Amendment (ref: 03/00711/NMA) was granted on 6th May 2003 for an amendment to the position of the building. Non Material Amendment (ref: 10/00178/NMA) was granted on 4th March 2010 to incorporate an amended door design; deletion of window; and installation of two dormer windows. Non Material Amendment (ref: 10/01012/NMA) was granted on 28th June 2010 to incorporate alterations in window sizes. Non Material Amendment (ref: 12/02720/NMA) was granted on 18th December 2012 for the addition of two velux windows in the dining area of the building. ____________________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: Not applicable. ____________________________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: Not applicable. ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: None. ____________________________________________________________________________ (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: No (v) Supporting Statement: Yes ____________________________________________________________________________ (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (i) Is a Section 75 obligation required: No Page 146
Page 147
The current application seeks to discharge the existing Section 75 obligation ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 (26th March 2015) LDP STRAT1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones 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 Supplementary Guidance (approved March 2016) SG LDP ENV13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) SG LDP HOU 1 – General Housing Development Including Affordable Housing Provision SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision SG2 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. Scottish Planning Policy (2014) Planning History Circular 3/2012: Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements Letter from Chief Planning Officer to Planning Authorities dated 4th November 2011 in respect of limitations on occupancy 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 relevant provisions of pLDP2 that may be afforded significant weighting in the determination of this application are listed below: Policy 23 – Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Policy 26 – Informal Public Outdoor Recreation and Leisure Related Development Page 147
Page 148
Policy 49 – Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 (PAN41 or other): No ____________________________________________________________________________ (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Background Loch Melldalloch is located halfway along the B8000 road between Millhouse and Kilfinan to the north-west of Tighnabruaich. In 1997, an application for Planning Permission (ref: 97/00968/DET) was submitted for the erection of a dwellinghouse, office and shop on land between the south-west corner of the loch and the main public road. The applicant at the time (Mr Neil Jack) had been developing the commercial fishing potential of Loch Melldalloch for some years previously through the provision of stock (brown trout), infrastructure (access tracks, jetty, etc,) and basic facilities (temporary shelter). It was claimed, however, that the lack of on-site facilities and the requirements of managing live fish stock meant that the commercial fishing business could not be developed to its full potential. A claim of locational and operational need was put forward that explained the benefits of introducing a constant on-site presence: passive policing (thereby limiting poaching and unauthorised fishing); security/ticket control; essential storage; business base (office); assistance and welcome for anglers and tourists; shelter and amenities for customers; provision of angling-related supplies for loch users and greater marketing opportunities (to passers-by, tourists, etc.). The exceptional circumstances associated with application 97/00968/DET were accepted but it was considered that the proposed scale, massing and design of the building would be particularly overbearing and not in keeping with the character of the area. In addition, the proposed foul drainage arrangements were deemed to be unacceptable. On this basis, Planning Permission was refused on 8th September 1997. A fresh application (ref: 97/01526/DET) was subsequently submitted and the issues associated with the previous proposal had been satisfactorily addressed. A more appropriate massing had been achieved for the building and, in design terms, it was reminiscent of a large farmhouse with the presentation of a more traditional gable end on its most prominent, south east-facing elevation. Finishes such as natural slate and timber sash and casement windows would also lend a more traditional appearance to the building. In addition, the private sewage system was technically acceptable. Page 148
Page 149
After consideration by the Bute and Cowal Area Committee on 2nd November 1997, Planning Permission was granted on 7th April 1998 subject to the conclusion of a Section 75 agreement (now obligation). This obligation was considered necessary as it underpinned the locational and operational need claim associated with the application. Works commenced on the development prior to the expiry of permission 97/01526/DET on 7th April 2003 and it is understood that this was a self-build project by Mr Barker with the consequence that construction has taken a significant number of years. 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. Whilst the wording of the Section 75 does not specifically tie either the fishing venture or the dwellinghouse, office and shop to the whole of the original ‘Development Site’ (which covers approximately 25 hectares), the fishing venture was intrinsically linked to Loch Melldalloch so it is reasonable to infer that the loch is part of the “one title” referred to in the First Clause of the Section 75. In summarising the above, A supporting statement was submitted by the applicant at the time in relation to application 97/01526/DET and this was accepted as demonstrating a locational and operational need for a dwellinghouse, office and shop in association with the fishing venture at Loch Melldalloch Officers evaluated the siting, design and appearance of the building and considered it to be acceptable The use of the Section 75 agreement (now obligation) reflected custom and practice at that particular time The Applicant’s Case Mr Paul Barker (the current applicant) has submitted a Supporting Statement, which can be summarised as follows: Mr Barker bought the land and loch from the original applicant, Mr Neil Jack, in 2002 and the sale particulars made mention of a possible business income from the fishing venture. He found this to be a particularly attractive proposition as he already owned several businesses and was starting to look at winding down some of them for a better work/life balance At the outset, he was based in a touring caravan on a part-time basis on the site and he set up a deal with the nearby Kilfinan Hotel and Melldalloch Holiday Lodges to sell day tickets, so that it was possible for people to pay to fish in his absence. He advises that this was not a great success and the amount of income was trivial He states that the overheads associated with damage and antisocial behaviour were endless. He describes removing litter by the wheelbarrow load from the Page 149
Page 150
banks of the loch and from the small island that was accessed by a bridge. He feels that the source of the litter was not all due to the fishing activity He mentions that there were also serious cases of criminality over the years, including the emptying of his diesel tank (some 300 litres) in May 2005; the breaking into his caravan and its occupation over a period of time in October 2008; and the breaking up of a fence for use as fire wood in September 2009 In January 2011, the applicant decided to remove the bridge to the island and this, coupled with the sale of the Kilfinan Hotel to new owners, resulted in a natural decline in fishing activity. He began to spend more time on the site to facilitate the building of the house and there was a small amount of fishing activity at this time; however, the takings were insufficient to pay the public liability insurance premium In 2012, he decided that the fishing venture was not worthwhile and considered it to be closed. As the business is long gone and is never likely to be revisited, the applicant can see no justification in keeping the Section 75 that refers specifically to the “fishing venture” He considers that having the Section 75 associated with the property is a blight that is currently preventing the reclaim of VAT on the house build Looking into the future when he is no longer fit and able to live at the site, he is of the opinion that the sale of the property would be adversely affected by the presence of the Section 75 and its impact on the ability of a buyer to obtain mortgage funding Assessment of Request to Discharge Section 75 Obligation Over the last ten 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. In situations where Planning Permission would not normally be given for croft and agricultural dwellinghouses but an exceptional case has been demonstrated, the Council normally attaches conditions requiring the permission to be implemented in accordance with a business case / development plan. The current request relates to a historic application where there was no condition linking the occupation of the dwelling to a submitted business plan. However, the fishing venture at the loch was the principal element of the locational and operational need for the development and was accepted by both officers and Members in the decision to approve the dwellinghouse. The officer’s report at the time also states that, “after a long and careful scrutiny of the area, I consider that this is the best available site for development within the vicinity of the loch should the operational need and requirement to have a physical presence by the loch be accepted.” In addition, whilst acknowledging that the proposal was a relatively large building, it would be “in keeping with the character of the overall area and will not have a seriously detrimental visual impact on the wider Scenic Area.” In this particular case, and according to the applicant, 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, the business did not prove to be viable. Page 150
Page 151
The reality of the situation is, therefore, that the fishing business no longer exists and this is clearly a significant factor. When added to the other material considerations – that the development is visually acceptable; the 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. ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 circumstances of this case are as follows: • The dwellinghouse has been determined to be visually acceptable • The fishing business at Loch Melldalloch to which the dwellinghouse was tied has ceased • The permission and Section 75 for 97/01526/DET was approved many years prior to the currently agreed appropriate control mechanisms • Appeal decisions over the last six years indicate that the use of the Section 75 would not be supported at appeal and there would be a risk of an expenses award against the Council in any appeal. It is considered reasonable in these circumstances that approval should be granted for the discharge of the Section 75 obligation relative to Planning Permission 97/01526/DET. ______________________________________________________________________ (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: N ____________________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Steven Gove Date: 28th July 2022 Reviewing Officer: Howard Young Date: 28th July 2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 151
Page 152
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 153
Page 153
Page 154
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 155
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 17th August 2022 PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF PLANNING TRAINING FOR MEMBERS 1. INTRODUCTION 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. The training has usually taken place in the hour before the Planning, Protective Services and Licencing Committee (PPSLC), although in the past workshops and site visits have also been organised. Due to the circumstances caused by the coronavirus pandemic the virtual training events were undertaken. This report seeks endorsement of the training programme from October 2022 to June 2023. Further suggestions on any additional topics from Members would also be most welcome. With this in mind a slot has been left vacant in order to accommodate any additional training requirements identified through the course of the year. It is intended to continue to deliver training by way of virtual sessions associated with the PPSL calendar of meetings until such time as face to face gatherings are allowed. As before, it would not be intended to restrict the availability of training to the PPSL Committee membership, so there would be an open invitation to all Council Members to attend any of the sessions. 2. SUGGESTED PROGRAMME FOR 2022/23 Date Committee day training October 2022 Processing planning applications – Howard Young November 2022 SEPA Flooding – Aden McCorkell, SEPA Page 155 Agenda Item 9
Page 156
December 2022 National Planning Framework (NPF) 4 – Matt Mulderrig January 2023 Enforcement – Peter Bain February 2023 New regulations for the production of the Local Development Plan (LDP) – Sybil Johnson March 2023 Core paths / access issues - Jolyon Gritten April 2023 To be advised by Members May 2023 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - Mark Lodge / Kim de Buiteleir June 2023 Framing competent motions – Peter Bain 3. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members: i) Agree to continuing an ongoing programme of planning related training for Members of the PPSL Committee, which should also be open to any other Members not currently involved in planning decision-making; ii) Endorse 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. 4. IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Policy: None 4.2 Financial: It is considered that the level of training required can be delivered internally from existing resources without recourse to having to buy in training from external providers. 4.3 Legal: None 4.4 HR : None 4.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 4.5.1 Equalities Protected Characteristics: None 4.5.2 Socio-Economic Duty: None Page 156
Page 157
4.5.3 Islands: None 4.6 Risk: None 4.7 Customer Service: None 4.8 Climate Change: None Author of Report: Sandra Davies Date: 2/8/22 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Policy Lead: Councillor Kieron Green Page 157
Page 158
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 159
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENCING COMMITTEE CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES 17 AUGUST 2022 SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 2021/22 – DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH SERVICE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The Council’s Performance and Improvement Framework (PIF) sets out the presentation process for regular performance reporting. This paper presents the Planning, Protective Services and Licencing Committee (PPSL) with the Service Annual Performance Review and Scorecard 2021/22 for the Development and Economic Growth (DEG) Service. 1.2 It is recommended that the PPSL Committee reviews and approves the Service Annual Performance Review (Service APR) and Scorecard 2021/22 as presented prior to publishing on the Council Website. Page 159 Agenda Item 10
Page 160
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENCING COMMITTEE CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES 24 AUGUST 2022 SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS 2021/22– DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH SERVICE 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 The Council’s Performance and Improvement Framework (PIF) sets out the presentation process for regular performance reporting. This paper presents the Planning, Protective Services and Licencing Committee (PPSL) with the Service Annual Performance Review and Scorecard 2021/22 for the Development and Economic Growth (DEG) Service. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that the PPSL Committee reviews and approves the Service Annual Performance Review (Service APR) and Scorecard 2021/22 as presented prior to publishing on the Council Website. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 At the end of the financial year each Service presents a review that illustrates the positive contribution to our communities, the significant challenges and any consultations that the Service has carried out. 4.2 Case Studies contained within the review have been identified by Senior Officers and provide a broad range of imaginative and exceptional examples of service delivery throughout Argyll and Bute. 4.3 Each Service APR is supported by the Services’ year-end Scorecard and as expected due to the nature of service delivery the Service APRs differ in style and content. 4.4 Following approval of the Service APRs a selection of outstanding and informative examples will be collated for inclusion in the Council Annual Report 2021/22 in due course. 4.5 The Service Annual Performance Reviews and Scorecards 2021/22 are presented in Appendix 1. Page 160
Page 161
5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy None 5.2 Financial None 5.3 Legal The Council has a duty to deliver best value under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 5.4 HR None 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics None 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty None 5.5.3 Islands None 5.6. Climate Change None 5.7 Risk Ensures that all our performance information is reported in a balanced manner 5.8 Customer Service None Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services 13 July 2022 Policy Lead: Councillor Kieron Green For further information contact: Jane Fowler, Head of Customer Support Services 01546 604466 Appendix 1 Service Annual Performance Review and Scorecard 2021/22 – Development and Economic Growth. Page 161
Page 162
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 163
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 1 NAME OF SERVICE: DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH PERIOD: FINANCIAL YEAR 2021/22 1. DELIVERING OUR OUTCOMES Our case studies help illustrate the positive contribution the Service has made to our communities and provides examples of good service delivery. Corporate Outcome 1: People Live Active, Healthier And Independent Lives Business Outcome BO103: We Enable A Choice of Suitable Housing Options a) Empty Homes The official ‘Empty Homes Team’ at Argyll and Bute Council, has just one Empty Homes Officer (EHO). However, as anyone who works in the field of empty homes will understand no EHO undertakes their role in isolation and collaborative and partnership working is crucial in our everyday roles, which is something we do really well across our teams. The EHO is a key member of the wider housing team; all housing roles are closely aligned to ensure that staff are working towards the key aims and objectives of the Local Housing Strategy which includes maximising the use of existing resources and bringing empty homes back into use. A few examples of pro-active collaborative working just within the area housing teams include: close working between EHO and local Housing Improvement Officers, co-ordinating advice and actions to encourage investment in common repairs in tenements when looking at options to bring individual empty units back into use. Ensuring there is regular communication and signposting to the EHO from across the team when empty homes are involved in other renovation and regeneration projects, or when advice enquiries are received. More widely, the EHO has the opportunity to regularly feed into the development of the Strategic Housing Investment Plan and local Housing Need and Demand issues, to ensure that we maximise use of existing stock if it offers suitable solutions. Empty homes have been renovated with assistance of grant funding and brought back into use as temporary homeless accommodation. We are also currently working with an owner renovating properties for possible use by NHS staff. Another diverse approach is Homeless staff contacting the EHO to bring to attention any Section 11 Notices that have been received from Lenders - this is a new protocol following on from good practice identified in the overlap of a mutual case. With systems already in place for agile working, the EHO has been able to provide advice and assistance throughout the whole pandemic. Whilst site visits were restricted, we could engage by alternative means to ensure delivering an efficient service as possible, even participating in Zoom calls with owners on our personal devices to accommodate I.T. compatibility. Appendix 1 Page 163
Page 164
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 2 Within the Council the EHO has strived to establish strong and meaningful working practices across a number of internal services all of which contribute to supporting the EHO to achieve outcomes. Partnership working takes the shape of assisting in tracing owners, instigating action, or helping find funding or practical solutions. We continue to develop our partnerships to find suitable and innovative ways to assist owners and communities bring empty homes back into use. A few examples include: • EHO is the Chair of our Area Property Action Groups which brings together Officers from range of Departments who deal with the most problematic buildings, and agree ways to engage with owners and find solutions; • The EHO attends the Strategic Housing Forum to provide an update in the service, this highlights the high level priority and commitment that bringing empty homes back into use is for our Housing Partnership; • Fraud Team – recent quote from Team Leader following joint working noted that “the EHO is an adopted member of our team!” recognition of how team working approach as strengthened relationships between Departments; • Joint piece of work with EHO in Stirling Council to raise the profile of Empty Homes within the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park. A joint blog has been produced which was a great opportunity to highlight issues of empty homes and help available! Whilst the empty homes service in Argyll and Bute Council has been established for a number of years, it continues to grow from strength to strength despite capacity remaining the same. The EHO has an overall remit to assist and encourage owners to bring empty homes back into use with an annual target set. This is monitored through the Local Housing Strategy. However, this in essence doesn’t capture the wider outcomes that the EHO has achieved working in partnership, some include: • Over 500 empty homes brought back into use • The EHO and Council Tax Department work extremely closely together, effective communication is key to the success of this partnership. A recent example is where the EHO was alerted to a request to change the status of an account after a letter was issued confirming property had been empty over 2 years to claim reduced VAT rate –this enabled the EHO to discuss the implications of project with the empty home owner who would have no longer been entitled to reduced VAT rate. • Implementation of a bespoke Empty/Abandoned Homes Enabling Budget to facilitate and/or instigate action to bring empty homes back into use • First Empty Homes CPO concluded - renovation works undertaken with no financial support and flat leased as private let • Worked in conjunction with Mull and Iona Community Trust to undertake joint communication exercise with all registered empty home owners on the Island. Page 164
Page 165
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 3 • Hebridean Trust in Tiree supported by the EHO to drive forward plans for the long term use of all their buildings whilst assisting them to bring six listed empty flats back into use. Due to the scale of scheme, the EHO established a working group of relevant partners to maximise support to take this project forward. • The EHO is working with Islay Development Initiative to bring two empty flats back into use as affordable housing. This also provides unique opportunity to consider a plug and play model on the grounds of property for additional housing provision. • Regular Shelter Best Practice Group contribution and also provided support and shared good practice with a number of Local Authorities over the course of 2021 including: development of empty homes grant schemes; new Empty Homes Officer peer support; sharing details on funding mechanisms; and bespoke case management demonstration. • Winner of outstanding team and Scottish Empty Homes Conference 2022. Page 165
Page 166
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 4 Corporate Outcome 2: People Will Live In Safer and Stronger Communities Business Outcome BO1014: Our communities and supported and protected a) Covid public health control measures National Covid restrictions to businesses and communities were still in place in April 2021, and these changed over the reporting year. This placed additional responsibilities on the Councils Environmental Health service to support and enforce standards within businesses to ensure compliance with relevant public health control measures. The changing landscape of controls made this work challenging and an example of this was the introduction of the vaccine certification scheme affecting some 220 licensed premises in Argyll and Bute. Through a proactive approach, businesses adapted their activities to develop compliance plans or bring their operation out with these requirements in a two-week period. In the period 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022, the environmental team carried out 862 Covid interventions and investigated 773 business enquiries and complaints. Compliance levels were high with 7 formal notices issued. This is excellent performance by the environmental health team in challenging times, when they also were involved in the management of Covid outbreaks with NHS Highland and referrals through the Test and Protect regime. b) Retaining Customer Standards Excellence accreditation Planning and Regulatory Services retained their Customer Standards Excellence accreditation in 21/22 with the number of compliance-plus criteria increasing from 4 to 7, and 2 other partial criteria classified as fully compliant. This is a very positive outcome, particularly as services had to introduce new ways of working during the Covid pandemic. c) Customer Service Requests resolved within targets Demand on Regulatory Services to respond to customer service requests increased during the pandemic, from 1,549 in 2019/20 to 2444 in 21/22 (excluding export health certificates), an increase of 56%. This was particularly challenging and resource intensive, but the team responded well achieving 70% (increasing to 85% with export health certificates) resolved within service targets. Given the increasing workload, a demand reduction project to review our triaging system for service requests will be carried out in 22/23, which may result in some complaints types not being investigated or being dealt with differently. Page 166
Page 167
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 5 d) Local Air Quality Local Air Quality Progress report 2021 for Argyll and Bute prepared by the environmental health, concluded that local air quality in Argyll and Bute continues to show a long-term steady or falling trend, with a marked reduction at most monitoring locations during 2020. e) Air services out to the islands Argyll and Bute Council operate three licensed aerodromes at Oban, Coll and Colonsay. These aerodromes are licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as required by law to allow scheduled passenger flight services (for use by paying members of the public) to land and take off. The licensed aerodromes above support the Public Service Obligation (PSO) air services out to the islands of Coll, Colonsay and Tiree (Tiree airport is owned by Scottish Govt and operated by Highlands and Islands Airports). Support to the firefighting staff and inspection of the aerodromes on Coll and Colonsay is provided by the Station Manager and two Crew Commanders from Oban airport. There are also scholar flights to the islands at the weekend. The air services transport pupils from the islands of Coll and Colonsay to Oban High School allowing them valuable time with their families during the weekend and offering further resilience in the event of ferry service cancellations during the winter months. (Tiree has its own high school). The PSO air services have proved essential for service provision to the islands with the NHS, Argyll and Bute Council, Argyll Community Housing Association being key business users. During the Covid pandemic the Council continued to support and operate the air services out to the islands with all seats reserved for travel for essential users only e.g. key workers, NHS staff or island residents on the Wed and Thurs flights. The Council worked with the operator Hebridean Air Services to convert t weekend flights to cargo flights. The eight seats were removed from the aircraft to make way for freight. Page 167
Page 168
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 6 f) Digital connectivity The Council continues to have a significant interest and provide support to the national effort as it continues to improve communication infrastructure across our rural areas. The Council’s Strategic Transportation and Infrastructure Team continues to provide support acting as a single point of contact for Government Officials, Industry bodies and numerous external consultants by providing assistance when it is required. Feedback from consultants has been complimentary of the processes which the council has implemented to assist in the progress of digital connectivity. With the numerous Government and Commercial programmes currently active, even through the difficult national lockdown the free flow of information, continuous communication and support has provided dividends with these national programmes. Our cross departmental working continues to play a major role in the successful development of digital connectivity across the area. g) Active Travel Active Travel is an overarching term covering journeys made by a physically active means, for example walking, wheelchair, cycling or scooting. Active Travel projects are usually split into two types, infrastructure and behaviour change, although some projects can include elements of both within a single project. Infrastructure development and delivery aims to provide high-quality, accessible routes for people to walk/wheelchair and, in the case of cycleways/cyclepaths to cycle or scoot, thereby enabling and encouraging them to travel actively. Research has identified that a lack of suitable and safe routes are one of the most frequently cited reasons for not travelling more actively. These physical barriers can be relatively minor items, for example lack of dropped kerbs, or larger, for example the lack of an off-carriageway route. This is particularly notable within Argyll and Bute where the majority of walking and/or cycling provision is limited or non-existent out with the built up areas, forcing users to walk/cycle on national speed limit carriageways. Behaviour Change projects are designed to overcome challenges to give people the confidence or incentive to travel more actively, for example by providing walking or cycle training, by providing individualized travel plans to demonstrate the viability of travelling more actively within their life or providing activities which encourage active travel. Behaviour change elements are becoming increasingly common within infrastructure projects in order to encourage use of the infrastructure to maximise the benefits to the community. Research has demonstrated that increased activity, including travelling actively, has significant physical and mental health benefits, reduces inequality, creates a healthier and more productive workforce and reduces congestion and transport related pollution (e.g. air, noise and visual). As such promotion of active travel delivers benefits and savings across both the public and private sectors while supporting economic development and healthier, happier lives. Page 168
Page 169
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 7 Argyll and Bute Council’s Strategic Transportation Team during 21/22 has delivered active travel projects totalling £80k from Smarter Choices Smarter Places funding, £195k from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, £376k from Cycling Walking Safer Routes and £628k from Sustrans funding. Business Outcome BO105: Our Natural Environment Is Protected And Respected. a) Building Standards meets all key performance measures Building Standards met all key performance measures in 2021/22. Building Warrant numbers have not recovered to pre-pandemic levels although the service were successful in obtaining commercial work in vetting applications from Scottish Borders and East Lothian Council. b) Dangerous Buildings The lack of maintenance in private properties has been challenging leading to an increase in reports of dangerous buildings. Building Standards surveyors are required to inspect these properties and where there are risks to the public, take action to remove these dangers. Any enforcement action can be challenging, particularly where the owners refuse to take immediate repairs, and initiation works in default has been resource intensive. An example is a fire affecting 4 commercial and a residential properties on the main shopping area in Dunoon, where the Council had to initiate actions to partially demolish the properties to remove immediate dangers and secure the site. There was continued pressure to clear the site and this took some months, following negotiations with the different owners and insurance companies. Page 169
Page 170
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 8 c) Building Standards one of a few local authorities to introduce the new Building Standards Scotland Competency Framework Building Standards was one of a few local authorities to introduce the new Building Standards Scotland Competency Framework. This was successfully introduced through an officer-working group, which identified that we have an experienced, professional and competent team, with some personal and professional training needs incorporated within a formal plan. Corporate Outcome 5: Our Economy is diverse and thriving Business Outcome BO110: We Support Businesses, Employment and Development Opportunities a) Business Gateway support is the perfect piece for local jewellery maker A jewellery designer based in Cardross, Argyll and Bute, has enhanced its e-commerce offering in response to the Covid pandemic, with support from Business Gateway via DigitalBoost, Scotland’s national digital upskilling programme, and grant support from Argyll and Bute Council. Led by husband-and-wife team Linda and Matt Scott, Linda Macdonald Jewellery specialises in hand-crafted silver and gold jewellery. The business benefited from Business Gateway support during the Covid pandemic as it navigated retail store closures along with wholesale and supplier issues. Page 170
Page 171
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 9 With over 100 stockists in the UK and overseas, the team has been working with the service to grow the business for almost ten years. Most recently, Linda approached Business Gateway for support as the online retail side of the business grew during the pandemic. Through DigitalBoost, Linda and Matt accessed one to one support from a digital expert as well as digital webinars and online resources. Linda Macdonald Jewellery also secured Recovery grant funding from the Business Gateway Local Growth Accelerator Programme to help with the cost of enhancing the existing e-commerce platform and the development of a hard copy trade brochure and digital display, as COVID restrictions ease and in-person events are back on the cards. The Business Gateway Local Growth Accelerator Programme is funded by Argyll and Bute Council and the European Regional Development Fund 2014-20 Structural Funds Programme. Linda said: “It’s been great to have the support of Business Gateway during what has been a very challenging period to run a business. Through DigitalBoost, we were able to access expert help which was invaluable as we started the process of improving our e-commerce offering. Additionally, the Recovery grant funding secured through the Local Growth Accelerator Programme was particularly helpful, allowing us to invest in upgrading our website and marketing materials as our focus shifts to recovering post-pandemic and getting back to business as usual.” Page 171
Page 172
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 10 Jen Smith, Business Adviser for Business Gateway Argyll and Bute, said: “It is rewarding to see how this package of support has shaped Linda and Matt’s digital journey, and we’re pleased they have increased confidence to move to a greater focus on digital capabilities. Having a strong online presence will continue to be vital for businesses as we emerge from the pandemic. Through the DigitalBoost programme, digital specialists are available to help businesses across a range of issues with free, expert, impartial advice. Our Local Growth Accelerator Programme can now help businesses to recover from the pandemic, as well as those looking to grow.” Find out more about Linda Macdonald Jewellery at lindamacdonaldjewellery.com b) Business Gateway catapults consultancy to success with expanded team and ISO accreditation A business consultancy that specialises in helping organisations deliver efficiencies and become more sustainable, has been able to expand its team with the appointment of a new graduate, following a package of support from Business Gateway. DWS Associates, who help organisations solve problems and win opportunities, were able to take on a graduate placement through HR advice and signposting to funding through the Business Gateway Local Growth Accelerator Programme. The Business Gateway Local Growth Accelerator Programme is funded by Argyll and Bute Council and the European Regional Development Fund 2014-20 Structural Funds Programme. Alice Masson was taken on at the start of the year and increased capacity in the team. She also helped the business secure vital ISO accreditations, as well as the Scottish Business Pledge and Cyber Essentials Plus. Through Business Gateway, owner David Smart was also able to access support through DigitalBoost, Scotland’s national digital upskilling programme, delivered by Business Gateway. This included a Digital Health Check and webinars on video production for social media and LinkedIn for business. David, owner of DWS Associates, said: “Our network of experienced directors’ were at capacity, and we knew we needed support if we were to achieve our wider business goals and growth ambitions. Through Business Gateway, we were able to access the help and funding we needed to expand our team and take on Alice who has helped upskill the whole team with her creativity, research and communications skills. She also increased our capacity and resources, letting us achieve vital ISO accreditations that will help us facilitate further business growth.” Alice said, “It’s been an incredibly rewarding experience working at DWS, and knowing that I’ve brought value to the organisation through my work in securing accreditations and developing our communications strategy. I look forward to building on this further in the coming months.” Page 172
Page 173
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 11 Donald Melville, Business Gateway adviser, said: “By acknowledging their need for a new member of staff to help lighten the load, DWS has been able to achieve key certifications, ensuring their directors can focus on doing what they do best. Taking on a new employee can be a complex process. We can help businesses with each step, as they start their recruitment process through to hiring their new team member.” NOTES TO EDITORS: 1. The Scottish Government is the Managing Authority for the European Structural Funds 2014-20 Programme. For further information visit our webpages or follow @scotgovESIF. 2. The Local Growth Accelerator Programme Argyll and Bute is open to businesses aiming to increase their turnover by £50,000 or more within the next three years; or aiming to increase annual turnover to pre-COVID levels or achieve modest growth (below £50,000 increase) within the next three years. Businesses must be based in Argyll and Bute; micro, small or medium sized (fewer than 250 employees and less than €50m turnover or balance sheet total of less than €43m); not account managed by Highlands and Islands Enterprise or Scottish Enterprise and not operating solely as retailers. Business Outcome BO111: We Influence And Engage With Business And Policy Makers a) An enforcement intervention is performed in a consistent and fair manner with businesses supported throughout A survey of businesses which were subject to Covid enforcement interventions concluded that 95% of businesses were satisfied or very satisfied with the response of officers within Regulatory Services and believed they were treated fairly. This is an indicator of good enforcement practices by Regulatory Services. b) Food exports The UK withdrawal from the European Union on the 31st January 2020, introduced new arrangements for the export of food to EU countries. This was particular challenging for food exporters in Argyll and Bute (primarily fish and shellfish) and to the Council Environmental Health service, who must certify that the product is compliant with food safety legislation and fit for human consumption. The creation of commercial hubs in central Scotland mitigated demand at a local authority level for export health certificates for EU consignment with the main exporters in Argyll and Bute using these hubs. To support business and meet our statutory requirements as a food authority, audits of the main exporters have been undertaken and attestations issued every 3 months to these key exporters to allow them to continue exporting to the EU using commercial hubs. In addition, the Council issued 1284 export health certificates in 21/22 to businesses to export to non-EU countries (e.g. China, Middle East etc.) and 195 certificates to exporters services to export to EU countries. Page 173
Page 174
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 12 Business Outcome BO112: Argyll And Bute Is Promoted To Everyone a) Restoration of 39-43 Victoria Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute A Rothesay Townscape Heritage (TH) grant of £311,601 supported the comprehensive repair of a prominent listed building in multiple ownership, serving to safeguard the property for future generations whilst helping to lift the appearance of Rothesay’s town centre. Traditional materials and methods of repair were used to ensure best practice, and align with Historic Environment Scotland’s Advisory Standards of Repair. Works encompassed roof works, including leadwork, chimney and skew repairs, as well as substantial masonry works to front, rear and gable elevations, which included stone indents and stone replacements, as well as full re-pointing and structural repairs. Rainwater goods and dormer windows were also restored and the roof inspected for rot and treated accordingly. Timber sash and case windows were restored, and uPVC windows replaced in timber. New close doors were added to front and rear. Rothesay TH is a heritage-led partnership project that is funded by National Lottery Heritage Fund, Historic Environment Scotland, Argyll and Bute Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Smarter Choices Smarter Places and LEADER. The partnership funding totals, £2,746,049. It is anticipated with private owner contributions included, the total value of the project will be in excess of £3.2m. The programme is being delivered over a 5 year period, and will conclude on 31st March 2023. Page 174
Page 175
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 13 2. SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES The significant challenges faced by the Service during 2021/22. These challenges either created specific pressures on the Success Measures or impacted on delivery. Specific additional activity or mitigating actions were carried out to reduce the negative impact on service delivery. Corporate Outcome 1: People Live Active, Healthier And Independent Lives Business Outcome BO103: We Enable A Choice of Suitable Housing Options a) A significant challenge is emerging in relation to the statutory provision of suitable temporary accommodation for households presenting as homeless to Argyll and Bute Council. We rely on the private rented sector for the provision of temporary accommodation and over recent months the housing market has picked up significantly and a number of landlords have asked for their properties back thus reducing the number of temporary accommodation units available to the Council. There has not been a budget increase in relation to the temporary accommodation budget for a significant time period so the ability to pay a competitive rent to secure replacement units is very limited. The increasing pressures on accommodation managed by Housing Services in the form of changes to the way that Asylum Seekers will be accommodated, the Ukrainian Resettlement Programme and changes in the Criminal Justice system to relieve pressures on prisons will and are making the situation even more challenging. At present close scrutiny of this issue is being carried out in order to quantify and identify any emerging trend and potential solutions. Corporate Outcome 2: People Will Live In Safer and Stronger Communities Business Outcome BO104: Our Communities And Supported And Protected a) There is considerable work and resources ongoing to restart the official food safety programme in Argyll and Bute. This has involved the risk assessment of over 2400 businesses to develop a new interventions plan, the training of authorised officers in new process and systems and a review on how statutory food controls delivered. This will be a challenge to the environmental health team, given the resourcing difficulties and other conflicting work demands. Additional resources are required at a time when there is a national shortage of qualified environmental health and food safety officers. b) Recruitment and workforce planning. There are serious resourcing issues affecting the service due to the national shortage in qualified professional officers and the inability to attract to Argyll and Bute. On one occasion, after three adverts, no qualified officers applied for a post, despite the offer of flexible locations and home working. This reduces the team’s capacity, and leaves the options of recruiting trainees or operating with long term vacancies. Page 175
Page 176
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 14 Corporate Outcome 5: Our Economy is diverse and thriving Business Outcome BO112: Argyll And Bute Is Promoted To Everyone a) Significant shortages of skilled staff and rises in costs of materials and fuel and difficulties accessing supplies as well as delays experienced in the commencement of construction caused by Covid. 3. CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT - WE ASKED, YOU SAID, WE DID…. Please list all consultations and resulting actions that the Service has carried out during this period. a) Argyll & Bute Local Housing Strategy 2022-2027: Public Consultation Final Phase: September – October 2021 Following extensive consultation and stakeholder engagement in 2019/20 and 2020/21, the final consultative draft LHS was issued for comment and feedback prior to approval by the Strategic Housing Forum and full Council in November 2021. The responses were positive and reinforced key aspects of the strategy including the need to improve stock condition and energy efficiency; the need for more affordable housing to attract and retain permanent residents; the negative impacts of too much second/holiday homes; and the need to ensure sufficient infrastructure to support new build programme. The overall view was summed up in the comment: “I think the Housing Strategy does pin point the key issues and actions needed well.” At the same time the draft LHS was submitted to the Scottish Government and the formal Peer Review process, and again very positive feedback was received, with particular commendation on our approach to community engagement, consultation and partnership working. This included the support and joint working with local community groups and led to the establishment of a dedicated Community Housing Network for community-led housing projects. The consultation plan is available on the LHS page of the council website, and is summarised in the new LHS itself, which was formally launched at the Strategic Housing Forum in March 2022. b) Argyll & Bute Housing Contribution Statement 2022/23 – 2024/25 Housing Services engaged with HSCP colleagues on the review and update of the new three-year HCS which forms part of the Joint Strategic Plan for the HSCP. This involved consultation and approval by partners on the SHIP Officers Group and the Strategic Housing Forum. Page 176
Page 177
SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 15 c) Regulatory Services and Building Standards Stakeholder Surveys In 2020/21, Regulatory Services and Building Standards carried out a number of stakeholder surveys to attain their views on specific issues aimed at making service improvements. These included: i) A survey of businesses who received a Covid intervention to assess the quality of the service provided the appropriateness of information on public health controls and any enforcement was fair. This identified that businesses welcomed the advice and guidance from the Councils environmental health teams in assisting them to new and developing public health measures. ii) Following the national Pye Tate report for building standards, agents were surveyed to obtain their views on the reported slight reduction in user satisfaction and on the future of User Forums that had been poorly attached previously. As a result, the User Forums have been replaced with regular newsletters and a single MS Teams Agents Group, rather than 4 individual annual face-to-face meetings. In addition to support customers, a guide to “Do You Need a Building Warrant” was developed and published on the Councils website d) Aviation Strategy Discussion document to inform the development of an Aviation Strategy (transport.gov.scot) Ensuring that the Scottish Government uses this welcome review of the governance and support of air services to consider alternative structures and funding mechanisms that can best deliver improved affordable connectivity. e) Strategic Transport Projects Review 2 (STPR2) This review of the strategic transport network’s performance will inform transport investment in Scotland for the next 20 years (2022-2042) by providing evidence-based recommendations on which Scottish Ministers can base future transport investment decisions. STPR2 offered the opportunity for Economic Development Department to lobby for improvements to the Argyll and Bute transport network, to be delivered at a national level through, the Strategic Transport Project Review 2. Page 177
Page 178
DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH SERVICE – ANNUAL SCORECARD 2021/22_FINAL Page 178
Page 179
Page 179
Page 180
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 181
Document is Restricted Page 181 Agenda Item 11NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 182
This page is intentionally left blank