Adventure Lane Cic: Change of Use and Conversion of Existing Church and Detached Rear Hall to Form a Family Entertainment Activity Centre Including Erection of Single Storey Link Extension and Associated Works: Trinity Church, 26 Castle Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (25/01690/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
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 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: 25/01690/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Adventure Lane CIC Proposal: Change of Use and Conversion of Existing Church and Detached Rear Hall to Form a Family Entertainment Activity Centre Including Erection of Single Storey Link Extension and Associated Works Site Address: Trinity Church, 26 Castle Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute PA20 9HA 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 • Change of use and conversion of existing church and detached rear hall to form a family entertainment activity centre • Erection of single storey extension linking church and detached rear hall • Formation of an outdoor play area on land to the rear of the hall • Formation of a covered terrace on the south-facing elevation of the rear hall • Provision of secure bike storage behind front boundary walls (ii) Other specified operations • Internal alterations • Connection to public water supply and public wastewater drainage system (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that Planning Permission be granted as a minor departure to Local Development Plan 2 subject to the conditions, reasons and informative notes set out below.
Page 2
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 (C) CONSULTATIONS: Scottish Water (letters dated 20th November 2025 and 30th July 2026) Scottish Water has no objections to the proposal. There is currently sufficient capacity in the Dhu Loch Water Treatment Works and in the Rothesay Wastewater Treatment Works for connection to service the development. However, it is noted that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to them. West of Scotland Archaeology Service (e-mail dated 28th November 2025) Most of the ground disturbance associated with the proposal would take place towards the rear of the church building – the creation of the link extension connecting it to the former church hall and in the ground around the hall for the installation of the various pieces of outdoor play equipment. The church hall occupies ground that was shown as being largely undeveloped on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1869, and which is likely to be beyond the gardens shown by Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland to the rear of the houses fronting onto Castle Street and the eastern side of the High Street. Given that the amount of ground disturbance required for the installation of the play equipment appears likely to be reasonably limited, it is accepted that, on balance, the potential for the proposal to encounter and remove significant sub-surface archaeological material is likely to be too low to warrant a programme of archaeological work. Area Roads Engineer (reports received on 16th January and 25th June 2026) Recommendation of refusal on the following grounds: • The application does not meet the parking standards set out within Policy 40 of the Council’s Local Development Plan 2. The proposed development requires at least 29 off-road parking bays to be provided and this has been shown to be unachievable • It is considered that neither the nearest local public car parks nor the streets surrounding the application property are able to accommodate the increase in demand for parking that would result from the proposed development. On this basis, concern is expressed that the impact arising from the lack of parking provision would adversely impact road safety, traffic management and parking within Rothesay Environmental Health Service (memo dated 11th June 2026) No objections subject to conditions and informative notes regarding food and health legislation; construction and operational noise; lighting; cooking odour; waste storage; site drainage; building design and gulls; and asbestos. Bute Community Council (comments received on 13th July 2026) The Convenor of Bute Community Council, Jean Moffat, has provided the following statement:
Page 3
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 “At the Bute Community Council meeting of the 24/06/26, a packed house voted unanimously but for one objector, in favour of the Adventure Lane conversion of Trinity Church. Whilst the community councillors were not in unanimous agreement, this, as Convenor of the council, I find irrelevant. Our sole remit is to support the wishes of the community and as these wishes were so forcibly stated, I am, without hesitation in full support of our community.” (D) HISTORY: Listed Building Consent (ref: 01/00190/LIB) was granted on 23rd March 2001 for internal alterations to the church to provide a W.C. compartment and to increase the kitchen facilities. Listed Building Consent (ref: 03/00509/LIB) and Planning Permission (ref: 03/00512/DET) were granted on 18th June and 2nd June 2003 respectively for alterations to the pews and choir floor area within the church and the formation of an emergency exit ramp at the side door on the east-facing elevation. No objections were raised on 30th December 2010 to a request (ref: 10/01838/TPO) for the pollarding of one elm tree in the rear curtilage of the church. Advertisement Consent (ref: 11/01450/ADV) was granted on 17th October 2011 for the erection of a freestanding illuminated notice board in the front curtilage of the church. An application for Listed Building Consent (ref: 25/01691/LIB) is currently under consideration for the external and internal works at the property. (E) PUBLICITY: Subject of Neighbour Notification (closing date 26th December 2025) and advertised as development in a Conservation Area (closing date: 19th December 2025). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Objection Objections have been received from the following three sources: Mrs Kate Howes, Flat 2/2, 36 Castle Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (19.12.2025) Alison Clark, Mount Pleasant Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (22.12.2025) Georgina Holt, 30 Castle Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (23.12.2025) The points raised can be summarised as follows: i. Concern is expressed that the initial ‘Parking Statement & Report’ dated September 2025 is somewhat disingenuous in representing the number of available spaces. It is contended that the numbers of available parking spaces on any of the roads are over inflated as they do not take into account current traffic restrictions e.g. Castle Street (Zone 18) only has 19 available spaces rather than 32.
Page 4
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 There is no sensible available parking in Zone 2 and Zones 4-8 identified in the ‘Parking Statement & Report’ as the streets are either single lane/one way. Additionally, parking would deny access to a number of businesses including the post office mail and parcel sorting facility. Zone 19 is Serpentine Road and it is not physically possible to park on this road. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. ii. It is contended that, when the church was used for worship on Sundays, it was always utter chaos with double and illegal parking to let passengers alight. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. iii. Concern is expressed that the premises is on a dangerous blind corner with speeding traffic and low visibility. It is pointed out that, particularly considering the aim of attracting families with children, traffic management measures will be essential. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. iv. Castle Street and Bishop Street are the key roads that provide access for heavy goods vehicles and emergency services. Current parking on these two streets makes road usage challenging for drivers of these types of vehicle, with Bishop Street operating an informal priority to oncoming uphill traffic. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. v. It is pointed out that there is no bus stop on Castle Street. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. vi. It is queried how many event spaces and coffee shops a population of 6037 can support. Comment: The activities to be provided within the proposed centre are considered to be complementary to other facilities in Rothesay. vii. It is queried whether the scheme fits with the published overarching Council economic development and improvement plans. Comment: The Argyll and Bute Economic Strategy (2024-2034) has four key strategic pillars: ‘People’, ‘Place’, ‘Planet’ and ‘Prosperity’. The current proposal fits with many of the objectives within these four pillars: improving workforce skills; supporting job opportunities in emerging and new industries; investing in our towns, rural and remote rural communities, including our islands and peninsulas, to attract new people and
Page 5
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 businesses; investing in critical economic infrastructure such as the re-use of land and buildings for community benefit; and revitalising the tourism sector. viii. It is pointed out that young parents leave the island for better jobs, housing and education choices for their children with the only growth group on Bute being the over 50s. Comment: Two of the objectives of the proposal are to provide employment and to create a facility for a wide range of ages, both of which would hopefully contribute to keeping young people and people with young families on the island. ix. Tourists will visit the island but, in 2026/2027, the ferries are operating a reduced timetable to accommodate a maintenance program. Comment: This issue does not have a material bearing upon the Planning aspects of the case. x. It is contended that hymns and organ music were always clearly heard emanating from the church. There is already noise pollution created by Bute Yard and the proposal would exacerbate this issue such that one of the objectors won’t be able to open their windows at all. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. xi. Reservations are expressed that the proposal would result in another licensed premises in this part of Rothesay, which already includes Bute Yard, the Galatea Bar, the Golfers Bar, the Taverna and Mac's Bar. Comment: The issue of a lack of need for a particular type of development does not have a material bearing upon the Planning aspects of the case. xii. Concern is expressed that, as the premises would have an alcohol licence and would open until 1 p.m. three nights of the week, the proposal would result in excessive noise and drunken behaviour in a residential area. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. xiii. Concern is expressed that the stated aim of providing family and child activities may be dependent on revenue from food and drink. Comment: This issue does not have a material bearing upon the Planning aspects of the case. Support Expressions of support have been received from the following nine sources: Miss Joanne Cowie, 135J High Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (02.12.2025) Mrs Charlene Kane, 31 Wyndham Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (03.12.2025) Mrs Linda Baird, 2 Abbotsford, Gowanfield Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (09.12.2025)
Page 6
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Jon Usher, 10 Bishop Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (24.01.2026) Helen Barr – no address provided (12.06.2026) Alison Fraser – no address provided (15.06.2026) Mrs Allison Harley, Flat 2, Montford Apartments, 35A Craigmore Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (20.06.2026) Steven Douglas, President and Chief Operating Officer, Saputo Dairy UK, 5 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge (13.07.2026) The points raised can be summarised as follows: a. The proposed conversion of Trinity Church would ensure that the building would not become rundown and, therefore, would avoid the loss of another attractive and significant property on Bute. It would also keep the history of a church that has meant so much to the people of the island. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. b. The church building in its former use had space for a congregation of 600, all of whom were accommodated without any additional car parking spaces. It is contended that the change of use of the building should not materially impact the parking available in Rothesay as there are plenty of unrestricted parking spaces available on adjacent streets as well as car parks within walking distance of the venue. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. c. The capacity of the venue would be well below that of Bute Yard, which is close by and which has minimal parking available. It is put forward that parking challenges do not arise when well-attended events in Bute Yard are taking place e.g. the monthly markets. Comment: This point is noted. d. The building is in a location that is highly accessible both on foot and by public transport. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. e. An indoor resource offering varied activities for children and families (both residents and tourists) does not currently exist on Bute (beyond the SULA Collective, which is craft based). The proposal would offer a much-needed, year-round indoor facility that would be available during inclement weather. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. f. Children living on the island currently need to go to the mainland for days out and parties that involve soft play facilities, bowling, etc, thus putting extra financial burden onto families (ferry cost). The proposed introduction of Adventure Lane would reduce the need to travel to the mainland for these types of activities.
Page 7
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. g. According to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, Rothesay falls into the category of an area of deprivation. The use of the building to allow parents and carers, regardless of income, to participate in activities that were only available by travelling to the mainland is surely a good thing. Comment: This point is noted. h. The proposal would create jobs for local people and would also boost local income for other local businesses as it would draw more visitors to the island. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. i. The proposal would be a viable local option for end-of-term school trips and for use by scouts, boys brigade, etc. Comment: This point is noted. j. There are currently no social spaces for teenagers and the proposal would provide one. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. k. Spaces such as those proposed in Adventure Lane support positive physical, mental and social wellbeing in young people. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. l. It is contended that the proposal would not be detrimental to other projects on the island and it would enhance the investment that Argyll and Bute Council have made in the Pavilion by allowing greater choice and a diverse range of facilities. Comment: This point is noted. m. Concern is expressed that Bute Community Council has recently began to push a narrative that is not reflective of the community opinion, which is evident from the significant number of comments on social media. Comment: This point is noted. n. As one of Bute’s largest employers, Saputo Dairy UK recognises the importance of initiatives that strengthen communities, improve quality of life and create opportunities for future generations. The company has supported the development of the Adventure Lane project through the Saputo Legacy Fund. The investment followed a thorough assessment process, during which the proposal demonstrated a strong alignment with
Page 8
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 the objectives of the Fund and its commitment to delivering long-term benefits to the local community. Comment: This point is noted. Representation A representation neither in support nor opposition to the proposal has been received from: Ms Rose-Marie Barbeau 35 Bishop Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (19th December 2025) The points raised can be summarised as follows: (i) There is support for ensuring that the property does not fall into disrepair but it is considered that there is not enough experience involved to run a large hospitality venue and the upkeep of a very challenging building. Comment: This point is noted. (ii) The proposal has been presented as a family centre with activities for children but it would appear to be essentially a licensed premises with very little for those under the age of 8-10. Comment: The proposal identifies the provision of indoor and outdoor play areas that would be suitable for children under the age of 8. (iii) On the grounds of noise both inside and outside the premises, it is put forward that it should close at 10 p.m. in line with Bute Yard. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. (iv) The addition of 3 disabled parking bays in a neighbourhood of multiple unit residences would take away from the seven unrestricted parking spaces available to residents on Castle Street, upper Bishop Street and lower Serpentine Road and it's not clear what calculation this provision is based on. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. (v) The Council will need to recognise that traffic-slowing measures will have to be implemented as it is only because the activities associated with the previous use of the building as a church were relatively infrequent that a serious accident did not happen. Comment: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. Petition A petition of support containing 207 signatories was received on 8th July 2026. A summary of the wording contained in the petition is as follows:
Page 9
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 • The proposal is an exciting opportunity to restore an important historic building that is currently underused into a modern entertainment activity centre that would cater for all ages • The premises would provide a high-quality leisure destination featuring family entertainment activities, social spaces, food and drink facilities together with attractions to increase tourism, support businesses and encourage year-round economic activity on the Isle of Bute Comment: These issues are addressed in the assessment contained in Appendix A later in this report. Letters of Support for the Adventure Lane project from 2024 The agent has forwarded individual letters of support for Adventure Lane from a number of sources. As these letters were written in March and August 2024, they pre-date the submission of the current Planning and Listed Building applications and they are understood to have been in association with another stage in the overall Adventure Lane process. The letters are from the following: • Brendan O’Hara MP • Jenni Minto MSP • Session Clerk of Isle of Bute Parish Church • CEO of Scotland’s Town Partnerships • Apple Tree Nursery in Rothesay • Deputy Lieutenant for the Isle of Bute • Fyne Futures Ltd in Rothesay The representations and documentation referred to in this section are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (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: Yes ☐No
Page 10
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 The application was accompanied by an extensive ‘Design and Access Statement’ prepared by the agent, JSS Architects. The key points can be summarised as follows: • Throughout the initial concept design process, significant consideration was given to the policies within the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 and the National Planning Framework 4 • The proposed family entertainment activity centre will provide a new and exciting facility for the area, offering various activities and experiences for both locals and tourists. There is a high demand for this type of facility in the area • The development will increase the footfall for local businesses and should increase the length of time that tourists remain in the local area as it will provide more things to do and see. This will also benefit other local businesses as well as the public transport facilities • The Isle of Bute needs to retain and increase its working age population if its economy is to thrive in the future. Any increase in visitors to the island and any facility which contributes to the retention of young families on the island will complement the newly restored Rothesay Pavilion once it reopens • It is acknowledged that the lack of onsite parking might be considered to be an initial restriction; however, NPF4 advises that development proposals which are ambitious in terms of low/no parking will be supported, particularly in urban areas that are well served by sustainable transport modes. • The site is well located to provide sustainable travel options for guests and locals visiting the Activity Centre with little to no need for the use of cars. The accompanying active travel plan highlights how accessible the venue is by foot/cycle/public transport. Incentives will be offered to promote active travel for both staff and visitors.
Page 11
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 (iv) A Sustainability Checklist (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04): No specific ‘Sustainability’ or ‘Sustainable Building’ checklists were submitted with the application. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the information contained in the submitted plans and the contents of the ‘Design and Access Statement’ referred to in Section (iii) above and the reports mentioned in Section (v) below provide a sufficient level of detail to allow a proper assessment to be carried out. ☐Yes No (v) Reports on the impact of the proposed development e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact, etc: ‘Parking Statement & Report’ prepared by SW Consultancy (N.I.) Ltd (September 2025) ‘Parking & Transport Report Addendum’ prepared by Thrive Community Consultants (April 2026) ‘Roads Objection Response’ prepared by Thrive Community Consultants (April 2026) ‘Active Travel Plan’ prepared by Thrive Community Consultants (April 2026) Note: The above reports are summarised in the assessment section – Section 7 within the Appendix Yes ☐No The reports and documentation referred to above are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 obligation 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.
Page 12
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 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 NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 21 – Play, Recreation and Sport NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety Productive Places NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 27 – City, Town, Local and Commercial Centres NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 30 - Tourism 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 11 – Design – Conversions and Change of Use Policy 15 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Historic Built Environment Policy 17 – Conservation Areas Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance
Page 13
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 23 – Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Policy 25 – Tourism Development Opportunities Connected Places Policy 33 – Public Transport Infrastructure Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 49 – Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Area (LLA) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity (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. Consultation Responses Third Party Comments Planning History LDP2 Technical Notes Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guidance 2006 Roads Development Technical Guidance 2024 Historic Environment Policy Statement 2019 Historic Environment Scotland – ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment’ Publications (K) Is the development 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) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes No Objections to the application have been received from a total of three sources and, in terms of the ‘Scheme of Administration and Delegations’ contained in the Council’s Constitution (2025), this number is less than the eleven that is required in order for the PPSL Committee to consider a proposal.
Page 14
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 The reason that this particular application is before Members results from the recommendation of the Roads Department that Planning Permission be refused on the grounds of a lack of parking spaces and the resultant impact of this on road safety, traffic management and parking within Rothesay and the Planning Department’s opinion that there are mitigating circumstances such that an approval can be justified as a minor departure to Development Plan policy. In considering the benefits of holding a pre-determination hearing in this particular case, it is the opinion of the Department that the representations that have been received, the views that have been expressed by consultees, the supporting documentation that has been submitted and the Officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report provide a sufficient level of information to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations pertaining to the development. It is, therefore, considered that the proposal does not raises any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the Report of Handling and, therefore, it is the Department’s position that a discretionary local hearing would not add value to the planning process. (O) (i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: Local Landscape Area Conservation Area Category B Listed Building (ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built-up Area/Unclassified Land Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 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 Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☒No (iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☐Yes ☒No
Page 15
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No – details to be secured by condition ☒Not applicable (iv)Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs, etc: Edge of Town Centre (P)(v) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Planning Permission is sought for the change of use of the vacant Trinity Church site in Castle Street, Rothesay to a family entertainment activity centre. This will involve the provision of a range of play experiences in the main church building to the front (including a modular golf course, bowling lanes, interactive darts, virtual reality experiences, etc. with a bar/restaurant) and a physical link is to be created to the hall to the rear, which is planned to accommodate an indoor adventure playground and party room. On the land to the rear of the hall, four pieces of outdoor play equipment are to be installed. The key issues are the principle of development, the impact on the built environment, the community, economic and tourism benefits, the impact on residential amenity and the impact on parking and the local road network. These key issues are summarised below whilst all other minor issues are considered in the detailed assessment within the Appendix. Principle of Development The application relates to the change of use of a currently vacant church and rear hall (a brownfield site) that is within Rothesay, which is the main settlement on the Isle of Bute. The proposal is considered to provide a sustainable new use for the site that would secure its long-term future through the retention, reuse, recording and sensitive adaptation of the principal building. It will incorporate both indoor and outdoor high-quality recreation and leisure facilities that will provide a positive contribution to the community and tourist network as it will enhance the experience of both residents and visitors to the island. The proposed alterations and extension of the building would be appropriate in terms of their effect on the character of the Rothesay Conservation Area and the Department is of the opinion that the intended use would have no materially detrimental impact on parking and the local road network in this part of Rothesay.
Page 16
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Overall, the principle of the proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant NPF4 policies relative to the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings and to the LDP2 Settlement Strategy. Impact on the Built Environment The subject property, which dates from the mid-19th century, is a Category B Listed Building that occupies a prominent position in the Rothesay Conservation Area close to the point where Castle Street and Bishop Street join. Due to the amalgamation of congregations as a result of a decline in worshippers, the building has been vacant for a couple of years. The proposal represents an opportunity to bring the building back into active use and this is recognised as a key component in ensuring that it does not fall into disrepair and become a derelict structure. As such, the current proposal is to be welcomed and it is also clear that it has been developed with respect and careful consideration of the existing property and its significant internal features. The alterations that are identified have been formulated with the intention of increasing the usability of the church building to cater for multiple activities whilst retaining its historical character. The scheme introduces accessible entry points and a platform lift to ensure inclusive access throughout, while safeguarding historic fabric. Interventions have been carefully located to avoid adverse impact on key fixtures and finishes, in line with HES’s Managing Change: Accessibility guidance. The existing street access, boundary wall, and railings are retained, preserving the established historic setting. Prior to any alteration works taking place, a photographic and drawn recording exercise will be undertaken to capture the current layout, fixtures, and condition of the church. Having regard to all of the above, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and to preserve the character and appearance of the site in question and this part of the Rothesay Conservation Area. Community, Economic and Tourism Benefits Development Plan Policies support proposals that provide significant community, economic and tourism benefits. In the case of the current application, an international corporate donor, Saputo Dairy UK, set up a Legacy Fund in 2021 to support projects for the benefit of the community on the Isle of Bute. After extensive research, two projects were identified which met the needs of the island community and one of these projects is the subject of this application. The information that accompanies this application explains that engagement took place with the community to identify the type of facilities that are needed. This led to the formulation of the family entertainment activity centre, which will meet a number of objectives, including: the provision of assorted opportunities for exercise for all ages, thus having a positive effect on public health and wellbeing; the offering of training opportunities for young people as well as local employment; the use of local contractors, suppliers, and businesses where possible; the creation of increased spending within the community by both locals and tourists; and a complementary but
Page 17
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 different experience in comparison with other facilities on Bute that will help attract visitors to the island for longer stays. Having regard to all of the above, the proposal is considered to be a project that will have an extremely positive effect on the local community and will boost the island’s economy and the visitor experience. Impact on Residential Amenity LDP2 Policy 14 seeks to resist any proposal that would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring land uses, including as a result of noise, odour, light pollution, etc. In the case of the current application, there are residential properties adjoining the site on the same side of Castle Street and there are also dwellings on the opposite side of the road. The Environmental Health Service has been consulted and has recommended conditions and informative notes in respect of a number of matters, including external lighting, noise management, the collection, treatment and disposal of cooking odours, etc. It is considered that the use of appropriately worded conditions and informative notes would successfully mitigate any potential adverse impact upon neighbouring amenity arising from the proposed development in accordance with the above-mentioned LDP2 policy. Impact on Parking and the Local Road Network Policy 40 of LDP2 states that off-street car and vehicle parking shall be provided for development in accordance with prescribed car parking standards. The policy also refers to those circumstances where a zero parking exemption can be applied. There have never been off-street, dedicated parking spaces associated with Trinity Church over its 180-year use as a place of worship and no spaces are identified as part of the current application. In this case, the type of proposed use is not one of the exempt categories of development and, although it is considered edge of town centre, the site is just outwith the identified town centre. In these circumstances, the zero parking exemption cannot be applied. The applicant and agent have acknowledged that parking is a significant issue and, for this reason, they employed a consultant to carry out an initial car parking study (‘Parking Statement & Report’ prepared by SW Consultancy (N.I.) Ltd in September 2025) and a different consultant (Thrive Community Consultants) was engaged to submit a ‘Parking & Transport Report Addendum’, a ‘Roads Objection Response’ and an ‘Active Travel Plan’ in April 2026. Having considered the supporting documentation that has been provided by the applicant and agent, the Roads Department have recommended refusal on the following grounds: • The application does not meet the parking standards set out within Policy 40 of the Council’s Local Development Plan 2. The proposed development requires at least 29 off-road parking bays to be provided and this has been shown to be unachievable
Page 18
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 • It is considered that neither the nearest local public car parks nor the streets surrounding the application property are able to accommodate the increase in demand for parking that would result from the proposed development. On this basis, concern is expressed that the impact arising from the lack of parking provision would adversely impact road safety, traffic management and parking within Rothesay The proposal departs from parking standards due to the absence of on-site parking. However, this is justified as the provision of parking would require the loss of the historic frontage and boundary features of the Category B Listed Building, causing harm to the character of the listed building and Rothesay Conservation Area. There is also no land within the applicant's control on which parking could be provided. Parking surveys have identified that there is on-street parking capacity relatively close to the facility. The proposed use has a maximum capacity of 200 persons, substantially lower than the church's historic capacity of around 600 persons, and therefore is not expected to generate greater parking demand than the existing lawful use. The site occupies a highly accessible town-centre location, served by bus services, ferry connections, taxi facilities and convenient pedestrian links. In addition, an Active Travel Plan can be secured by condition to encourage sustainable travel and manage visitor arrivals and departures. Furthermore, National Planning Framework 4 supports low or no parking developments in accessible urban locations well served by sustainable transport. Taking account of the heritage benefits of securing a viable long-term use for the listed building, the site's accessibility and the active travel measures proposed, the departure from parking standards is considered justified in this instance. Whilst it is recognised that the proposal does not meet the provisions of Policy 40 of LDP2 in terms of off-street parking, the mitigating factors detailed above are of sufficient materiality for the application to be approved as a minor departure to the Development Plan, which is set out in detail below. Conclusion The proposal has been considered against all of the relevant policies and it is considered that significant material weight should be afforded to sensitively bringing this important Listed Building back into active use to benefit Rothesay town centre and the wider Isle of Bute. The family entertainment activity centre will have considerable community, economic and tourism benefits. It is preferable to have off- street parking but, given a variety of factors including the relative capacities of the lawful and proposed uses, the provision of an Active Travel Plan, and the proximity to public transport links, it is not considered that the absence of off-street parking is a reason for refusal. In conclusion, the proposal, if approved, will successfully contribute to the sense of place and vitality of the Town Centre. (Q) Is the application consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission should be granted See Section (S) below.
Page 19
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan Policy 40 of LDP2 states that off-street car and vehicle parking shall be provided for development in accordance with prescribed car parking standards. The policy also refers to those circumstances where a zero parking exemption can be applied. There have never been off-street, dedicated parking spaces associated with Trinity Church over its 180-year use as a place of worship and no spaces are identified as part of the current application. In this case, the type of proposed use is not one of the exempt categories of development and, although it is considered edge of town centre, the site is just outwith the identified town centre. In these circumstances, the zero parking exemption cannot be applied. The applicant and agent have acknowledged that parking is a significant issue and, for this reason, they employed a consultant to carry out an initial car parking study (‘Parking Statement & Report’ prepared by SW Consultancy (N.I.) Ltd in September 2025) and a different consultant (Thrive Community Consultants) was engaged to submit a ‘Parking & Transport Report Addendum’, a ‘Roads Objection Response’ and an ‘Active Travel Plan’ in April 2026. Having considered the supporting documentation that has been provided by the applicant and agent, the Roads Department have recommended refusal on the following grounds: • The application does not meet the parking standards set out within Policy 40 of the Council’s Local Development Plan 2. The proposed development requires at least 29 off-road parking bays to be provided and this has been shown to be unachievable • It is considered that neither the nearest local public car parks nor the streets surrounding the application property are able to accommodate the increase in demand for parking that would result from the proposed development. On this basis, concern is expressed that the impact arising from the lack of parking provision would adversely impact road safety, traffic management and parking within Rothesay There are a number of factors to consider in this part of the assessment: • Trinity Church is a Category B Listed Building and one of its key features is the quality of the boundary treatment of the frontage onto Castle Street, comprising the low-coped stone wall; the panelled gate piers flanking the central entry; and the pyramidal caps surmounted by decorative cast-iron lamp standards. The provision of off-street parking would result in the loss of this feature to the detriment of the townscape of this part of the Rothesay Conservation Area • It is understood that, due to there being no areas of vacant land in the applicant’s ownership, there are no options for providing off-street parking in relation to the proposed development • The parking surveys submitted as part of the application identify that there is on-street parking capacity exceeding the notional demand of 29 spaces
Page 20
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 close to the facility, in particular High Street (Zone 11) has capacity for 63 cars and there are always spaces on both weekdays and weekends for around 15 to 20 cars on average. King Street (Zone 15) is also highlighted as having capacity of around 10 spaces on average • The capacity of the proposed use is 200 people, which is significantly less than the existing use as a church which is 600 people • The lawful use of the site is as a Class 10 Non-Residential Institution and the other uses that could be introduced under this classification without the need for Planning Permission have the potential to generate relatively large numbers of movements. In the absence of permission being required, the Planning Authority would have no mechanisms by which to mitigate the impact of these uses • The Active Travel Plan has a number of measures to control the arrivals and departures and overall capacity at any one time and this Travel Plan can be secured by condition thereby providing a degree of influence on travel methods and limitation on car usage • The site is also well served by sustainable transport options, including adjacent bus stops and the main bus terminal at Guildford Square where most residents will arrive and depart at Rothesay, a nearby taxi rank, the ferry terminal (the source of one of the key target market), and safe pedestrian routes with dedicated crossing points • The aspirations inherent in National Planning Framework 4 where development proposals which are ambitious in terms of low/no parking will be supported, particularly in urban areas that are well served by sustainable transport modes Whilst it is recognised that the proposal does not meet the provisions of Policy 40 of LDP2 in terms of off-street parking, the mitigating factors detailed above are of sufficient materiality for the application to be approved as a minor departure to the Development Plan. (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes No Author of Report: Steven Gove Date: 3rd August 2026 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 4th August 2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth
Page 21
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/01690/PP Standard Time Limit Condition for Planning Permission (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. Approved Details Unless otherwise directed by any of the conditions below, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 9th October 2025; supporting information; and the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the Planning Authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan Drawing No. 1473_001 B 10.10.2025 Existing Block Plan Drawing No. 1473_002 C 17.11.2025 Existing Ground & Intermediate Floor Plans Drawing No. 1473_003 A 10.10.2025 Existing Upper & Bell Tower Floor Plans Drawing No. 1473_004 A 10.10.2025 Existing Sections Drawing No. 1473_005 A 10.10.2025 Existing Church Elevations Drawing No. 1473_006 A 10.10.2025 Existing Church Elevations Drawing No. 1473_007 A 10.10.2025 Existing Church Hall Elevations Drawing No. 1473_008 B 17.11.2025 Existing Elevations Drawing No. 1473_009 - 10.10.2025 Proposed Block Plan Drawing No. 1473_102 C 17.11.2025 Proposed Ground & Intermediate Floor Plans Drawing No. 1473_103 - 10.10.2025 Proposed Upper & Bell Tower Floor Plans Drawing No. 1473_104 - 10.10.2025
Page 22
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Proposed Sections Drawing No. 1473_105 A 10.10.2025 Proposed Elevations Drawing No. 1473_106 B 17.11.2025 Proposed Elevations Drawing No. 1473_107 A 10.10.2025 Proposed Elevations Drawing No. 1473_108 B 17.11.2025 Proposed Elevations Drawing No. 1473_109 A Door, Window & Louvre Schedule Drawing No. 1473_200 17.11.2025 Detail No.1 of Outdoor Large Play Tower Plan 1 of 6 17.11.2025 Detail No.2 of Outdoor Large Play Tower Plan 2 of 6 17.11.2025 Detail No.1 of Outdoor Toddler Play Tower Plan 3 of 6 17.11.2025 Detail No.2 of Outdoor Toddler Play Tower Plan 4 of 6 17.11.2025 Details of Outdoor Nest Swing Plan 5 of 6 17.11.2025 Details of Outdoor Seesaw Plan 6 of 6 17.11.2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Active Travel Plan Prior to the coming into use of any part of the development hereby approved, an Active Travel Plan (ATP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority, the ATP shall incorporate at a minimum the following: i. An introduction with context and development details ii. A Policy Statement, including any relevant site-specific policies iii. A site audit and accessibility review
Page 23
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 iv. A statement on the intended outcomes, including an identification of the daily capacity of the premises (i.e. maximum number of users) v. A clear management and delivery structure, including the identification of the Travel Plan Co-ordinator vi. Details of the measures that will be implemented to ensure that the agreed number of daily maximum users will not be exceeded (e.g. the operation of a managed, booking-based system) vii. Details of the initiatives to be used in encouraging more sustainable travel behaviour, including marketing and promotion viii. An Action Plan with implementation timescales and budget ix. SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound) targets with baseline data, a monitoring and review process and related timescales Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the Active Travel Plan shall be implemented for the lifetime of the development in accordance with the details so approved. Reason: In the interests of ensuring sustainable travel patterns and as part of the justification for the approval of the application as a minor departure from Policy 40 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. 3. Bicycle Storage A facility for the storage of cycles, the details of which shall have been previously submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, shall be provided within the application site prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the approved cycle storage shall be retained in perpetuity for this dedicated purpose. Reason: In the interests of facilitating the use of cycles by the patrons of the building hereby approved in accordance with the provisions of National Planning Framework 4 Policy 13 ‘Sustainable Transport’. 4. External Lighting Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, all external lighting on the application site shall be operated, positioned and angled in compliance with the Scottish Government Guidance Note “Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Lighting Energy Consumption” (March 2007). Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the immediate area from the creation of nuisance due to light pollution and to support the reduction of energy consumption. 5. Arrangements for the Storage and Collection of Waste Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the proposed arrangements for the storage and collection of waste shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The arrangements shall be
Page 24
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 implemented in accordance with the approved requirements prior to the development being brought into use and shall thereafter be retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to accord with the principles of sustainable waste management within NPF4 Policy 12 and LDP2 Policy 63. 6. Surface Water Drainage / Porous Hardstanding Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, all areas of hardstanding, including paths and patios, shall be constructed using porous materials or otherwise designed to permit the direct infiltration of surface water to the ground. Details of the proposed hardstanding materials and construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to their installation. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full and retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To reduce surface water runoff and minimise the risk of flooding in the interests of sustainable drainage and flood risk management.
Page 25
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 INFORMATIVE NOTES 1. The attention of the applicant/developer is drawn to the contents of the letters dated 20th November 2025 and 30th July 2026 from Scottish Water which are in the list of documents relative to the application in the Council’s Public Access System 2. In terms of Condition 2 above, it is acknowledged that an Active Travel Plan prepared by Thrive Community Consultants was received on 28th April 2026 and it is suggested that the contents of this document can be used in the formulation of the formal submission relative to this condition 3. The Environmental Health Service has provided the following advice i. As a food premises, the proposal will be subject to the requirements of Food Law. The applicant/developer is strongly recommended to contact the Environmental Health Service to discuss the kitchen layout and proposed foods to be made to ensure compliance with the law and good practice in order to protect public health. In any case, the applicant is required to register as a food business. From the plans, there appear to be water closets opening directly on to the kitchen and servery, this is unacceptable and, as such, the plan should be revised such that no WC opens out into a food preparation space without suitable Intervening Space (IVS). ii. The applicant should submit to the Environmental Health Service a Noise Management Plan relative to the construction phase of the project. The document shall incorporate the following: ▪ An identification and assessment of all potential sources of nuisance that may cause disturbance to nearby residents during the construction of the development, including noise/ vibration, dust, surface runoff and any temporary lighting. This should cover all aspects of the proposal (e.g. ground works, access improvements and construction of building and any associated facilities) ▪ For all potential sources of nuisance, the applicant will be required to provide a management plan that incorporates details of the suitable control measures to be put in place so as to ensure that construction works do not cause a loss of amenity to local residents and/or statutory nuisance. Such details shall include (but not be limited to) the intended hours of working; the movement of vehicles into, within and out of the site; the use of plant; and the storage of equipment and materials on the site iii. The hours of working at the site during the construction of the development hereby approved shall be restricted to 08.00 to 18:30 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. No construction work shall take place at the site on Sundays or Bank Holidays. iv. The applicant should submit to the Environmental Health Service a Noise Management Plan that details how extraneous noise will be mitigated to Best Practicable Means. The applicant should achieve a Noise Rating Criteria of
Page 26
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 NR35 during the day (0700-1900hrs) and NR25 during the evening/night (1900-0700hrs). v. Deliveries or collections to and from the site shall not be carried out between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00. vi. The development shall not commence until a detailed specification regarding the collection, treatment and disposal of cooking odours has been submitted to and approved by the Environmental Health Service. Such specification shall include precise details on the location of equipment used for the cooking and heating of food, canopies, grease filters, rates of air movement over the canopy, make–up air, air disposal points etc. Air disposal points should terminate at least 1m above any opening windows. vii. Where discharge is intended to terminate below eaves height of the nearest residential building (as in this case), the applicant should submit to the Environmental Health Service details of the advanced odour management infrastructure in place to ensure that discharge from the ventilation system does not negatively affect local residents. viii. Suitable and sufficient measures for the effective collection and disposal of surface water should be implemented during construction phase of the project as well as within the completed development to prevent flooding within this and nearby property ix. The applicant/developer should be fully aware of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) and its implications on client duties, etc. x. It is very strongly recommended that appropriate measures be taken in the design of all buildings and their construction, to inhibit the roosting and nesting of gulls. Such measures are intended to reduce nuisance to, and intimidation of, persons living, working and visiting the development xi. Prior to starting work on the site, the applicant must ensure that appropriate steps have been taken to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, namely the duty to assess if asbestos is present in any of the existing buildings proposed to be disturbed in anyway and to remove before commencing work.
Page 27
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/01690/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. The Proposal 1.1. Trinity Church is a Category B Listed Building that is in the Rothesay Conservation Area on Castle Street close to where the road turns in a northerly direction and becomes Bishop Street. Running along the northern boundary of the site is Castle Street, whilst the site is bounded to the south and east by private residential properties, separated by existing 2- metre-high stone walls. To the west is the former church hall whilst in a south westerly direction is Bute Yard, which is a multi-use venue incorporating both indoor and outdoor spaces. 1.2. In 2024, the congregation of Trinity Church united with the United Church of Bute and moved out of the building. It has subsequently been purchased by Adventure Lane CIC and the current application is seeking Planning Permission to change the use of the vacant site to a family entertainment activity centre. This will involve the provision of a range of play experiences in the main church building to the front (including a modular golf course, bowling lanes, interactive darts, virtual reality experiences, etc. including a bar/restaurant) and a physical link is to be created to the hall to the rear, which is planned to accommodate an indoor adventure playground and party room. On the land to the rear of the hall, four pieces of outdoor play equipment are to be sited – two play towers; a seesaw; and a nest swing. 2. Principle of Development and Settlement Strategy 2.1 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) explains that significant weight should be given to the global climate and nature crises when considering new development and that proposals should 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. It also 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. 2.2 In terms of the Settlement Strategy set out in the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) 2024, the application site is identified as being within the ‘Settlement Area’ of Rothesay where there is 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. 2.3 The application relates to the change of use of a currently vacant church and rear hall (a brownfield site) that is within the main settlement on the Isle of Bute. The proposal is considered to provide a sustainable new use for the site that would secure its long-term future through the retention, reuse, recording and sensitive adaptation of the principal building. It will incorporate both indoor and outdoor high-quality recreation and leisure facilities that will provide a positive contribution to the community and tourist network as it will enhance the experience of both residents and visitors to the island.
Page 28
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 2.4 As will be explored in more detail later in this report, the proposed alterations and extension of the building would be appropriate in terms of their effect on the character of the Rothesay Conservation Area and the Department is of the opinion that the intended use would have no materially detrimental impact on parking and the local road network in this part of Rothesay. 2.5 On the basis of the foregoing, the principle of the proposed development is considered to accord with NPF4 Policies 1, 2 and 9 and LDP2 Policy 01 as listed in Section (J) of this report. 3. Impact on the Built Environment 3.1. The relevant policies in NPF4 and LDP2 seek to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. They support development proposals in or affecting Conservation Areas where they would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the designated area and its setting. Relevant considerations include the architectural and historic character of the area; the existing density, built form and layout; and the context and siting, quality of design and suitable materials. 3.2. The policies also require that proposals should be designed to improve the quality of an area and they offer support to development that achieves the six qualities of: health; pleasantness; connectivity; distinctiveness; sustainability; and adaptability. Development that is poorly designed, detrimental to the amenities of surrounding areas or inconsistent with the aforementioned six qualities will not be supported. 3.3. Section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 states that “In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area… special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area”. 3.4. The history of Trinity Church dates back to June 1843 when the minister along with most of the elders and congregation of Rothesay Parish Church left the establishment to form the Rothesay East Free Church, as it was first known. On 13th July 1845, the building was opened for worship. It is an example of gothic architecture that was designed by the prominent Scottish architect, Archibald Simpson, and it was built to house a congregation of 650 people. 3.5. Unfortunately, as congregation numbers were declining, the building was earmarked by the Church of Scotland to be sold and this is where the applicant took the opportunity to purchase the historic property with the objective of preserving it and preventing it falling into disrepair. 3.6. The assessment of the proposal in relation to its designation as a Listed Building will principally be undertaken in the report on the application for Listed Building Consent (ref: 25/01691/LIB). However, it is considered appropriate to refer to the qualities of the building in determining the impact of the proposal on the character of the wider Conservation Area. 3.7. In this regard, the following statements are made in Historic Environment Scotland's document titled 'Guidance on the Principles of Listed Building Consent': • The majority of Listed Buildings are adaptable and have met the needs of successive generations while retaining their character. Change should, therefore,
Page 29
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 be managed to protect a building's special interest while enabling it to remain in active use. Each case must be judged on its own merits but, in general terms, listing rarely prevents adaptation to modern requirements but ensures that work is done in a sensitive and informed manner. • Listed Buildings will, like other buildings, require alteration and adaptation from time to time if they are to remain in beneficial use, and will be at risk if such alteration and adaptation is unduly constrained. In most cases, such change, if approached carefully, can be managed without adversely affecting the special interest of the building. • Where a proposal involves alteration or adaptation which will sustain or enhance the beneficial use of the building and does not adversely affect the special interest of the building, consent should normally be granted. 3.8. The agent, JSS Architects, have submitted a Design and Access Statement in support of the application and the key points can be summarised as follows: ▪ Although the proposals would result in the loss of many of the pews, Historic Environment Scotland (HES) recognise that this would be necessary to create usable floorspace to enable the reuse of the church. For those pews which must be removed to facilitate safe circulation, inclusive access or new activities, a salvage strategy will be implemented. This will explore their reuse within the development (for example, as integrated seating, display elements, or timber repurposed in fit-out features) and can be offered to the public to be reused. Where neither retention nor reuse is achievable due to condition or safety reasons, a clear justification will be provided ▪ Key architectural features including the vaulted ceiling, roof structure, balcony panelling, wall panelling, organ pipes and their surrounds, stained glass and original doors are identified on the submitted drawings for retention. These elements will remain integral to the adapted scheme, ensuring that the building’s character continues to be legible. Where interventions are required, the principle of minimal intervention and reversibility will be applied: for example, the proposed balcony in the existing gallery will incorporate a glass balustrade to maintain the original features of the gallery as a focal point ▪ Prior to any alteration works taking place, a photographic and drawn recording exercise will be undertaken to capture the current layout, fixtures, and condition of the church ▪ Any energy efficiency measures will follow the ‘Guide to Energy Retrofit of Traditional Buildings’ produced by HES. Measures will prioritise passive improvements (such as draught-proofing and secondary glazing where appropriate) and reversible installations. Engagement with HES’s Technical Conservation team will be sought before any significant fabric interventions are carried out ▪ The scheme introduces accessible entry points and a platform lift to ensure inclusive access throughout, while safeguarding historic fabric. Interventions have been carefully located to avoid adverse impact on key fixtures and finishes, in line with HES’s Managing Change: Accessibility guidance. The existing street access, boundary wall, and railings are retained, preserving the established historic setting
Page 30
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 3.9. The Department’s position is that it is important to recognise that finding an active use for a historic church building is a key component in ensuring that it does not fall into disrepair and become a derelict structure. As such, the current proposal is to be welcomed and it is also clear that it has been developed with respect and careful consideration of the existing property and its significant internal features. The alterations that are identified have been formulated with the intention of increasing the usability of the church building to cater for multiple activities whilst retaining its historical character. 3.10. Having regard to all of the above, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and to preserve the character and appearance of the site in question and this part of the Rothesay Conservation Area. 3.11. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to accord with NPF4 Policies 7 and 14 and LDP2 Policies 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 11, 15 and 17 as listed in Section (J) of this report. 4. Impact on the Natural Environment 4.1. The relevant NPF4 and LDP2 policies generally seek to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions and to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. 4.2. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority and, in the particular circumstances of the proposal, no conditions relating to specific measures for biodiversity enhancement and protection are considered to be necessary. 4.3. The site for the proposed development is not within any of the following: a designated European site of natural environment conservation or protection; a National Scenic Area; a SSSI or RAMSAR site; a National Nature Reserve; or a Local Nature Conservation Site. 4.4. The site is, however, located in a Local Landscape Area (LLA) and this designation is a recognition of a locally important physical landform that is of scenic value. Policy 71 of LDP2 seeks to resist development in, or affecting, an LLA where its scale, location or design would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape and one of the requirements is that an application for development within this type of area should be supported by a landscape and visual impact assessment. 4.5. No formal landscape and visual impact assessment has been submitted with the current application; however, it is considered that the submitted plans and drawings provide sufficient information to allow an appropriate form of assessment to be carried out. Given the relatively localised impact that the proposed works to the exterior of the buildings within the site would have, it is considered that the proposal would have a ‘neutral’ effect upon the visual qualities of the wider LLA. 4.6. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to accord with NPF4 Policies 3 and 4 and LDP2 Policies 71 and 73 as listed in Section (J) of this report. 5. Community, Economic and Tourism Benefits 5.1. NPF4 and LDP2 policies relating to this section can be summarised as follows:
Page 31
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 • Proposals that contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of rural communities and the local rural economy, including the reuse of redundant or unused buildings should be supported • Local economic development should focus on community and place benefits as a central and primary consideration • Proposals should contribute to local community wealth building strategies by improving community resilience and reducing inequalities; increasing spending within communities; ensuring the use of local supply chains and services; local job creation; and supporting community led proposals • Proposals that increase the mix of uses of town and local centres, thereby improving their vitality and viability, should be supported • Communities and places should enjoy economic, social and cultural benefits from tourism thus supporting resilience and stimulating job creation • Sustainable tourism development should be promoted and facilitated where it benefits local people and is consistent with the country’s net zero and nature commitments 5.2. The NPF4 Annex C concerns ‘Spatial Planning Priorities’, which forms guidance for the preparation of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Plans. Rothesay is specifically mentioned in the section on the ‘Central’ area, where NPF4 refers to “strategic sites”. In relation to the wider Clyde area, the Framework notes that: “[m]any business and investment sites are located along key transport corridors and new approaches may be required as investment transitions away from locations that can only be reached by car towards more accessible areas that are connected by low carbon and active travel options.” And further: “The wider Clyde Coast, an iconic area rich in cultural heritage and natural assets, can be reimagined through collective efforts on regeneration in nearby coastal communities, such as Dunoon and Rothesay. The area’s accessibility by train and water means that it is an ideal location for low carbon tourism and leisure.” 5.3. The supporting information submitted with the application explains that, during extensive on-island interviews and research, the lack of indoor, family-based activities on the Isle of Bute was raised as a chronic issue: parents of younger children noted that to provide any non-curricular experience, they had to travel off island; older children and teenagers had nowhere to go thus congregating in the town centre; and older residents identified the lack of spaces to meet and socialise. 5.4. From an economic perspective, Bute's traditional tourist markets began to decline in the 1960s and the island has struggled to adapt to changing expectations. As a result of the challenging economic climate, many young people have left the island for further education or other employment and they have not returned, leaving a population which is older and with more health challenges than average communities. The accompanying supporting documentation states that the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation notes that the community in Rothesay is within the cohort of the 10% most deprived communities in Scotland.
Page 32
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 5.5. It is put forward that a significant proportion of all off-island trips are for leisure purposes and an estimated £1.2M per annum is spent by residents on off-island leisure activity. 5.6. The supporting statement explains that, in 2021, an international corporate donor, Saputo Dairy UK, set up a Legacy Fund to support projects for the benefit of the community on the Isle of Bute. After extensive research, two projects were identified which met the needs of the island community and one of these projects is the subject of this application. 5.7. The agent puts forward the following points in support of the proposal: ▪ The Activity Centre will provide assorted opportunities for exercise for all ages, which will have a positive effect on public health and wellbeing ▪ The Isle of Bute needs to retain and increase its working age population if its economy is to thrive in the future. The centre will offer training opportunities for young people as well as local employment and the Adventure Lane CIC is already working with Rothesay Joint Campus to identify ways to involve young people in the setup of the facility. The applicant intends to use local contractors, suppliers, and businesses where possible ▪ The proposal will create increased spending within the community by both locals and tourists ▪ When the refurbished Rothesay Pavilion building reopens, the Activity Centre will offer complementary but different experiences to help attract visitors to the island for longer stays 5.8. It is considered that the above points demonstrate that the proposal has been formulated by engaging with the community as to the type of facilities that are needed; by identifying a project that will create employment and result in expenditure being retained on the island; and by providing a centre that will enhance the tourist experience and attract more visitors to Bute. 5.9. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to accord with NPF4 Policies 21, 25, 27, 29 and 30 and LDP2 Policies 23, 25 and 49 as listed in Section (J) of this report. 6. Impact on Residential Amenity 6.1. LDP2 Policy 14 seeks to resist any proposal that would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring land uses resulting from but not limited to the following: noise or vibration; odour or fumes; emissions including dust, smoke, soot, ash, dirt or grit or any other environmental pollution to water, air, or soil; and light pollution or flicker. In certain circumstances, it may be possible to mitigate adverse impact upon neighbouring amenity by restrictions placed upon the proposed development via planning conditions or legal agreements. 6.2. There are residential properties adjoining the site on the same side of Castle Street and there are also dwellings on the opposite side of the road. The Environmental Health Service has been consulted and has recommended conditions and informative notes in respect of a number of matters, including external lighting, noise management, the collection, treatment and disposal of cooking odours, etc. It is considered that the use of appropriately worded conditions and informative notes relating to other matters would
Page 33
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 successfully mitigate any potential adverse impact upon neighbouring amenity arising from the proposed development. 6.3. On the basis of the foregoing and subject to suitably worded conditions and informative notes, the proposed development is considered to accord with LDP2 Policy 14 as listed in Section (J) of this report. 7. Impact on Parking and Local Road Network 7.1. NPF4 Policy 13 generally 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”. 7.2. More specifically, NPF4 Policy 13(b) supports developments where it can be demonstrated that the transport requirements generated have been considered in line with the sustainable travel and investment hierarchies and where appropriate they, inter alia: • Provide direct, easy, segregated and safe links to local facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks before occupation. • Will be accessible by public transport, ideally supporting the use of existing services. 7.3. NPF4 Policy 15 seeks to “encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the Place Principle and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options.” 7.4. More specifically, NPF4 Policy 15(a) supports developments that would contribute to local living. To establish this, consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to, inter alia, sustainable modes of transport such as local public transport and safe, high quality walking, wheeling and cycling networks. 7.5. LDP2 Policy 40 states that off-street car and vehicle parking shall be provided for development in accordance with the car parking standards set out in Table 5 on Pages 67 and 68 of the Plan’s Written Statement. The policy refers to the limited categories of development that will not be expected to provide off-street car parking on development sites in identified town centre zones. In this case, the type of proposed use is not one of the exempt categories and, although it is considered edge of town centre, the site is just outwith the identified town centre. In these circumstances, the zero parking exemption cannot be applied. 7.6. As far as can be ascertained, there have never been off-street, dedicated parking spaces associated with Trinity Church over its 180-year use as a place of worship and no spaces are identified as part of the current application. Based upon the car parking standards in LDP2 Policy 40, the proposal would be classed as “Leisure (other than Cinemas or Stadia)” where 1 space per 22 square metres should be available. The size of the premises at 630 square metres would, therefore, equate to a notional demand for 29 spaces, with three of these spaces being used for disabled parking. 7.7. The applicant and agent have acknowledged that this is a significant issue and, for this reason, they employed a consultant to carry out a car parking study (‘Parking Statement
Page 34
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 & Report’ prepared by SW Consultancy (N.I.) Ltd in September 2025). A parking assessment was carried out to identify on and off-street provision within a 400 metre walking distance of the site, covering 26 survey zones and 3 public car parks. The assessment confirmed a minimum availability of 241–242 spaces at all survey times on both a weekday and weekend, with at least 3 disabled bays consistently available. Three additional on-street disabled bays are referred to as part of the proposal, and the findings show that this can be accommodated. 7.8. Supporting documentation also explains that census data highlights that Rothesay has a significantly lower rate of car ownership compared to the national average, with approximately 44% of households in the urban area having no access to a private vehicle. This figure is notably higher in the town centre and in areas with higher-density tenement housing, which align closely with the target demographic for the proposed Family Entertainment Centre. The report argues that this context reinforces the appropriateness of the Trinity Church site, which is centrally located and within easy walking and cycling distance of the majority of Rothesay’s population. 7.9. The initial response from the Roads Department in January 2026 was a recommendation of refusal, which stated that there are currently issues with traffic flow and parking management within the town centre, including the area where the development is proposed. There are also concerns that have been raised by Police Scotland regarding traffic flow in this area and mitigation proposals will be worked on in the future. As no off- street parking is being proposed and there is a lack of parking nearby, the proposed development would result in an intensification of traffic and on-street parking. 7.10. Upon receipt of these initial comments from the Roads Department, a second consultant (Thrive Community Consultants) was engaged by the applicant and agent to submit a ‘Parking & Transport Report Addendum’ and a ‘Roads Objection Response’, both of which were submitted to the Planning Authority at the end of April 2026. The Addendum contains clarification on the methodology and findings of the original parking assessment; refinement on the interpretation of parking availability to reflect realistic user behaviour; and addressing of the concerns relating to peak demand and traffic patterns. For instance, it was acknowledged that Mount Pleasant Road, Serpentine Road and Bishop Terrace had limited parking and were constrained by road geometries and less formalised parking arrangements. Its conclusions are that the original parking assessment remains robust and demonstrates a substantial level of available capacity within the town centre and its parking availability does not rely on these secondary areas. When considered in the context of realistic parking behaviour, distributed demand patterns and reduced reliance on private car travel, the Addendum states that the proposed development would not give rise to unacceptable parking pressure or traffic impacts. 7.11. The Roads Department have considered all of the supporting information that has been submitted and their recommendation remains one of refusal. Their reasoning for this recommendation is set out in the following paragraphs. 7.12. The ‘Parking & Transport Report Addendum’ submitted in April 2026 by Thrive Community Consultants in response to the initial refusal recommendation seeks agreement to no off-street parking spaces on the basis of the active travel plan that has been devised and that any required customer vehicles can be accommodated in existing on-street parking and car parks. It is the position of the Roads Department that the available parking spaces are for use in association with every activity, premises and residential building in the area. Using these spaces in conjunction with the proposed activity centre would lead to an overall increase in traffic flow and congestion.
Page 35
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 7.13. The Addendum states that there is ‘a substantial level of available capacity within the town centre’. On review, the Roads Department does not believe that this assessment shows an availability of parking but, in a number of instances, it shows a lack of parking availability. The existing provision is stated as including three car parks: • Albert Pier Car Park – the original survey states that this car park has capacity for 25 cars and within the survey it has limited capacity. Roads confirm that it is frequently over-subscribed (as recorded in the Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project). It will be redesigned in the future and, although this may provide a slight rise in the number of parking spaces, it is unlikely to accommodate an increased demand • Guildford Square Car Park – the addendum states this car park has capacity for 34 cars and within the survey it has some capacity at all times ranging from 4 to 10 spaces. However, roads consider that this capacity has already been taken into account as ‘parking provision’ for another Planning Permission (ref: 23/01007/PP) at the former Bute House Hotel and, as such, this runs the risk of double-counting parking provision • East Princes Street slipway – the addendum states this car park has capacity for 16 cars and within the survey it was at capacity most of the time. Roads state that it is not a car park but is on-street parking. It is generally well used and not able to accommodate any intensification 7.14. In terms of Roads Department comments in relation to on-street parking, there is some agreement over the lack of spaces within Castle Street, where the proposal is located, but the following concerns are raised in relation to places that are listed as having capacity for on-street parking: ▪ Bishop Terrace – the addendum states this street has capacity for 20 cars and frequently has capacity for around 10 to 12 spaces and increasing on a Saturday to around 16 spaces. Roads consider this is a residential cul-de-sac with no turning area/turning head. It is bounded on one side by property with a large verge on one side, parts of the verge have been converted to parking but this has been done for the benefit of residents, not visitor parking for commercial premises ▪ Mount Pleasant Road – the addendum states this street has capacity for 30 cars and frequently has capacity of around 10 spaces during the week and a Saturday. Roads consider this to be a congested residential street and unlikely to be suitable for redirecting traffic. The road is nominally two-lane but one side is already largely taken up by parking, effectively reducing the route to single lane with limited options for give and take ▪ Springfield Place - this is a private road/development ▪ Store Lane – the addendum states this street has capacity for 7 cars and frequently has capacity for around 4 spaces and increasing on a Saturday to around 5. However, Roads states this would not be suitable to encourage traffic given the nature of the road onto and to increase traffic through this street ▪ Watergate – the addendum states this street has capacity for 7 cars and frequently has capacity for 1-2 spaces and increasing on a Saturday. Roads consider that this would not be suitable due to its narrow width and even small vehicles park almost scraping the kerb. Increased usage would likely obstruct traffic flow
Page 36
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 7.15. The Roads Departments comments continue by highlighting that, with regard to parking capacity, a level of 85% occupancy is generally the figure used in parking provision to identify where capacity reached. At this level, additional parking generates traffic, circling, hold-ups, etc. The report highlights this occurrence in several places: East Princes Street, Bishop Street, West Princes Street, Stuart Street and, most importantly, Castle Street where the development is proposed. It is accepted that drivers generally park as close as possible to an attraction/service. 7.16. One of the key arguments in the applicant’s supporting information is that the previous use of the site as an active church had 600 plus parishioners. On this point, the Roads Department noted the following: • It is possible there may have been 600 parishioners, but it is doubtful that this was the number of those who attended the weekly Sunday service • Even accepting these numbers, this would be on one day of the week and would not have a continuous use or impact on parking and traffic • Sunday also tends to be the day with reduced traffic and so the use as a church would have, in the opinion of the Roads Department, a much lower impact than the proposed venue • Noting the above, the Roads Department is anecdotally aware that its use as a church did cause concerns – particularly around dangerous or irresponsible parking 7.17. The Roads Department acknowledge that parking requirements may be reduced within town centres where there is good public transport provision (referring to the Argyll & Bute Council ‘Roads Technical Development Guidance’ (RTGD)). The applicant’s Active Travel Plan provides details on public transport links and promotion of walking and cycling. It is noted that the bus service within Bute is limited in the evenings, with the town centre services finishing at 6 p.m. While the RTGD allows parking requirements to be reduced, the request in this case is being made that parking requirements should be removed completely. As there is no off-street capacity and limited on-street availability, the Roads Department do not find this to be acceptable. 7.18. The concluding points from the Roads Department are that they consider that neither the nearest local public car parks nor the streets surrounding the application property are able to accommodate the increase in demand for parking that would result from the proposed development. Further to this, their concern remains that the impact arising from the lack of parking provision would be detrimental to road safety, traffic management and parking within Rothesay. 7.19. The concerns of the Roads Department are acknowledged and this issue requires to be considered carefully. In the narrative associated with LDP2 Policy 40, Paragraph 6.24 states that, “in the Main Towns, there is an acceptance that zero parking provision can be appropriate for certain categories of developments. This is justified on the basis that some types of development are able to function effectively within these central areas without requiring on-site parking, relying instead on central area public car parking provision and the availability of public transport services.” 7.20. When assessing change of use applications, it is a key material consideration to take into account the existing use. It is important to note that this Church has never had off-
Page 37
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 street parking and cannot accommodate it. Information submitted in support of the application explains that extensive research into the usage of the church and the corresponding visitors with cars has been carried out by the applicant/agent. It mentions that the church could accommodate 650 persons and it estimates that the weekly Sunday Service had 60 parishioners whilst funerals could have between 120 and 650 mourners (the frequency of funerals was more than every week in the final year prior to the building’s closure). For the events held at Trinity Church for decades, traffic would generally be arriving, parking and leaving at the same time. 7.21. The proposed maximum capacity of the new centre will be 200 people and these will mainly arrive on foot / wheels / bikes and scooters in line with Argyll and Bute Active Travel Campaign. Due to the nature of the proposed booking system, the visitors to the site will be spread uniformly throughout the day between the hours of 9.00 and 21.00 Monday to Sunday. As such, there will not be periods with large groups of people arriving by car. This capacity is, therefore, significantly less than the previous use and the departures and arrivals are dispersed throughout the week rather than being concentrated to one day. 7.22. The site has lawfulness as a Class 10 (Non-Residential Institutions) use under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended). The following uses could be carried out without the need for Planning Permission: as a crèche, day nursery or day centre; for the provision of education; for the display of works of art (otherwise than for sale or hire); as a museum; as a public library or public reading room; as a public hall or exhibition hall; and as a law court. 7.23. As no Planning Permission would be needed for the introduction of the above uses, there would be no element of control by the Planning Authority in terms of the number of people arriving and their mode of travel. 7.24. The applicant’s Active Travel Plan contains a number of elements (e.g. the implementation of the booking system, the provision of clear and accessible travel information at the point of booking and prior to arrival, the offering of incentives to encourage sustainable travel choices, the formation of cycle parking at the site, etc.) and conditions can be used to secure the Active Travel Plan and in turn control the numbers of people in the venue at one time and the opening hours. 7.25. On examining the parking survey it is clear there is on-street parking capacity close to the facility, in particular High Street (Zone 11) has capacity for 63 cars and there are always spaces on both weekdays and weekends for around 15 to 20 cars on average. King Street (Zone 15) is also highlighted as having capacity of around 10 spaces on average. 7.26. It is agreed that the location of this proposed development, even though not in the town centre, is very close to sustainable transport including the ferry terminal which is within 2 minutes walk and a minute cycle of the facility. In addition, most of the local hotels/guest houses are within a 15-minute walk. There are two bus stops on the same street as the development. The aspirations that are inherent in NPF4 Policy 13 and Policy 33 of LDP2 highlight the importance of walking, cycling and proximity to public transport links. The agent has advised that storage space for four bicycles together with e-bike charging could be accommodated in part of the ground floor of the building and this can be achieved by condition. 7.27. It is also noted that there are significant constraints associated with the provision of off- street parking within the site. The desirability of retaining the existing front boundary walls and forecourt levels as being integral to the listed character of the building make the
Page 38
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 introduction of off-street accessible parking both technically challenging and undesirable in conservation terms, particularly given that one of the stated aims of the project is to keep as much of the original character of the property as possible. Instead, the intention is that provision would be made through the creation of additional on-street disabled parking bays adjacent to the entrance and negotiations would be undertaken with the Roads Department to include the identification of three disabled parking bays. 7.28. The Department acknowledges the points made by the Roads Department and, indeed, similar concerns were expressed to the applicant regarding the capacity within nearby streets and in the car parks. However, the property is a Category B Listed Building and is currently not being used. There are particular difficulties in finding alternative uses for large ecclesiastical buildings such as Trinity Church. In addition, there tend to be high maintenance costs associated with the historic nature of this type of building. The objective of bringing the property back into viable use and avoiding it becoming derelict through a lack of maintenance might not be sufficiently robust on its own to justify departing from the car parking requirements but it does make a contribution to preparing a compelling case. 7.29. In bringing together the points made in Sections 7.20 to 7.28 above, the following material considerations are considered to cumulatively represent a robust case in justifying the proposal as a minor departure from LDP2 Policy 40: • Trinity Church is a Category B Listed Building and one of its key features is the quality of the boundary treatment of the frontage onto Castle Street, comprising the low-coped stone wall; the panelled gate piers flanking the central entry; and the pyramidal caps surmounted by decorative cast-iron lamp standards. The provision of off-street parking would result in the loss of this feature to the detriment of the townscape of this part of the Rothesay Conservation Area • It is understood that, due to there being no areas of vacant land in the applicant’s ownership, there are no options for providing off-street parking in relation to the proposed development • The parking surveys submitted as part of the application identify that there is on- street parking capacity exceeding the notional demand of 29 spaces close to the facility, in particular High Street (Zone 11) has capacity for 63 cars and there are always spaces on both weekdays and weekends for around 15 to 20 cars on average. King Street (Zone 15) is also highlighted as having capacity of around 10 spaces on average. • The capacity of the proposed use is 200 people, which is significantly less than the existing use as a church which is 600 people • The lawful use of the site is as a Class 10 Non-Residential Institution and the other uses that could be introduced under this classification without the need for Planning Permission have the potential to generate relatively large numbers of movements. In the absence of permission being required, the Planning Authority would have no mechanisms by which to mitigate the impact of these uses • The Active Travel Plan has a number of measures to control the arrivals and departures and overall capacity at any one time and this Travel Plan can be secured by condition thereby providing a degree of influence on travel methods and limitation on car usage
Page 39
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 • The site is also well served by sustainable transport options, including adjacent bus stops and the main bus terminal at Guildford Square where most residents will arrive and depart at Rothesay, a nearby taxi rank, the ferry terminal (the source of one of the key target market), and safe pedestrian routes with dedicated crossing points • The aspirations inherent in National Planning Framework 4 where development proposals which are ambitious in terms of low/no parking will be supported, particularly in urban areas that are well served by sustainable transport modes 8. Infrastructure, Water Management and Waste Facilities 8.1. NPF4 and LDP2 policies seek to ensure that, wherever possible, developments should connect into publicly adopted water and wastewater systems. They support proposed developments that would not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others or be at risk themselves and they advocate that all rain and surface water should be managed through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). 8.2. Water supply and foul drainage will be by means of the existing connections to the publicly adopted network. The consultation response from Scottish Water does not highlight any particular issues with these proposed arrangements but advises that further investigations may require to be carried out should any formal approaches be made to them by the developer in the future. On this basis, officers are satisfied in principle that there are no known constraints in respect of public water and sewage infrastructure. 8.3. In terms of potential flood risk, parts of the application site are shown on the SEPA Future Flood Maps as being at risk from surface water flooding. However, the proposal principally relates to the change of use of existing buildings with relatively minimal external works (small link between the church and the rear hall; new covered terrace on the rear hall; and outdoor play equipment in rear curtilage). As such, it is arguable whether the development would increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk. In these circumstances, a precautionary approach is advocated whereby a condition is recommended that seeks details of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) for the any hardstanding areas. 8.4. NPF4 and LDP2 policies require that commercial developments make effective provision for the storage, recycling, composting (where appropriate), separation and collection of waste from within the site or when appropriate, from an appropriate roadside or other specified collection point or points (for onward reuse and recycling). 8.5. In terms of the storage of waste, Drawing No. 1473_102 Rev C ‘Proposed Block Plan’ identifies an area for the siting of bins along the westernmost boundary of the site and finalised details of this arrangement will be secured via a condition. 8.6. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to suitably worded conditions, the proposed development is considered to accord with NPF4 Policies 12 and 22 and LDP2 Policies 55, 60 and 63 as listed in Section (J) of this report. 9. Archaeology 9.1 NPF4 and LDP2 policies presume in favour of retaining, protecting, conserving and enhancing the existing archaeological heritage. They explain that, where there is potential for non-designated buried archaeological remains to exist below a site, developers should provide an evaluation of the archaeological resource at an early stage so that Planning
Page 40
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Authorities can assess impacts. Historic buildings may also have archaeological significance which is not understood and may require assessment. 9.2 In this particular case, the West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) have advised that the church falls within the area of increased archaeological sensitivity associated with the probable core of early settlement at Rothesay. Although the current church building dates from 1843-45, it occupies a site that is likely to have been in use before this date and the fact that the site is shown as being developed in the mid-18th century would suggest that there would be some potential for ground disturbance in this area to produce sub-surface archaeological material relating to occupation from this period, and potentially extending back to earlier phases in the development of the town. 9.3 WoSAS have explained that, based on various factors, the section of the site with the greatest potential to produce significant archaeological material would likely be along the street frontage. However, the supplied plans suggest that no substantial ground disturbance would take place in this part of the site. 9.4 Most ground disturbance associated with the proposal would take place towards the rear of the church building, to create the link extension to connect it to the former church hall, and in the ground around the hall for the installation of the various pieces of outdoor play equipment. Given that the amount of this ground disturbance appears likely to be reasonably limited, WoSAS accept that, on balance, the potential for this proposal to encounter and remove significant sub-surface archaeological material is likely to be too low to warrant a programme of archaeological work. 9.5 On the basis of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to accord with NPF4 Policy 7(o) and LDP2 Policy 21 as listed in Section (J) of this report.