F - 25-0370-PP - Holiday Cottages, BoW
Renfrewshire Council · 26 August 2025
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 26 August 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 26 August 2025 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0370/PP Application Type Planning Permission (Local) Proposal Erection of 8 holiday cottages with associated landscaping and infrastructure works Location Site 350 Metres Northeast of Fodstone Farm, Kilmacolm Road, Bridge of Weir Ward 11 - Bishopton, Bridge of Weir and Langbank Community Council Bridge of Weir Community Council Applicant Mr Douglas Lyle Recommendation Refuse All plans, reports, documents and representations relating to this application can be viewed in full online at https://pl-bs.renfrewshire.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=SWIEUWMWI9900 This report fulfils the requirements of regulation 16, Schedule 2, paragraphs 3(c) and 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The report is presented to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in line with the Council's Scheme of Delegation. In this instance, Cllrs McCulloch, Airlie-Nicolson and James MacLaren have requested that the application be determined by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board due to the impact the development would have on the green belt. Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the erection of eight holiday lodges and associated infrastructure and landscaping on land to the north of Kilmacolm Road (A761), Bridge of Weir. The cottages would be divided into two groups, with four located at the northern end of the site and four at its eastern end. The single storey cottages would all be of a similar design and would, at their maximum extent, measure approximately 12 metres in width by 11 metres in depth. The buildings would each feature a cross-gable slate roof that would measure 3 metres in height to the eaves and 6.1 metres to the ridge. Passing spaces would be formed along an existing track within the site that would be used to link the northern group of cottages to Kilmacolm Road. A new 130-metre-long track would be formed to link the eastern group of cottages with the existing track. Space to park six cars would be formed at the intersection of the two tracks. A new junction linking the site to Kilmacolm Road would be formed, with entrance pillars and walls erected on either side to formalise the entrance. Areas of landscaping would be created across the site. Site Description The application site is located to the west of Bridge of Weir, with access taken from Kilmacolm Road, a national speed limit A road, to the south. The site rises gently from south to north. Woodland covers the section of the site that runs north from Kilmacolm Road to where the northernmost cottages would be located while the eastern leg of the site is an open field.
Page 2
The application site is part of a much larger area of land owned by Scart Farm which is found approximately 800 metres to the west along Kilmacolm Road. Pre-Application Consultation with Officers The Scottish Government strongly encourages constructive pre-application discussions between prospective applicants and the planning authority. Pre-application discussions seek to identify key planning considerations at an early stage and help inform what supporting information is required to support a subsequent application. Pre-application discussions have taken place, focusing on whether the development would be acceptable given the green belt designation. The applicant was advised that it would be difficult to support the proposal given the green belt location and lack of justification for tourism related facilities within the area. Negotiated Improvements No changes have been negotiated. Site History The planning history for the site is as follows; if no history is listed then planning has no record of previous applications for the site. Application No: 21/1747/PP Description: Erection of farm shop and cafe and formation of children's play area and secured dog park. Decision: Refused. Application No: 24/0909/PP Description: Erection of 8 holiday cottages Decision: Withdrawn. Consultations ▪ Bridge of Weir Community Council - objects on the grounds that the development would undermine the greenbelt, that no market analysis has been undertaken to demonstrate the need for the development and that there are existing buildings that should be converted instead. The objection also raises road safety concerns, the lack of pedestrian and cycle provision, that the ecological survey was conducted at the wrong time of year and wider biodiversity concerns. ▪ Chief Executive's (Roads Development) - object on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that the access into the site would be safe, the impact the development would have on an existing layby, the lack of a swept path analysis and the lack of pedestrian and cycle provision. Concerns have also been raised regarding the lack of information on how surface water runoff will be prevented from discharging onto the public road. ▪ Environment, Health and Infrastructure (Environmental Protection) - no objection, subject to a condition relating to the remediation of the site. ▪ Scottish Gas Networks (SGN) (High Pressure Gas Mains) - object as the impact the development would have on a high pressure gas pipeline that runs through the site is not understood. ▪ West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) - no objection subject to a condition relating to programme of archaeological works carried out in accordance with a written
Page 3
scheme of investigation that has been agreed in advance with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. ▪ Health And Safety Executive - do not advise against the development. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The following representations were received: ▪ Object - 21 ▪ Support - 1 ▪ Neutral - 0 The issues raised in support of the application can be summarised as follows: 1. The development would boost the local economy. 2. The proposal would strengthen the tourist offering in the area. 3. The development would be sympathetic to the character of the village. The issues raised by the objectors can be summarised as follows: 1. Existing road infrastructure is not suitable. 2. No safe pedestrian or cycle route serves the site. 3. The development would have a negative impact on biodiversity. 4. The development would undermine the green belt in this location. 5. Neighbour notification was not undertaken. 6. The setting of a nearby listed building would be negatively impacted. 7. The ownership details are incorrect. 8. No evidence of market demand for the cottages. 9. The ecological assessment was undertaken at the wrong time of the year. 10. Existing buildings should be converted to holiday accommodation instead. 11. Access will not be allowed via Gryffe Castle. 12. The development would set an undesirable precedent. 13. The ecological assessment is insufficient. 14. Holiday cottages could cause anti-social behaviour. 15. Disposal of wastewater from the development could negatively impact the Gryffe. Policy Context In making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the Development Plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (2021) (LDP). The following provisions of the Development Plan are considered relevant to the determination of this application: National Planning Framework 4 ▪ Policy 3 - Biodiversity ▪ Policy 4 - Natural places ▪ Policy 7 - Historic assets and places ▪ Policy 8 - Green belts ▪ Policy 13 - Sustainable transport ▪ Policy 18 - Infrastructure first ▪ Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management ▪ Policy 23 - Health and safety ▪ Policy 27 - City, town, local and commercial centres
Page 4
▪ Policy 30 - Tourism Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan ▪ Policy C2 - Development outwith Renfrewshire's Network of Centres ▪ Policy E4 - Tourism ▪ Policy ENV1 - Green Belt ▪ Policy ENV2 - Natural Heritage ▪ Policy ENV3 - Built and Cultural Heritage ▪ Policy I1 - Connecting Places ▪ Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. Other relevant policies and guidance ▪ Delivering the Economic Strategy - Tourism ▪ Delivering the Centres Strategy - Development Out with Renfrewshire's Network of Centres ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Connecting Places ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Flooding and Drainage ▪ Delivering the Places Strategy - Creating Places ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Green Belt Development Criteria ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Trees, Woodlands and Forestry ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Biodiversity ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Listed Buildings ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Pipelines and Major Hazards ▪ New Development in the Countryside 2022 ▪ NatureScot standing advice for planning consultations (Bats) Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: ▪ Planning Statement - sets out the applicant's rationale for the proposal. ▪ Heritage Impact Statement - considers the impact the development would have on the nearby Gryffe Castle, a B-listed building. ▪ Ecological Appraisal Report - examines the impact the development would have on nature, including protected species, and outlines measures to improve biodiversity in line with the requirements of NPF4. ▪ Traffic Survey Report - details the results of a traffic count carried out on Kilmacolm Road. ▪ Transport Statement - justifies the proposal in terms of road safety and active travel. ▪ Response to Public Representations - responds to issues raised in representations received from members of the public. Scottish Ministers Direction In determining a planning application, the Council is required to provide details of any Direction made by Scottish Ministers under Regulation 30 (Directions requiring consultation), Regulation 31 (Directions requiring information), Regulation 32 (Directions restricting the
Page 5
grant of planning permission) and Regulation 33 (Directions requiring consideration of condition) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, or under Regulation 50 (that development is EIA development) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. None. Planning Assessment The main issues that must be considered are the impact the tourism related development would have on the green belt and on the Bridge of Weir as a Local Service Centre. Other matters such as the impact on the environment and existing infrastructure must also be considered. Green Belt and Tourism Policy 8 of NPF4 provides support for tourism uses within the green belt provided all additional criteria set out within section ii) of the policy are met. As the application is for eight holiday cottages within the green belt it complies with the initial requirements of Policy 8 but can be assessed against the additional criteria set out in ii) as follows: Reasons are provided as to why a green belt location is essential and why it cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt The applicant's supporting statement notes that Scart Farm has sought to diversify in recent years, offering a range of services and activities that support the main farming operations. The statement lists a dog daycare facility, activity days such as off-road quad biking, a coffee kiosk, farm tours, educational workshops, seasonal events and an events space as facilities that are now offered at the farm. The supporting statement notes that holiday cottages offer the opportunity to further support and expand the business. However, no justification is provided as to why a green belt location is essential and why the development cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt. While it is acknowledged that the land in question is owned by Scart Farm, land ownership is not a material planning consideration. No site selection data has been provided, and no attempt has been made to discount land within the Bridge of Weir settlement boundary. Given that Bridge of Weir lies immediately to the east of the application site and is no further from the farm itself than the northernmost cottages would be, a detailed analysis to discount existing sites within the settlement is required. Arguments in favour of viewing the development as supplementary to the existing offering at Scart Farm are also undermined by the fact that the cottages themselves would be 1.2 kilometres away from the farm. In addition, no justification has been provided as to why overnight residential accommodation is required for the activities offered at the farm given they are not typically activities that take place over more than one day and the activities have been able to take place up until now with no associated accommodation. The applicant points to information that suggests that there is a lack of overnight accommodation within Bridge of Weir, but this in itself does not justify development outwith the settlement in the green belt. Given the above, the proposal is contrary to Policy 8 ii) of NPF4 in that reasons as to why a green belt location is essential and why the development cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt have not been provided. The purpose of the green belt at that location is not undermined
Page 6
The development would take place at the margins of the field and within cleared areas of woodland so would not prevent the land from being used for agricultural purposes should the landowner wish to do so. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding established countryside and landscape character As the cottages would be small in size and would be split into two groups of four, they would not stand out in the landscape when viewed from Kilmacolm Road or the nearby National Cycle Route. The traditional render and slate roof finish would also help minimise the impact the development would have on the established character of the countryside in this location. Furthermore, the existing woodland and proposed planting that would take place across the site would soften the impact the development would have on the landscape. The new track would not be highly visible within the landscape while junctions of a similar design to the one that would be formed to connect the development to Kilmacolm Road are found along the length of the road. The proposal has been designed to ensure it is of an appropriate scale, massing and external appearance, and uses materials that minimise visual impact on the green belt as far as possible The small scale of the cottages coupled with the proposed planting and render and slate finish means the development would not look out of place within a countryside setting. Full details of the finishing materials to be used across the development could be requested either prior to determination or via condition but as the proposal is unacceptable for the reasons discussed above this has not been progressed. The nearest cottage would be approximately 80 metres away from Gryffe Castle, a B listed building. However, the separation distance, the small scale of the development and the fact that the two are separated by well-established tree cover means the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the listed building. The proposal complies with Policy ENV3 of the LDP and Policy 7 of NPF4 in this regard. There will be no significant long-term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt The track that would link the northernmost cottages to Kilmacolm Road and the cottages themselves would sit within an area of ancient woodland. However, the ecological appraisal submitted by the applicant notes that no trees would be removed as the proposal would make use of an existing track and clearing. If the proposal was considered acceptable in all other respects a condition covering tree felling could have been added to further protect the woodland. In addition, native woodland planting would take place across the site to increase tree cover. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy ENV2 of the LDP and Policy 6 of NPF4 in this regard. The ecological appraisal submitted by the applicant notes that three trees within close proximity to the site have preliminary roosting features for individual bats. While it is acknowledged that the trees are not near the cottages and the track in this location already exists, the proposal would result in an increase in activity in the area both during construction and when the site is operational. Standing advice from NatureScot states that a bat roost survey should be carried out in such circumstances. No bat roost survey has been undertaken but the matter has not been pursued given the proposal is considered unacceptable. The ecological appraisal raises no other concerns in respect of protected species in line with the requirements of Policy 4 of NPF4. Similarly, no information has been submitted to demonstrate how surface water or foul drainage will be dealt with in line with the requirements of the Development Plan but this has
Page 7
not been pursued given the Council cannot support the proposal for the reasons noted above. Grassland rich in flowering species and shrub planting would take place across the site to boost biodiversity in line with the requirements of Policy ENV2 of the LDP and Policy 3 of NPF4. While it is acknowledged that no trees would be removed to accommodate the proposal and additional planting would take place in an attempt to improve biodiversity, it has not been established, based on the information submitted by the applicant, that the development would not have a significant long term impact on the environmental quality of the green belt in respect of protected species and water quality. Given the above, the proposal is contrary to Policy 8 of NPF4 as a whole in that, although for a tourism related use, reasons as to why a green belt location is essential and why the development cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt have not been provided. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there will be no significant long- term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt. Separately, Policy ENV1 of the LDP provides support for tourism related development within the green belt provided the proposal is acceptable under Policy E4 of the LDP. Policy E4 states that proposals for sustainable tourism will only be supported where, among other criteria, the development can demonstrate a locational need. As discussed above, it has not been demonstrated that there is a site-specific locational need for the development. Policy ENV1 also provides support for developments that demonstrate diversification within the green belt and which promote new employment or tourism opportunities. However, such a provision does not exist within NPF4, which, as discussed above, requires additional justification for the green belt location beyond the fact the development is related to tourism. As NPF4 was adopted later it takes precedence and the opportunity to justify tourism related development within the green belt on that basis is no longer open to applicants. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies E4 and ENV1 of the LDP and the associated supplementary guidance of both policies. Policy 30 a) of NPF4 provides support for tourist facilities in locations identified in the LDP. The adopted spatial strategy, which forms part of the adopted LDP, does not designate the land for tourism related uses while the green belt designation cannot be used to justify a tourism use for reasons discussed above. Policy 30 b) sets out additional criteria that should be considered when assessing tourism related development. The proposal would make a positive contribution to the local economy, with the applicant attempting to quantify the impact in their supporting statement. The proposal would also not raise any compatibility issues with the surrounding landscape for reasons discussed above and as a small scale newbuild development the proposal would not have a negative impact on the provision of homes or services for local people. Issues such as access for disabled people and measures to minimise carbon emissions could have been conditions and would also be dealt with through the building warrant process. The proposal would also make access into the natural environment easier for those staying in the cottages. However, Policy 30 also requires proposals to take opportunities for sustainable travel into account. There is no continuous footway along Kilmacolm Road between Bridge or Weir, the application site and Scart Farm. Given that Kilmacolm Road is a national speed limit A road it is considered unacceptable that there would be no segregated route for pedestrians to use.
Page 8
The applicant argues that the National Cycle Route 75 - which runs from Bridge of Weir past Scart Farm - caters for pedestrians and cyclists. However, there is no direct connection from the application site onto the Cycle Route and no connection from the Cycle Route into Scart Farm. Given the National Cycle Route is in 3rd party ownership the delivery of such connections would not be solely within the gift of the applicant. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy I1 of the LDP and Policy 13 of NPF4 in that it would create a car dominated development that does not prioritise the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. Overall, while the proposal aligns with many of the criteria set out in Policy 30 b), the lack of a supporting designation within the adopted spatial strategy and the lack of active travel options for occupants means the development is ultimately considered contrary to Policy 30 of NPF4. Impact on Bridge of Weir Town Centre Policy C2 of the LDP and Policy 27 of NPF4 direct footfall generating development to Centre locations identified within the adopted spatial strategy. It is only acceptable for development to be located outwith the Centre if a sequential assessment to justify the location and it has been demonstrated that nearby Centres would not be negatively affected. No sequential assessment has been undertaken, and no evidence has been provided as to the impact on Bridge of Weir Village Centre beyond unsubstantiated figures around the potential economic impact of the development. The ability of visitors to travel into Bridge of Weir is made more difficult by the fact that there is no footway along Kilmacolm Road for most of the distance between the application site and the village. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy C2 of NPF4 as well as Policy 27 of NPF4. Other Matters The West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) have requested that a condition be applied requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological works agreed in advance with WOSAS and the Planning Authority. Had the proposal been considered acceptable then this condition would have been applied to ensure the development complied with the requirements of Policy 7 of NPF4 and Policy ENV3 of the LDP in this regard. Roads Development has objected to the proposal on numerous road safety grounds. These include the design of both the access onto Kilmacolm Road and the tracks within the site, the impact increased use of the access would have on an existing layby and the lack of a swept path analysis to demonstrate how large refuse or emergency service vehicles would access the site. Roads Development has also raised the lack of active travel options that were discussed earlier in the report. Finally, a high-pressure gas transmission pipeline runs through the site. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have not advised against the granting of the application due to the low number of occupants and the distance between the cottages and the pipeline. However, Scottish Gas Networks have objected as the potential impact the development, including construction, would have on their infrastructure has not been established. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 18 and 23 of NPF4 and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Pipelines and Major Hazards. Representations Neighbour notification was carried out in line with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. An advert was also published in the local newspaper for neighbour notification purposes in line with the requirements of the regulations. Land ownership information is acceptable in good faith by the Planning Authority as land ownership is not a material planning consideration.
Page 9
The fact there may not be market demand for the cottages or the fact that there could be existing buildings that should be converted instead are not material factors in the assessment of this application. In respect of the claim that the development would set an undesirable precedent, each application is assessed on its own merits. Although objectors note that no access would be allowed via Gryffe Castle, the development does not propose taking access via Gryffe Castle. All other issues have been addressed in the above report. Planning Obligations The Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation which is required to be entered into under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of permission for the proposed development: None. Conclusion In view of the above, the proposal is contrary to both Policy 8 of NPF4 and Policies E4 and ENV1 of the LDP in that adequate justification has not been provided as to why a location within the green belt and outwith the settlement boundary is required. The proposal is also contrary to Policy 30 of NPF4 as the land is not designated for tourist uses and opportunities for sustainable travel have not been incorporated into the proposal. The lack of sustainable travel options also means the proposal is contrary to Policy 13 of NPF4 and Policy I1 of the LDP. The proposal does not comply with Policy 27 of NPF4 and Policy C2 of the LDP in that no justification for the development's location outwith the nearby Centre has been provided. Finally, Scottish Gas Networks have objected as the impact the development would have on a high-pressure gas pipeline has not been established. Recommendation Refuse. Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 8 of National Planning Framework 4 in that although for a tourism related use, it has not been demonstrated that a green belt location is essential and that the development cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt. In addition, it has not been demonstrated that there would be no significant long-term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt. 2. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 30 of National Planning Framework 4 in that the land is not identified for tourist facilities within the adopted spatial strategy and does not provide opportunities for sustainable travel. 3. The proposed development is contrary to Policy E4 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Tourism in that it has not been demonstrated that there is a site-specific locational need for the development. The proposal is therefore also contrary to Policy ENV1 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on
Page 10
Development within the Green Belt in that there is no justification for the development outwith the settlement boundary. 4. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 13 of National Planning Framework 4, Policy I1 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on both Connecting Places and Creating Places in that the transport requirements generated from the proposal have not been considered in line with sustainable travel hierarchies. 5. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 27 of National Planning Framework 4, Policy C2 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Renfrewshire's Network of Centres in that the proposal is contrary to the town centre first approach and that no justification has been provided as to why the development should be located outwith a designated Centre. 6. The proposed development is contrary to Policies 18 and 23 of National Planning Framework 4 and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Pipelines and Major Hazards in that Scottish Gas Networks has objected on the grounds that the development is within the vicinity of a high pressure gas transmission pipeline. The applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of Scottish Gas Networks or the Planning Authority that the development would have no impact on the pipeline. Condition(s) 1. None required. Advisory Note(s) 1. None required. Schedule of Plans Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title 22-47-EX-01A Site Location Plan 22-47-EX-02A Site Location Plan Supplementary 22-47-PL-04B Existing and Proposed Site Layout 22-47-PL-05B Existing and Proposed Area 1 22-47-PL-06B Proposed Site Plan Area 3 22-47-PL-07B Existing and Proposed Area 2 22-47-PL-08 Proposed Tourism Units 22-47-PL-09 Proposed Contextual Elevations 22-47-PL-10 Proposed Chalet No. 2 Landscape Plan 22-47-PL-11A Proposed Road Sections Passing Bay Details 22-47-PL-12 Farm and Business Context Masterplan 22-47-PL-13 Proposed Entrance Detail - Overall Planting Layout - Detail Planting Layout A - Detail Planting Layout B - Ecological Appraisal Report - Summary Ecological Appraisal and Biodiversity Enhancements - Heritage Impact Statement - Transport Statement
Page 11
For further information please contact James McCafferty, Development Standards Team, Email: james.mccafferty@renfrewshire.gov.uk