Fabulously Scottish Hotels (Oban) Ltd: Erection of Hotel: Car Park, Shore Street, Oban (Ref: 21/01584/Pp)
Argyll and Bute Council · 19 August 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 19 August 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth 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: 21/01584/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Fabulously Scottish Hotels (Oban) Ltd Proposal: Erection of Hotel Site Address: Car Park, Shore Street, Oban DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of hotel • Formation of vehicular access (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to public water main • Connection to public drainage network (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission is granted as a Minor Departure to the Local Development Plan and subject to conditions appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Argyll and Bute Council – Roads Authority Finalised response dated 06/02/23 recommending refusal of the proposed development due to the shortfall of parking provision within the site. Officer Comment: The proposed development is wholly in accordance with national planning policy but contrary solely to Policy 40 of the Local Development Plan. Lengthy negotiations have taken place with the roads engineer to try to reconcile this tension in order to allow for a positive recommendation to enable this important economic development to progress. To date, however, the Council’s roads engineers are maintaining their stance which is based upon their concerns relating to the
Page 2
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 displacement of parking and limitations in capacity in the availability of onstreet parking and Council car parks available within the locality to accommodate the additional demand generated. These matters are set out in detail within the assessment below. Officers are recommending to Members that planning permission be granted as a minor departure to Policy 40 of LDP2. Argyll and Bute Council – Environmental Health Service (EHS) Memo dated 15/11/21 advising that the application is proposing the redevelopment of land where there is an indication of a previous use which may be contaminative and accordingly, should permission be granted, the EHS recommend that a condition be imposed to secure a phased, comprehensive site investigation and risk assessment for the site. In a separate memo dated 16/11/21, the EHS recommend that conditions be imposed on the grant of permission to restrict the hours of operation during the construction phase of the proposed development in order to protect the amenity of surrounding properties and the wider area. Officer Comment: In this instance it is noted that any concerns relating to the impact of construction activity arising from the development upon amenity are capable of being properly controlled through environmental health legislation. This suggested condition would therefore be unnecessary and should not be imposed on any grant of planning permission. Scottish Water Letter dated 04/12/21 advising no objection to the proposed development which will be serviced from the Tullich Water Treatment Works and the Oban Waste Water Treatment Works. Scottish Water do however advise that further investigations may be required once formal applications for connection to their infrastructure are submitted for consideration. Network Rail Letter dated 29/10/21 advising no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions being imposed on the grant of permission to secure a construction method statement; details of piling; vehicle incursion; lighting and construction works for the proposed development. Network Rails requirements are discussed in more detail in the main assessment of the application in Appendix A of this report. Health and Safety Executive Report dated 01/10/21 advising that the proposed development site identified does not currently lie within the consultation distance of a major hazard site or major accident hazard pipeline; therefore, at present HSE does not need to be consulted on any developments on this site. Historic Environment Scotland E-mail dated 11/10/21 advising that the application is outwith their remit for consultation purposes. JBA Consulting Ltd
Page 3
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 No objection subject to condition – 27/01/26 SEPA Following the receipt of a detailed flood risk assessment, SEPA have confirmed on 08/12/25 that they have no objection subject to conditions. Consultation responses are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (D) HISTORY: No relevant planning history. (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 04/11/21. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) 6 representations, all objecting to the proposal, received from: Mr Neil Macintyre, Cairnbhan, Albany Street, Oban, PA34 4NF (16/11/21) Ewan McDougall, Etiveawe, Lochandhu Road, Taynuilt, PA35 1JQ (29/10/21) Dilys McDougall, Harbour View, Shore Street, Oban, PA34 4JQ (25/10/21) Sheena McLean, The Kelvin Hotel, Shore Street, Oban (22/10/21) Lotte Kirchwehn, Sithean House, Isle of Iona, PA76 6SP (18/10/21) Barbara Hellenschmidt, Greenbank, Isle of Iona, PA76 6SP (18/10/21) Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: Overprovision of Hotels /Hotel Facilities • There is an oversupply of hotels in Oban, and the building of a further hotel will adversely affect the viability of other businesses. Officer Comment: Matters related to economic competition are not material to the assessment of this planning application and cannot be afforded weight in the consideration of the proposed development. Road Safety / Loss of Parking / Parking Provision
Page 4
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • The proposed development will result in the loss of an existing car park which serves locals and visitors with its loss having an adverse impact on the town. • The proposed access point will result in the loss of existing on-street parking provision. • The lack of parking within the site will result in overspill into residential and other businesses parking facilities. • The increase in vehicles utilising the proposed hotel will cause congestion on this busy route from the ferry into town and will increase the risk of pedestrian and vehicle accidents. • There is a Section 75 (S75) in place linked to Cairnbhan for parking and access to 4 parking spaces at the southern end of the existing car park which the proposed development would make difficult. • The existing opening opposite Harbour View Guest House was granted as pedestrian only to allow safe passage from the aforementioned 4 spaces to allow safe passage to the pavement without having to cross the car park. Officer Comment: The car park is a privately run car park which the Council has no control over, the car park could be closed without any input from the Council. Whilst not raising any concerns regarding the loss of on-street parking provision, or road or pedestrian safety issues, the Council as Roads Authority has objected to the proposal due to the lack of parking provision to serve the proposed development within the site which is discussed in more detail in the main assessment in Appendix A of this report. With regards to the S75, Officers sought clarification from the agent regarding the S75 relating to a previous development (04/01319/DET) which provides an undertaking for the provision of 4 parking spaces within the current application site as remote parking for the development approved under the 2004 permission. The existence of the S75 would effectively reduce the proposed onsite parking provision from 15 spaces to 11 which has not been addressed in the application and therefore clarification was sought as to whether the spaces would be retained and allocated to the 2004 permission as intended, or whether it is intended to provide alternative parking elsewhere and seek removal of the S75. The agent has confirmed that it is intended to retain the S75 agreement, effectively reducing the parking provision to 11 spaces associated with the currently proposed development. Health and Safety and Railway • The site is in close proximity to the railway line where there is a statutory exclusion zone of 10 metres.
Page 5
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • The hotel will be in close proximity to a large LPG tank on the opposite side of the railway which will give rise to safety issues. • The proposed hotel will suffer from noise from the trains providing a sub- optimal experience for guest and leading in the long terms to objections from the hotel operators to any additional trains being put on. The railway is also used for steam trains being run by enthusiasts several times a year. Officer Comment: Network Rail and the HSE were consulted on the proposed development. Network Rail raised no objection subject to a number of conditions being imposed on the grant of permission with the HSE raising no objection. With regards to noise from surrounding land uses affecting users of the hotel, this is a town centre site where a certain amount of noise is inevitable. Persons considering staying in the hotel will be aware of the proximity of the hotel to the railway, ferry terminal and public road, prior to booking accommodation. Visual Impact / Historic Environment • The proposed development does not respect the townscape character and amenity of the surrounding area. • The design of the proposed hotel is not in keeping with the historic terrace on the other side of the road. • The proposal will be detrimental to the setting of the Listed Buildings at 1- 7 Cawdor Terrace, particularly to those arriving in Oban by boat and rail. • It is understood that building on the sea facing side of a Listed Building is not permitted. Officer Comment: Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would be opposite a terraced row of listed buildings, the opposite side of Shore Street is primarily characterised by modern and industrial development associated with the railway and the ferry terminal beyond. Shore street already has modern buildings to the north of the site in the form of the residential John Anderson House and Hotel Accommodation in the form of the ‘Premier Inn’. It is not considered that the proposed development would have any materially harmful impact upon the setting of the listed buildings and both the scale and design of the proposed development are considered acceptable within this part of the Oban town centre. There is no planning policy regarding seaward facing elevations of listed buildings. Loss of Daylight/Overshadowing and Loss of View • The proposed development will overshadow the properties opposite and result in the loss of daylight. • The proposed development will result in the loss of view from existing properties on Shore Street.
Page 6
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • The proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on the quality of life and livelihood (Harbour View Guest House). • The application states that Shore Street is not a primarily residential area. This is inaccurate, with the exception of the recently constructed Premier Inn, all of the existing buildings have at least some residential use which will be impacted upon by the development. Officer Comment: A daylighting and sunlight assessment was submitted in support of the proposed development which concludes that no adverse impact will arise. The report is discussed in the main assessment of the application in Appendix A of this report. Matters related to loss of a private view/outlook are not material to the assessment of this planning application and cannot be afforded weight in the consideration of this application. The impact on the quality of life and livelihood of Harbour View Guest House has not been quantified to allow the Planning Authority to provide a meaningful comment. The comment regarding residential use within the surrounding buildings is noted. Contaminated Land • The site was filled with waste material from the demolition of the old Oban Railway Station with asbestos being witnessed as one of the waste materials. Officer Comment: The Council’s EHS officer noted that the application is proposing the redevelopment of land where there is an indication of a previous use which may be contaminative and accordingly, should permission be granted, the EHS advised that a condition should be imposed to secure a phased, comprehensive site investigation and risk assessment for the site. Opposing Windows • The windows in the proposed hotel are closer than 18 metres to those in the buildings on the opposite side of the public road. • The application suggests that the 18 metre rule does not apply as opposing buildings ‘are not permanent residences’. This is not true, the owner of the Kelvin Hotel lives in a ground floor apartment facing Shore Street and Kerrera Lodge provide medium term accommodation for homeless people i.e. homes. • The balconies will overlook the rooms in the Kelvin Hotel. Officer Comment: These comments are noted and are discussed in detail in the main assessment of the application in Appendix A of the report.
Page 7
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 With regards to the placement of balconies, these are proposed to the elevation facing away from the Kelvin Hotel. Impact on Amenity of Surrounding Properties • Noise from the proposed hotel will have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties. • Headlights from vehicles utilising the proposed hotel will result in light pollution to the windows of neighbouring properties. Officer Comment: This is a site situated directly adjacent to the main town centre of Oban, directly adjacent to the public road and in very close proximity to the main transport hub within the town where noise and activity are expected. It is not considered that the proposed development will result in a significant increase in noise or activity where it would be to the detriment to surrounding properties/uses. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: A Supporting Statement and NPF4 Statement has been submitted with the application which is discussed in more detail in the main assessment at Appendix A below. ☒Yes ☐No (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No The relevant Sustainability Checklists have been submitted and examined. It is the assessment of the Case Officer that the applicant has understood and given adequate consideration to the sustainability aspects of the proposed development, sufficient to accord with the core sustainability requirements of both national and local planning policy, specifically the relevant details of the ‘Sustainable Places’ group of policies
Page 8
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 within NPF4 and LDP2 policies 04, 08 and 09. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☒Yes ☐No (if Yes list supporting documents below) The application has been accompanied by a ‘Parking Analysis Statement’. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒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. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety Productive Places NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism
Page 9
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 22 – Economic Development Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 82 – Contaminated Land Local Development Plan 2 Schedules (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. (delete as appropriate) • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023)
Page 10
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • ABC Economic Development Action Plan • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Has a Sustainability Checklist been submitted: ☒Yes ☐No (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (O) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No (P)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Oban Harbour Railway Pier – Health and Safety Zone (Explosives) • The Kelvin Hotel, 1-3 Cawdor Place, Shore Street – B Listed Building (Impact on Setting) • 4-6 Cawdor Place, Shore Street – B Listed Building (Impact on Setting) • 7 Cawdor Place, Shore Street – B Listed Building (Impact on Setting) (P)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (P)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A
Page 11
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (P)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: A4004 Oban – South Pier/Railway - Strategic: town centre, waterfront and strategic transport hub. (P)(v) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Introduction and Settlement Strategy The proposal the subject of this application is seeking to secure planning permission for the erection of a 30 bedroom hotel at Shore Street, Oban. In terms of LDP2, the site is identified as being within a ‘Settlement Area’ where Policy 01 gives a presumption in favour of redevelopment of brownfield sites where the proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and is in compliance with all other relevant LDP2 policies. Site and Proposed of Development The application site is situated on Shore Street on the edge of the defined town centre of Oban. The site comprises a flat area of ground which is currently being used as a private car park. The site is bounded by the Oban to Glasgow railway line along its north and north western boundaries with John Anderson House, a block of residential flats, to its north eastern boundary. To the south, on the opposite side of the public road, is a terrace of properties comprising the Kelvin Hotel, Kerrera Lodge (providing homeless accommodation) and Harbour View Guest House. The site tapers to a point at the south western end of Shore Street. No buildings are present on the site. The proposal is seeking to secure planning permission for a contemporary designed and finished hotel providing 30 letting bedrooms. The proposed hotel comprises a three storey, mono-pitched roof structure which takes a rectangular form with its main elevation parallel with the public road which reflects the established development on Shore Street. The proposed hotel is to be finished in white coloured render with elements of natural stone cladding and composite cladding to its elevation with a dark grey coloured zinc roofing. Windows and doors are dark coloured aluminium clad units.
Page 12
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The hotel will provide its reception on the ground floor with lifts and stair accesses leading to the upper floors along with 12 en-suite bedrooms, 2 of which will accommodate disabled access. On the first floor are a further 13 en-suite bedrooms with 5 en-suite rooms on the second storey each with external terraces facing out over Oban Bay, Kerrera and Mull. Key Determining Issues As is detailed in Appendix A below, it is considered that the proposed development accords with all the relevant policies and principles of NPF4 and the relevant policies of LDP2 except for one key issue. The one policy of LDP2 that does not accord with the proposed development is Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision which requires off-street car and vehicle parking for specified categories of development and to be provided in accordance with a schedule (LDP2 ‘Table 5’) that varies according to the category of development proposed. The specific requirement in this case is for 39 off-street parking spaces to serve the development. However, due to the precise nature of the site, the proposal provides for just 15 parking spaces, 4 of which are reserved through a longstanding legal agreement to serve an existing off-site development elsewhere. Therefore, the currently proposed hotel development would provide only 11 off-street parking spaces. Given this shortfall, the Council’s roads engineers have objected to the application on the grounds that the requirements of LDP2 Policy 40 have not been met. However, Policy 40 of LDP2 sits uncomfortably with Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport - of NPF4. One of the key national planning policy principles of NPF4 is, “To encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably.” In support of this key planning principle, NPF4 Policy 13 (e) states that, “Development proposals which are ambitious in terms of low/no car parking will be supported, particularly in urban locations that are well-served by sustainable transport modes and where they do not create barriers to access by disabled people.” The developer in this case has stated that the proposal has been specifically designed to reduce reliance on private motor vehicles and has been advanced on the basis of low car parking provision given the town centre location of the development and the very close proximity to the Oban railway station, the Oban bus station and the Oban island ferry terminal. In addition, both the location and the design of the building offers no material barrier to disabled people. Whilst, in the case of a conflict between the National Planning Framework and a Local Development Plan, Section 24 (3) of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that the most recently adopted Plan (in this case LDP2) should have primacy, officers consider that the arguments put forward by the developer to accept a much reduced level of off-street parking provision in this case are acceptable given the above and the studies that the applicant has carried out into existing Oban town centre public car parking provision and uptake (see Appendix A below).
Page 13
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Officers have worked with the developer and with our roads engineers to try to resolve this policy conflict but no resolution acceptable to all parties has been forthcoming. Given the above and the detailed discussion in Appendix A, officers are recommending that Members accept the low parking provision aspect of the proposed development as a minor departure to Policy 40 of LDP2 and resolve to grant planning permission. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No The proposal is considered to be an acceptable minor departure to Policy 40 of LDP2 (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal for the erection of a hotel building, along with the associated infrastructure and landscaping, is a suitable proposal which accords with the principles and polices contained within NPF4 as underpinned by all but one of the relevant planning policies contained within the adopted LDP, and one which will benefit the local economy in accordance with one of the central challenges for Argyll and Bute, that of delivering sustainable economic growth. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan As outlined above. The proposal for the erection of a hotel building, along with the associated infrastructure and landscaping, is a suitable proposal which accords with the principles and polices contained within NPF4 as underpinned by all but one of the relevant planning policies contained within the adopted LDP, and one which will benefit the local economy in accordance with one of the central challenges for Argyll and Bute, that of delivering sustainable economic growth (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐ Yes ☒No Author of Report: Colin Bradley Date: 29.07.2026 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 30.07.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 14
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 21/01584/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 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 30/07/21, 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 Floor Plans – Scheme Design 1509 05 D 22/09/21 Perspective View, Section – Scheme Design 1509 10 02/08/21 Elevations – Scheme Design 1509 11 02/08/21 Site Plan – Scheme Design 1509 12 B Location Plan 02/08/21 Shore Street Hotel – Daylight & Sunlight Report – 17 PAGES 13/12/21 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP - Finishing Materials Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until samples of materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby approved 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 3. PP – Sustainable Drainage System Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development 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 and sewers for Scotland 4th Edition. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. Note to Applicant
Page 15
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Further advice on SuDS can be found in SEPA’s Standing Advice for Small Scale Development – www.sepa.org.uk 4. PP - Waste Management Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until a Waste Management Strategy for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Waste Management Strategy shall include details of how much waste the proposal is expected to generate and how it will be managed including: i. Details of provisions to maximise waste reduction and waste separation at source; ii. Details of measures to minimise the cross-contamination of materials, through appropriate segregation and storage of waste; convenient access for the collection of waste; and recycling and localised waste management facilities. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Waste Management Strategy unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 12. 5. PP - Landscaping and Biodiversity Enhancement Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until details of the proposed treatment of the soft landscaping areas within the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of: i) Location, design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; ii) Surface treatment of proposed means of access and hardstanding areas; iii) Proposed hard and soft landscape works; iv) A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development. The development shall not be occupied until such time as the boundary and surface treatment have been completed in accordance with the duly approved scheme. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next available planting season following the development first being brought into use. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures including those to be incorporated into the fabric of the building shall be implemented before the development is first brought into use. The biodiversity statement should refer to: Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity, and to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3.
Page 16
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 6. PP – Contaminated Land Unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, no development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted by the developer (at their expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on site and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with the Environmental Health Service. The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with the relevant authoritative guidance including PAN 33 (2000) and BS 10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up to date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and must include: a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model including (where necessary) a detailed site investigation strategy. The desk study and the scope and method of recommended further investigations shall be agreed with the Council prior to addressing parts b, c and d of this condition. Should the desk study show the need for further assessment this will be undertaken in the following sequence: b) A detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of the risk such contamination presents. c) Development and agreement of a remedial strategy (if required) to treat/remove contamination ensuring the site is made suitable for its proposed use (this shall include a method statement, programme of works, and proposed verification plan). d) Submission of a verification report for any agreed remedial actions detailing and evidencing the completion of these works. Written confirmation from the Planning Authority that the scheme has been implemented and completed shall be required by the developer before any development hereby approved comments. Where remedial measures are required as part of the development construction detail, commencement must be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the potential risks to human health, the water environment, property, and, ecological systems arising from any identified contamination have been adequately addressed. 7. PP - Construction Method Statement Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no construction work shall commence until a Construction Method Statement, which includes plant details, locations and lifting plans, is submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and agreed in conjunction with Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineers. Reason: To ensure construction can be carried out without adversely affecting the safety of, or encroaching upon, the operational railway. Note to Applicant
Page 17
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Regard should be had to the advisory comments from Network Rail in relation to the proposed development details of which are available to view on the planning application file via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. 8. PP – Piling Works Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until details of proposed piling works have been submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and agreed in conjunction with Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineers. Reason: To ensure construction can be carried out without adversely affecting the safety of the operational railway. Note to Applicant Regard should be had to the advisory comments from Network Rail in relation to the proposed development details of which are available to view on the planning application file via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. 9. PP – Vehicle Incursion Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until an assessment for vehicle incursion has been carried out. Where a potential risk of vehicle incursion is identified the developer shall submit details of the proposed barrier/kerbing to be constructed to the Planning Authority for approval and agreed in conjunction with Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineers. Reason: To ensure that there is no potential for vehicles to encroach onto the railway should they collide with the boundary fencing. Note to Applicant Regard should be had to the advisory comments from Network Rail in relation to the proposed development details of which are available to view on the planning application file via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. 10. PP – Finished Floor Level and Flood Risk Mitigation Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, the finished floor levels for the development shall be set to a minimum of 5.1m AOD with a property floor protection level of 5.4m AOD (by utilising flood resilience and resistance measures). The development hereby approved must also have a safe flood free access / egress on ground that is entirely above 4.56m AOD. Reason: To ensure that the building remains safe and operational during floods and to ensure that there is safe access/egress available from the building during a flood event. Note to Applicant
Page 18
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Regard should be had to the consultation comments from JBA Consulting Ltd advisory comments from Network Rail in relation to the proposed development details of which are available to view on the planning application file via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. 11. PP - Timescale to be Agreed for Completion No development shall commence until details of the proposed timescale for completion of the approved development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved timescale for completion unless an alternative timescale for completion is otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 12. Parking and Turning as Shown 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. 13. PP - Vehicular Access Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, the new proposed vehicular access at the junction with the public road shall be upgraded in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08/005a with visibility splays of 2.4 metres to point X by 42 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 1.05 metres above the access. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the dwellinghouse first being occupied and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Note to Applicant: • A Road Opening Permit under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 must be obtained from the Council’s Roads Engineers prior to the formation/alteration of a junction with the public road. • The access shall be constructed and drained to ensure that no surface water is discharged onto the public road. • No new walls, fences, hedges etc. will be permitted within 2 metres from the channel line of the public road. • Applicant to be responsible for the costs of moving road signs, street lighting columns and pillars as necessary as well being responsible for the costs incurred due to any required changes in traffic orders including re-lining alterations.
Page 19
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 21/01584/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction 1.1. The proposal the subject of this application is seeking to secure planning permission for the erection of a 30 bedroom hotel. 2. Location of Development 2.1. The application site is situated on Shore Street on the edge of the defined town centre of Oban. The site comprises a flat area of ground which is currently being used as a private car park. 2.2. The site is bounded by the Oban to Glasgow railway line along its north and north western boundaries with John Anderson House, a block of residential flats, to its north eastern boundary. To the south, on the opposite side of the public road, is a terrace of properties comprising the Kelvin Hotel, Kerrera Lodge (providing homeless accommodation) and Harbour View Guest House. 2.3. The site tapers to a point at the south western end of Shore Street. No buildings are present on the site. 3. Settlement Strategy 3.1 In terms of LDP2, the site is identified as being within a ‘Settlement Area’ where Policy 01 gives a presumption in favour of redevelopment of brownfield sites where the proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and is in compliance with all other relevant LDP2 policies. 3.2 In order to address the determining issues, the key considerations in this application are: 3.1.1. Compliance with the Development Plan and other relevant planning policy 3.1.2. Impact on historic built environment 3.1.3. Sufficiency of proposed parking provision 3.1.4. Any other material considerations. 4. Proposal 4.1. The proposal is seeking to secure planning permission for a contemporary designed and finished hotel providing 30 letting bedrooms. The proposed hotel comprises a three storey, mono-pitched roof structure which takes a rectangular form with its main elevation parallel with the public road which reflects the established development on Shore Street. The proposed hotel is to be finished in white coloured render with elements of natural stone cladding and composite cladding to its elevation with a dark grey coloured zinc roofing. Windows and doors are dark coloured aluminium clad units. 4.2. The hotel will provide its reception on the ground floor with lifts and stair accesses leading to the upper floors along with 12 en-suite bedrooms, 2 of which will accommodate
Page 20
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 disabled access. On the first floor are a further 13 en-suite bedrooms with 5 en-suite rooms on the second storey each with external terraces facing out over Oban Bay, Kerrera and Mull. 4.3. The proposed hotel is situated directly opposite Kerrera Lodge, on the opposite side of the public road, which, as detailed above, is understood to currently be in use as homeless accommodation and at other times as a bed and breakfast. Kerrera Lodge forms part of a terrace of buildings on this side of Shore Street with the Kelvin Hotel adjoining its northeast elevation and the Harbour View Guest House to its southwest elevation. This terrace of buildings is Category B Listed which is considered in more detail below. 4.4. The Supporting Statement (SS) submitted with the application details that the windows on the southeast facing elevation of the proposed hotel are approximately 12 metres from the windows on the front facing elevation of Kerrera Lodge and the Kelvin Hotel. The SS indicates that this distance is similar to other development within the vicinity, making reference to the Claredon Hotel and Kilmartin Court further along Shore Street. 4.5. The SS outlines that it is considered that 12 metres is a reasonable and appropriate window to window distance within the town centre context, particularly having regard to the limited existing privacy and amenity of the premises on Shore Street, with ground floor windows immediately adjacent to the public footway, and in close proximity of to the public road carriageway. 4.6. The SS further state that, in terms of the privacy and amenity of residents in the proposed hotel itself, this also does not need to accord with the same standards as would be expected for permanent residential dwellings and therefore the privacy and amenity of users of the hotel is considered to be acceptable. 4.7. Whilst the adopted Sustainable Siting and Design Standards (SSDS) of the LDP provides detailed guidance on the placement of windows in relation to residential dwellinghouses, there is no such defined standard for commercial properties such as hotels, hostels and bed and breakfasts, however, it is considered reasonable for reduced levels of privacy and amenity for such premises compared to residential properties due to the nature of their use/occupation. The SSDS also accepts that the distances set out in the guidance may not be possible in densely built areas. 4.8. Whilst the Planning Authority accepts that commercial developments do not require the same privacy and amenity standards as permanent residential developments, further information was sought from the Applicant in relation to the impact that the proposed development would have on daylighting to the properties opposite. The Applicant commissioned a specialist firm to produce a Daylight and Sunlight Report (DSR) in support of the proposed development. The detailed DSR is published in full on the planning application file and is available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. 4.9. The report, in summary, assesses the impact that the proposed hotel may have upon the existing building, across from and with direct view of the proposed hotel, by comparing the provision of daylight and sunlight under both the existing and proposed conditions. The DSR follows the guidance and methodology outlined in BR 209 ‘Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight – A Guide to good practice (2nd Edition)’. The DSR details that to quantify the effect on daylight and sunlight several metrics were assessed as part of this report including the Vertical Sky Component (VSC), the Average Daylight Factor (ADF), and the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH). These were determined using dynamic simulation modelling techniques following the relevant guidance.
Page 21
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 4.10. The DSR detail that modelling and calculation results demonstrate that the proposed hotel fully complies with the recommendations outlined in BR 209. Windows and rooms of the existing buildings across from the proposed hotel will receive sufficient levels of daylight and sunlight post-development. In this regard, the Planning Authority is satisfied that the development of the site with the proposed hotel will not have any significant adverse impact on privacy or amenity of existing uses. 4.11. Whilst the site is not within any designated Natural or Built Heritage Designation, the terrace of buildings directly opposite the site, 1-7 Shore Street, which encompasses the Kelvin Hotel, Kerrera Lodge and Harbour Guest House, are Category B Listed Buildings (LB). Accordingly the proposed development has to be considered in regards to the impact that it will have on the setting of this terrace of LBs. This is discussed in more detail in the relevant section below. 4.12. The site is within a predominantly commercial area on the periphery of the defined town centre where it is considered that a hotel would fit well within the existing mix of development. 4.13. A new vehicular access is proposed at the southwestern corner of the site from Shore Street to serve the proposed hotel which will provide access to 7 of the proposed 11 parking spaces, with the remaining spaces accessed via the existing access to the northeast serving John Anderson House and the Premier Inn. 4.14. Connection to the public water and public drainage network is proposed to serve the development. 5. Compliance with National Policy 5.1. NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 1 seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. In this case, given the small scale nature of the development proposed and its alignment with all other relevant policies in NPF4 and those supporting policies in the LDP2, it is considered that the development proposed would be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 1 as underpinned by LDP2 Policies 01 and 04 and the adopted Sustainability Checklist. 5.2. NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate, Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 2 seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the
Page 22
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. It is considered that the proposed development would be consistent with Policy 2 of NPF4 having had due regard to the specifics of the development proposed and to the overarching planning policy strategy outlined within the adopted LDP2, notably Policies 01 and 04, and the adopted Sustainability Checklist. 5.3. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 3 seeks that biodiversity measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the development proposed. In this instance, the proposal represents the development of a brownfield site with no existing biodiversity measures and limited scope for such measures to be secured within this site, however, there are small pockets of landscaping proposed within the development which could be enhanced to provide biodiversity enhancement measures, with such details capable of being secured by a planning condition. With a condition to secure proportionate biodiversity enhancement and creation opportunities the proposed development is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 3 as underpinned by LDP2 Policy 73. 5.4. NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. The development proposed by the current planning application is considered appropriate in terms of its type, location and scale such that it will have no unacceptable impact on the natural environment. The proposed development is not within any designated European site of natural environment conservation or protection, it is not located within a National Park, a National Scenic Area a SSSI or RAMSAR site, or a National Nature Reserve. Neither is it located within a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area or within an area identified as wild land. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 4 as underpinned by LDP2 Policies 70 through to 78 inclusive. 5.5. NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 7 seeks to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Part (a) of Policy 7 seeks to ensure that any proposals which are likely to have a significant impact on historic assets or places are accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and/or place.
Page 23
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 As detailed above, the terrace of buildings directly opposite the site, 1-7 Shore Street, which encompasses the Kelvin Hotel, Kerrera Lodge and Harbour View Guest House, are Category B LBs. Accordingly the proposed development has to be considered in regards to the impact that it will have on the setting of this terrace of LBs. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would be opposite a terraced row of listed buildings, the opposite side of Shore Street is primarily characterised by modern and industrial development associated with the railway and the ferry terminal beyond. Shore street already has modern buildings to the north of the site in the form of the residential John Anderson House and Hotel Accommodation in the form of the ‘Premier Inn’. It is considered that the sympathetic design of the building, together with the muted palette of finishing materials proposed, will provide an appropriate contrast between the old and the new and will not give rise to any significant adverse impact on the remaining setting of the terrace of LBs. Whilst the application provides details of the proposed finishing materials, boundary treatments and landscaping, the finer details of these will be secured by condition to ensure that they are of the highest standard to help integrate the hotel building into its site and wider surroundings. It is not considered that the proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on historic assets or places consistent with NPF4 Policy 7 as underpinned by LDP2 Policies 15 and 16. 5.6. NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 9 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. The development proposed by this planning application represents the sustainable reuse of a brownfield site situated within the Main Town Settlement Zone of Oban within the LDP, where such proposals are directly supported by Policy 9(a) of NPF4 and underpinned by LDP2 policy 1. With regards for the need in Policy 9(c) to demonstrate that development land is, or can be made, safe and suitable for a new use, the Council’s EHS advised that as the application is proposing the redevelopment of land where there is an indication of a previous use which may be contaminative, should permission be granted, a condition should be imposed to secure a phased site investigation and risk assessment for the site. With such a condition the proposal complies with NPF4 Policy 9(c) which aligns with Policy 82 of LDP2. The development proposed by this planning application represents the sustainable reuse of a brownfield site situated within the main town centre of Oban within the LDP, where such proposals are directly supported by Policy 9 of NPF4 as underpinned by LDP2. 5.7. NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 12 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy as defined within the policy document.
Page 24
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The development the subject of this planning application seeks to secure permission for a 30 bedroom hotel. Whilst this is a development which will generate waste when operational, it will benefit from regular waste uplifts by the Council and will be expected to comply with our adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. Notwithstanding this, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition to secure a statement addressing the requirements of Part (c) of Policy 12 to ensure compliance. With conditions to secure a waste management statement for the operation of the hotel, the proposal is considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 12 as underpinned by LDP2 Policy 63. 5.8. NPF4 13 – Sustainable Transport NPF4 13 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The application proposes a 30 bed hotel using an existing vehicular access with a new second vehicular access spurring from Shore Street and the provision of 15 car parking spaces within the site, 4 of which are reserved for use through a longstanding legal agreement for use by an existing commercial development elsewhere. The number of actual off-street parking spaces available to serve the development currently proposed is therefore 11 plus a small bicycle parking area. Whilst the national planning policy seeks as one of its key aims to reduce the reliance on unsustainable travel, Policy 40 of LDP2 – Vehicle Parking Provision - requires off-street car and vehicle parking for specified categories of development and to be provided in accordance with a schedule (LDP2 ‘Table 5’) that varies according to the category of development proposed. The specific requirement in this case is for a minimum of 39 off- street parking spaces to serve the development; a shortfall of at least 28 off-street parking spaces. In their consultation response to the application, the Roads Authority recommended refusal of the proposed development due to the minimum requisite parking provision of 39 spaces not being met within the proposal. The Roads Authority did not raise any objection to the proposed vehicular access spurring from Shore Street to serve the development. It is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with policies 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public and Private Access Regimes, policy 36 – New Accesses and Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access. During the period of November 2021 to March 2026 ongoing discussions have periodically taken place between the Agent and the roads engineer regarding the proposed development, including Parking Assessments and Parking Surveys being undertaken by the Agent, the parameters of which were set by the roads engineer. Despite these discussions, assessments and surveys, the roads service has maintained their recommendation of refusal with a finalised response issued on 06/02/23 stating the following: “Roads note the survey carried out however overall, general concerns remain in regards to the Council’s car park capacity so as to provide adequate provision for current demand and to ensure any future additional growth in demand is provided for. Roads also note that the private car park could be closed at any time therefore removing that parking provision currently used. If that was to happen there would be some
Page 25
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 displacement onto the current Council parking in and around the Shore Street/Albany Street areas and potentially causing further displacement from these locations to spread around the wider town area. The same displacement issues will arise if the hotel development plans are given the go ahead and if potential additional hotel customer and service traffic is generated then that would also add to the demand on the Council’s parking provision. Issues with traffic circulation, (creating additional road miles and associated emissions) when looking for suitable parking spots already exists in some parts of the town. If this is to be avoided going ahead in the wider town area then adequate parking capacity needs to be preserved”. Whilst the stated position of the roads service is both welcomed and understood, there is a clear conflict here between the key national planning policy aims within NPF4 and the one planning policy within LDP2 that seeks a materially different approach. One of the key national planning policy principles of NPF4 is, “To encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably.” In support of this key planning principle, NPF4 Policy 13 (e) states that, “Development proposals which are ambitious in terms of low/no car parking will be supported, particularly in urban locations that are well-served by sustainable transport modes and where they do not create barriers to access by disabled people.” The developer in this case has stated that the proposal has been specifically designed to reduce reliance on private motor vehicles and has been advanced on the basis of low car parking provision given the town centre location of the development and the very close proximity to the Oban railway station, the Oban bus station and the Oban island ferry terminal. In addition, both the location and the design of the building offers no material barrier to disabled people. As noted above, the proposal site is within approximately 300m walking distance of the bus stops on Station Road, 400m walking distance of Oban Railway Station, and 550m of the Calmac Ferry Terminus. It is thus accessible by a choice of existing public transport connections. In the case of a conflict between the National Planning Framework and a Local Development Plan, Section 24 (3) of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that most recently adopted plan (in this instance LDP2) should have primacy. Officers consider the arguments put forward by the developer to accept a much-reduced level of off-street parking provision, in this instance, is acceptable as evidenced by the car-parking studies as undertaken by the applicant into Oban town centre car parking provision and uptake. These studies, the parameters of which were agreed with the roads officer, were carried out in July 2017, at a ‘peak’ weekend to be indicative of peak summer months. The studies showed that during the peak times, 16:00 on Friday and 13:00 on Saturday, 76 vacant spaces and 72 vacant spaces respectively were available within Oban town centre. With regards to likely peak times for the hotel and its end-users, 18:00 – 19:00 on Friday and 08:00 – 09:00 on Saturday there were 80 parking spaces available and 85 spaces available respectively. These studies detail that although there is sub-standard, in-curtilage provision as compared to the prescribed parking levels required for a hotel development in line with
Page 26
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 policy 40 of LDP2 within the curtilage of the proposed development, there is sufficient parking provision to accommodate any overspill of the parking requirement within the wider town centre. Officers are therefore respectfully recommending that Members accept the low parking provision aspect of the proposed development as a minor departure to Policy 40 of LDP2 and resolve to grant planning permission. If the above is accepted, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 13 as substantially underpinned by LDP2 Policies 35, 36 and 39 but as a minor departure to LDP2 Policy 40. 5.9. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 14 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. Policy 14(a) seeks development proposals to be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale with Part (b) giving support to proposals where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places. The proposed hotel building is an attractively designed, three storey, mono-pitched roof structure which takes a rectangular form with its main elevation parallel with the public road which reflects the established development on Shore Street. The proposed hotel is to be finished in white coloured render with elements of natural stone cladding and composite cladding to its elevation with a dark grey coloured zinc roofing. Windows and doors are dark coloured aluminium clad units. It is considered that the proposed hotel building is of an appropriate scale, design and finishes which will fit well within this site which is in an area where there is no distinct architectural style evident with a varied mix of styles and finishes, some traditional and some more modern buildings of no particular architectural merit. The proposed redevelopment of this brownfield site to provide a purpose built, attractively designed and finished hotel, within landscaped grounds, would result in a visual improvement to the streetscene within this part of Oban. The development gives regard to the siting and orientation of the development within the wider streetscene at this location. The site is on the edge of the defined town centre, within close proximity to the transport hub and a wide range of local services. In the event that planning permission were to be granted, the proposed development is considered to represent a suitably sited, designed development in compliance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 and the sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2 namely Policy 04, Sustainable Development, Policy 05, Design and Placemaking, Policy 09, Sustainable Design, Policy 10, Design: All Development and Policy 11, Design: Conversions and Change of Use which, in summary, collectively seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, make use of existing infrastructure, are of an appropriate scale, sustainable design and finishes for their site; and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise.
Page 27
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 5.10. NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. The development the subject of this planning application proposes connection to the existing public water supply and drainage infrastructure in the control of Scottish Water. In their response to the application Scottish Water raised no objection to the proposed development which will be serviced from the Tullich Water Treatment Works and the Oban Waste Water Treatment Works. Scottish Water do however advise that further investigations may require to be undertaken once formal applications for connection to their infrastructure is submitted to them for consideration. The proposed water and drainage infrastructure to serve the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 18 as underpinned by LDP2 Policies 04 and 08. 5.11. NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Policy 22 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. As detailed above the development the subject of this planning application proposes a connection to the public water network to which Scottish Water has not objected. Since the application was first submitted, NPF4 has been adopted which has brought the site into a Coastal Flood Risk area and therefore consultations were undertaken with SEPA and JBA. In their initial response to the application SEPA advised that SEPA Future Flood Maps show that there is a coastal flood risk covering almost the entire site area noting that the site is below 5m AOD, therefore the ground level of the proposed hotel is lower than the Coastal Flood Boundary + climate change and freeboard. Accordingly, in order to overcome their objection, SEPA requested the submission of a detailed FRA which would require to demonstrate that the proposed development avoids the coastal flood risk area for a 1 in 200 year event including an appropriate allowance for climate change. In their response to the proposal, JBA deferred their decision until details of the finished floor levels of the proposed development were provided and shown to be set to a minimum of 4.9m AOD with a property flood protection level of 5.4m AOD (by utilising flood resilience measures). JBA advised that these values could be refined by a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). A detailed flood risk assessment has now been provided which has allowed SEPA to withdraw their objection subject to a planning condition requiring the finished floor levels for the development to be set to a minimum of 5.1m AOD with a property floor protection level of 5.4m AOD (by utilising flood resilience and resistance measures). The development hereby approved must also have a safe flood free access / egress on ground that is entirely above 4.56m AOD. These matters can be secured by planning condition. With planning conditions to secure the requirements of SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Assessor, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 22 as underpinned by national flood risk policy and LDP2 Policy 55.
Page 28
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 5.12. NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety NPF4 Policy 23 seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. The development the subject of this planning application is on a site bounded by the Oban to Glasgow railway line. Whilst the railway line can be reasonably described as a potential ‘safety hazard’ for the purposes of Policy 23, Network Rail have been consulted and have raised no objection to the proposed development on safety grounds subject to a number of conditions and informatives being imposed on the grant of permission to secure Construction Method Statement; details of any piling works; an assessment for potential vehicle incursion and details of external lighting within the development. In addition to the above, due to the proximity of the site to the Railway Pier which is defined as an ‘Explosive Interest’, consultation was undertaken with the HSE. However, in their response to the planning application, the HSE advised that the proposed development site identified does not currently lie within the consultation distance of a major hazard site or major accident hazard pipeline; therefore at present HSE does not need to be consulted on any developments on this site. With regards to construction noise, the EHS suggested that should permission be granted, conditions be imposed with regards to the hours of operation on site during the construction period of the proposed development. However, construction hours are not generally conditioned by the Planning Authority, with any issue arising during the construction period of development, a matter dealt with under separate EHS legislation. With planning conditions to secure the requirements of Network Rail, the development is considered to be compliant with the aims of NPF4 Policy 23 as underpinned by LDP2 Policy 14. 5.13. NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism NPF4 Policy 30 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate sustainable tourism development which benefits local people, is consistent with our net zero and nature commitments, and inspires people to visit Scotland. Part of Policy 30 provides a number of criteria which require to be considered in proposed tourism ventures, as follows. i. The contribution made to the local economy; ii. Compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of the nature and scale of the activity and impacts of increased visitors; iii. Impacts on communities, for example by hindering the provision of homes and services for local people; iv. Opportunities for sustainable travel and appropriate management of parking and traffic generation and scope for sustaining public transport services particularly in rural areas; v. Accessibility for disabled people; vi. Measures taken to minimise carbon emissions; vii. Opportunities to provide access to the natural environment. The Agent has submitted the following statement addressing the criteria set out in Policy 30(b).
Page 29
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 “There are clear economic benefits to the proposal. The proposal will provide employment to local people and will bring visitors to the town who would be expected to add to the economy of the town through shopping, eating out and visiting attractions. The proposed use is compatible with the local area as it is on a street with existing guest houses and a Premier Inn. There is no expected impact on the local community. The site is currently used as a private car park and so the proposal will not hinder the provision of homes and services for local people. As noted, the site is located within walking distance of public transport connections, including bus, rail and ferry. The proposal will thus promote sustainable travel and minimise carbon emissions. The proposal will be accessible for disabled people. The submitted floorplans (drawing reference 1509 05 D Floor Plans) show that two rooms have been designed specifically to cater for disabled people. These rooms includes accessible showers and toilets and are located on the ground floor for ease of access. A publicly available disabled toilet is also proposed on the ground floor, within the reception foyer. Upper floors will be accessible by both stairs and lifts. Access to the natural environment is limited in the urban setting of the site. Landscaping will be provided on the site, providing a biodiversity gain compared to the current use”. Policy 30 gives direct support to tourism development provided that the criteria set out in Part (b) of the policy is taken into account. It is considered that the information submitted satisfactorily addresses the criteria set out in Policy 30(b) In this regard the proposal is considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 30 as underpinned by LDP2 Policies 22 and 23.