Agenda reports pack
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
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 12 August 2026 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 19 AUGUST 2026 at 10:30 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 9 June 2026 (Pages 3 - 6) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 June 2026 (Pages 7 - 16) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 June 2026 at 10.30 am (Pages 17 - 24) (d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 17 June 2026 at 2.00 pm (Pages 25 - 26) 4. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW (Pages 27 - 34) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support 5. FABULOUSLY SCOTTISH HOTELS (OBAN) LTD: ERECTION OF HOTEL: CAR PARK, SHORE STREET, OBAN (REF: 21/01584/PP) (Pages 35 - 66) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 6. 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 Public Document Pack
Page 2
EXTENSION AND ASSOCIATED WORKS: TRINITY CHURCH, 26 CASTLE STREET, ROTHESAY, ISLE OF BUTE (25/01690/PP) (Pages 67 - 108) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 7. MR S ISLAM: CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR RETAIL UNIT TO CAFÉ/RESTAURANT AND TWO SHORT TERM HOLIDAY LETS ALONG WITH THE EXTERNAL COLOUR CHANGE: ZINC ORGANICS (THE REST), THE OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING, CAMPBELTOWN ROAD, TARBERT (REF: 26/00047/PP) (Pages 109 - 130) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 8. LADYFIELD RENEWABLE ENERGY PARK LTD: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF APPROXIMATELY 3.2KM OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLING AND ASSOCIATED TEMPORARY WORKS REQUIRED TO CONNECT THE LADYFIELD RENEWABLE ENERGY PARK TO THE SSENT CREAG DHUBH SUBSTATION: LAND BETWEEN LADYFIELD ENERGY PARK AND CREAG DHUBH SUBSTATION APPROXIMATELY 8KM NORTH OF INVERARAY (REF: 26/00986/PAN) (Pages 131 - 136) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green (Vice-Chair) Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Willie Hume Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (CIVIC HEARINGS) held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 9 JUNE 2026 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Susan Mair, Legal Manager Janeanne Gilchrist, Applicant Daniel Gillespie, Applicant Stewart MacLennan, Applicant Iain MacKinnon, Applicant Neil MacKay, Applicant Superintendent Mark Stirling, Police Scotland 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Councillor Daniel Hampsey. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 SECTION 41: APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE (TIREE MUSIC FESTIVAL CIC) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this meeting the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Janeanne Gilchrist along with Daniel Gillespie, Stewart MacLennan, Neil MacKay and Iain MacKinnon joined the meeting by MS Teams. Police Scotland also opted to proceed by way of video call and Superintendent Mark Stirling joined the meeting by MS Teams. Following a Civic Hearing which took place on 20 May 2026, consideration of the application was continued to allow further discussions between Police Scotland and the Applicant, and to enable clarification of outstanding matters, including consideration of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. Only those Members who had been present at the hearing on 20 May 2026 participated in the determination of the application. The Chair invited the Legal Manager to provide an update on the outstanding matters. Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Ms Mair advised that two matters had arisen at the previous hearing. Firstly, a query had been raised regarding the relevance of the Islands (Scotland) Act. She advised that this had since been considered and it was confirmed that the Act is not directly relevant to the Committee’s quasi-judicial determination of the application, as it primarily relates to policy and strategic considerations. Secondly, further discussions had taken place between Police Scotland and the Applicant in relation to the proposed policing resource. It was noted that a meeting had taken place between the parties, at which Police Scotland had presented a revised proposal involving a significantly reduced cost. The Applicant, however, had confirmed that their position remained unchanged and that they were not satisfied that sufficient evidence had been provided to justify the level of policing resource proposed by Police Scotland. Councillor Philand sought clarification on whether details of the revised offer from Police Scotland could be outlined, noting that this may be significant to the Committee’s deliberations. The Legal Manager advised, based on discussions with Police Scotland, that the revised proposal involved a reduction in the policing resource. She understood that this included replacing one of the six previously proposed officers with a Special Constable and confirming that the cost for one officer would not be charged to the Applicant. The Chair advised that the Committee required to adhere strictly to the agreed procedure and that if either party were to be brought into discussions at this stage, the matter should be referred back through the appropriate procedural stage. He suggested that if clarification of the position was required, the Legal Manager could seek clarification directly with Police Scotland. In order to facilitate the required clarification the Chair moved and the Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting at 14:45. The meeting reconvened at 14:50, with all those present as per the sederunt. At this time Ms Mair confirmed that five officers (including one Special Constable) would be present and the Applicant would be charged for four. A further point of order was raised in relation to fairness, noting that Police Scotland had been given the opportunity to clarify their position through the Legal Manager. The Chair advised that if any Member required a point of clarification from the Applicant, that this could be facilitated. The Chair invited the Members to debate and come to a decision on this application. DEBATE Councillor Kain outlined his extensive experience of over 40 years working with police forces across the UK. He advised that threat assessments are inherently imprecise and rely significantly on the experience and judgement of those undertaking them. He referred to the level of policing previously considered acceptable in circumstances where large numbers of people were unpoliced and questioned whether the current requirement for six officers was proportionate. He noted that there was no statutory requirement specifying the number of police officers to be present and emphasised that the primary responsibility rests with the Applicant to ensure a robust and credible risk assessment is in place, including appropriate contingency planning and liaison with emergency services. He further commented that assumptions regarding the likelihood of a terrorist incident should be carefully considered, noting that while such events are theoretically possible, risk Page 4
Page 5
assessments should focus on credible and evidence-based scenarios rather than hypothetical extremes. Councillor Kain advised that in his opinion, the Applicant had demonstrated, over a number of years, the ability to undertake appropriate risk assessments and manage events effectively through the use of private security. He summed up by advising that providing that the current risk assessment adequately addresses all likely scenarios, he could see no reason why the Application should not be granted. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Ms Mair on the available options for determination, noting that the application could be refused, granted or granted subject to the conditions outlined within the recommendations at paragraph 5.1 of the report. Councillor Hardie advised that from a public safety perspective, he would feel more reassured by a police presence and indicated support for granting the Application subject to the inclusion of the conditions outlined at paragraph 5.1 of the report. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle indicated support for granting the application but was of the view that the proposed policing requirement, as set out in the report, was excessive. She suggested that the condition relating to the requirement for up to six police officers should be removed. Councillor Green clarified that it was not for the Committee to determine the operational number of police officers and sought and received confirmation from Councillor Kennedy- Boyle that the proposal was to remove the requirement for a police presence as a condition. Discussion around the wording of condition 5(2) was had with it being noted that the number of police officers to be deployed, up to a maximum of six remained an operational matter for Police Scotland. Motion That the application be granted in accordance with the recommendations as set out in paragraph 5.1 of the report, subject to the removal of condition 5(2). Moved by Councillor Andrew Kain, seconded by Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Amendment That the application be granted in accordance with the recommendations as set out in paragraph 5.1 of the report. Moved by Councillor Graham Hardie, seconded by Councillor Jan Brown. With there being no further debate, Members proceeded to consider the Motion and Amendment. As the meeting was held on a remote basis, the vote required to be taken by calling the Roll and Members voted as follows:- Motion Amendment Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor John Armour Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Graham Hardie Page 5
Page 6
Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Decision The Amendment was carried by 6 votes to 2 and the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee resolved accordingly. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 6
Page 7
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (SHORT-TERM LET HEARINGS) held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 16 JUNE 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor Roderick MacLean, Licensing Standards Officer Sarah Fitzgerald, Applicant Keith Shanks, Applicant’s Agent Iain Martin, Objector James Crawford, Objector Patricia Crawford, Objector Kathleen Watters, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Armour, Jan Brown, Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Graham Archibald Hardie and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE TO S & D FITZGERALD, 15 LOCH DRIVE, HELENSBURGH The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant and their agent opted to proceed by way of video call and Sarah Fitzgerald and Keith Shanks joined the meeting by Microsoft Teams. Iain Martin, James and Patricia Crawford, and Margaret Watters, Objectors, also opted to proceed by way of video call and joined the meeting by Microsoft Teams. David Townsend and Colette Lafferty McGaw, Objectors, opted to proceed by way of written submission and a copy of these objections were contained within the Agenda pack and supplementary Agenda pack for this hearing. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Page 7 Agenda Item 3b
Page 8
Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 18 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicant and their Agent to speak in support for their application. APPLICANT The Applicant advised that a substantive response to objections raised had been submitted for the Committee’s information, and was included in the Agenda pack. The Applicant advised that the property was her family home, and that the intention was for the property to only be advertised for let during periods when the family would be away from the home. She advised that they had two young children, family and friends in the immediate area, and were fully embedded in the community. She noted that she had been brought up in Helensburgh and viewed it as her home. She advised that they had invested a lot of time, money and energy into making the property their home and it was not intended to be, either now on in the future, a commercial enterprise. She emphasised that they were looking at using the property as a Short-Term Let during periods where the property would otherwise be vacant due to the work commitments of both her and her husband, who had recently undertaken a new position as Head Teacher of a school in Dunblane, which occasionally required boarding responsibilities and overnight care of pupils. The Applicant advised that it was not her intention for the property to be used as a place to have parties. She noted that the property had two rooms specifically set up for toddlers, and a climbing frame in the garden for children. She noted that it was not a party house, and that this would not be the intended or advertised purpose. She highlighted that the property was fully compliant with all safety requirements, and a robust management plan was in place to address any issues which may arise. The Applicant advised that they would also be using the services of a Managing Agent, BnBHost, who had been highly recommended by a local Estate Agent. She advised that this would assist in providing an extra layer of protection around the management of the property, if a licence was to be granted. The Applicant advised that she was a Human Rights lawyer, who had been involved in shaping legislation around privacy laws in the UK. She advised that she took the right to privacy very seriously and would take every step possible to preserve her neighbour’s right to privacy. She highlighted that the objections outlined in relation to privacy were largely speculative and were not relevant to the application before the Committee. The Applicant also advised that there had never been any previous complaints, when the family or guests were at the property, from neighbours in relation to noise. She noted that the communal areas were not adjacent to the party walls and were separated by numerous doors which assisted in reducing noise transfer. The Applicant reiterated that the property was fully compliant with all requirements and was a well-managed family home. She advised that it was not the intention for the property to be used for full time letting, and that people staying in the property would be allowed to do so only in well-managed circumstances. The Applicant passed to her Agent to summarise additional details in support of the application. Page 8
Page 9
The Applicant’s Agent advised that when first discussing the potential Short-Term Let with the Applicant, respect for neighbours had been one of her main priorities. He provided details of the management plan which had been created in discussion with the Applicants, and the basis for much of this plan was to ensure mutual respect and a peaceful co- existence between parties. He outlined his companies significant experience in management, and ways in which procedures were put in place to ensure neighbours were respected and operational disruption was kept to a minimum. The Applicant’s agent advised that the property’s marketing would be aimed towards families, and that the Applicant had made it clear during their meetings that the children’s rooms would remain as children’s rooms and that the outdoor play area would remain in place. He noted that this would naturally mean that the property would not be attractive to large groups of adults, and that it would be made clear in the advertising that the property was targeted towards families. The Applicant’s Agent advised that they would have a robust vetting process in place for guests wishing to stay in the property, including background checks carried out by a third- party agency. He noted that this would include verification of identity documents, credit card information and additional verification by BnBHost staff trained in vetting, to request details of all guests. He advised that, where guests did not agree to take part in this vetting, or issues were raised during the vetting process, the booking would not go ahead. He advised that, in addition to the above, it is the policy of BnBHost not to allow Stag or Hen parties at any of their properties, and this would be clearly stated to any potential guests. The Applicant’s Agent advised that they would use local cleaning companies, and that there were local contacts who could be available to respond to any issues quickly. He advised that laundry and linen were cleaned and laundered off site to minimise disruption. He advised that anyone attending the property regularly for operational reasons would be familiarised with where to park, how and where to take the bins out, and would be familiar with the property. The Applicant’s Agent advised that all guests would also be provided with a guidebook and a list of strict house rules, including designated quiet hours. He advised that guests would be asked to check in between 4pm-6pm to avoid disruption, and where this was not possible, they would be familiarised with the check in process in advance. He noted that guidebooks would include information such as how to use the bins appropriately, where to park, what the quiet hours would be, any other designated house rules, and how to use appliances appropriately. He advised that the second part of the guidebook would also include information in relation to the local area, contributing to an economic boost for the local community. The Applicant’s Agent advised that his intention would always be to be respectful to neighbours, and he would be open to having a direct line of communication with them. He advised that, if the licence was to be granted, he would provide direct contact details to neighbours and also facilitate introductions to relevant staff. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS The Chair invited Objectors to ask questions in relation to the presentation provided by the Applicant and her Agent. Page 9
Page 10
Iain Martin, Objector, advised that he had concerns about the vetting process. He noted that 8 strangers regularly coming to a quiet, residential street was concerning, and asked how it was possible to know that guests would not take part in anti-social behaviour? He advised that he had stayed in Airbnb properties previously which had not required additional vetting processes as outlined by the Applicant’s Agent and noted his concern that in using a Managing Agent the property was going to become a business which was not appropriate for the quiet, residential street. He noted his concerns that neighbours would be left to monitor the situation, which he did not feel they should have to do. He emphasised his concerns in relation to privacy and security and noted that he believed that this would have an impact on the wellbeing of people on the street who were retired and/or vulnerable. The Chair reminded Mr Martin that this was an opportunity to ask questions in relation to the presentation provided by the Applicant and their agent, and that Objectors would have an opportunity to outline their objections at a later point in the hearing. Mr Martin asked how it was possible to ensure that the vetting would be appropriate, and that the guests would be families visiting the property for good reason, and not to have parties? The Applicant’s Agent responded that the property would be marketed towards families, and that the lead booker would undertake a background check process through a third- party company as he had mentioned previously. He advised that his staff would also request the names and ages of all guests staying in the property, and that if potential guests failed to provide this information, then the booking would not go ahead. He advised that the occupancy of 8 guests is a maximum, however based on other properties of a similar size across the area, it was likely that the average number of guests would be around 5. He noted that devices can be put in place to monitor things such as noise decibel levels, and that procedures can be put in place to assist with additional monitoring if required. James Crawford, Objector, advised that the Applicant had commented that the objections were speculative, but that this was not the case and should not be viewed in isolation of the context and history of the property. He advised that, although there had not previously been concerns around noise levels at the property, this had been when the Applicant was a resident of the property. The Chair reminded Mr Crawford that this was an opportunity to ask questions in relation to the presentation provided by the Applicant and their agent, and that Objectors would have an opportunity to outline their objections at a later point in the hearing. Mr Crawford advised that in the written response provided by the Applicants, in the last two paragraphs there were references to requirements around data protection and confidentiality. He advised that he found this to be a strange inclusion, and was unsure whether this superseded the GDPR requirements set out by Argyll & Bute Council at the beginning of the process. The Governance Manager advised that this question did not relate to the presentation which had been provided by the Applicant and their Agent. Mr Crawford responded that he would reserve his questions for the appropriate part of the hearing, when he was speaking to his objections. OBJECTORS Page 10
Page 11
The Chair invited Objectors to speak to their objections. Iain Martin Mr Martin advised that a written submission of his objections had been provided to the Committee. He advised that his first objection was based on the fact that the property was on a quiet, residential street which was home to a number of vulnerable residents. He advised that a Short-Term Let at the scale proposed would have an impact on the noise, privacy, security, and wellbeing of residents. He noted that vulnerable people on the street, and particularly those of an advanced age and/or with health problems, should not be subjected to 8 strangers coming into the street on a regular basis. Mr Martin advised that he did not believe that the vetting process outlined by the Applicant’s Agent would be successful, and that this would be left for the residents of the street to monitor, which he did not consider to be fair. Mr Martin noted that the size of the property, with 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms and 2 public rooms, as well as a large garden area with bar, was likely to attract large groups rather than individuals or couples. He noted his concerns that this would lead to party groups booking the property, which he did not believe the outlined vetting process would prevent. He advised that this was not consistent with the quiet nature of the street, and that this would be detrimental to the neighbourhood on a large scale and in breach of Article 8 of the UK Human Rights Act and their right to privacy, safety and security. Mr Martin noted his objection to the Applicant’s position that the property would not be viewed as a business, as he believed that the use of a Managing Agent for the property confirmed that the enterprise was profit-driven. He reiterated his belief that a business of this type was not suitable for the area. Mr Martin advised that he did not believe that responses provided by the Applicants and their Agent had resolved or addressed his objections. James Crawford Mr Crawford advised that a written submission of his objections had been provided to the Committee. He noted that he would not highlight all of these objections, but would focus on the main points. Mr Crawford advised that he did not feel that the responses provided by the Applicants addressed the objections submitted, and instead raised further concerns. He noted his belief that repeated references to limited rental time and children and families were misleading. He advised that the use of a Managing Agent was a clear indicator that the property would not be used infrequently, as stated, and could potentially be used for up to 46 weeks of the year for guests. He suggested that, if it were truly to be used solely occasionally, it would have been better to put signage up locally, such as in the garden, rather than advertise it through a Managing Agent. Mr Crawford referred to previous issues experienced with neighbours involving noise from the garden bar, and equipment being placed in the garden including diggers, skips and scaffolding. He suggested that, if the Applicant and their Agent genuinely wished to prevent large groups, party-goers, and contractors from using the property, then it should Page 11
Page 12
be possible to commit these requirements to writing to avoid the possibility of them applying to stay in the property. He enquired about how the property could be managed by an Agent without being profit- driven, and noted that there would be a financial motivation for BnBHost to bring in a large number of guests to maximise their profit. He advised that he did not believe that targeting the property specifically at families was sustainable financially, and that this would lead to contractors and other large groups being guests of the property. Mr Crawford also reiterated his concerns around the inclusion of data protection and non- disclosure requirements in the response provided by the Applicants, and enquired about why this was included and whether it superseded the terms set out by Argyll & Bute Council. The Chair advised that it would not be appropriate, or within the scope of the Committee’s remit, to investigate or comment on contractual agreements between the Applicant and their Agent. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT The Chair invited the Applicant and their Agent to ask questions in relation to the objections outlined by the Objectors. The Applicant and their Agent advised that they appreciated the concerns raised by the Objectors, but had no questions at this time. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS The Chair invited Members to ask questions to the Applicant, their Agent, or the Objectors. Councillor Kain advised that the submissions indicated that the property was the primary residence of the Applicants, however it was evident that both Applicants work circumstances required them to regularly be away from Helensburgh. He asked for clarification that the property was used as a primary residence of the Applicants. The Applicant confirmed that the property was her main residence, noting that the responsibilities of her husband involved him residing in tied accommodation at times due to overnight boarding duties. She confirmed that this, alongside work commitments, required them to live between different locations. She confirmed that the property was her primary residence and was registered as such, and that she had no other tenancies. Councillor Kain sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that she had insurance in place to cover the change of use for the property. Councillor Kennedy sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that it was the intention of the Applicant and their family to return to the property in the future as their permanent residence. The Applicant advised that she viewed the property as their forever home, and that it was always their intention to live there, however they were navigating a change in work circumstances which had led to them looking for options for the property during periods of vacancy. Page 12
Page 13
Councillor Kennedy sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that they would not object to a similar application made on the street, if they were residents of a neighbouring property. The Applicant advised that she had a respectful relationship with neighbours, and was saddened that it had come to this point but understood their objections. She noted that she would have been open to having conversations with neighbours prior to this point, to better understand and alleviate their concerns. Councillor Philand sought clarification from the Applicant’s Agent in relation to the vetting process, and what this would involve. The Applicant’s Agent confirmed that the vetting process involved questions asked by trained members of BnBHost staff in relation to the use of the property and guests names and ages, as well as a third-party company who would undertake background checks of prospective guests, including criminal record checks. He advised that this was subject to guests agreeing to provide this information, however if they did not agree to provide it then the booking would not proceed. Councillor Philand asked who would deal with any noise complaints arising, from a local perspective? The Applicant’s Agent advised that a member of staff based in Dumbarton would be the first point of contact for this. The Applicant advised that they also had family and close friends who would be able to, and were prepared to, attend if required. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle requested an update on works to be carried out on an adjoining fire wall, as highlighted in the report. The Applicant confirmed that these works had been instructed, and would be completed shortly. She noted that there had been slippage to the timescales for this work, due to the overrun of a job currently being undertaken by the builders. The Chair asked how regularly the Applicant’s Agent had experienced issues with managed properties across the area. The Applicant’s Agent advised that they were experienced and comfortable with the management plan that they had in place for their properties, noting that they had only previously had one issue with a party at a Glasgow property during Covid restrictions, and that this was resolved very quickly. He reiterated that this property was unlikely to attract party goers, but rather families looking to experience the local area. He advised that, if the licence was to be granted, he would introduce relevant parties to the neighbours and ensure that they were provided with appropriate contact details to highlight any concerns. SUMMING UP Objectors The Chair invited the Objectors to sum up their objections. Iain Martin Mr Martin advised that this main objection was in relation to privacy, and highlighted his concerns that up to 8 people would be coming to stay in the neighbouring property who were strangers. He advised that he was concerned that he did not know them, or where they would be coming from, and was concerned about people looking into the windows and gardens of neighbouring properties. He reiterated his concerns in relation to noise, security and privacy. Mr Martin advised that, as a long-term resident of the street, he did not feel that it was appropriate and that it would affect the wellbeing and health of other residents. Page 13
Page 14
James Crawford Mr Crawford reiterated his concerns in relation to the GDPR information provided by the Applicants. He also advised that, although commitments were made verbally by the Applicant and their Agent, there was nothing written down to provide reassurance in relation to this. He advised that the type of people who the property could attract was concerning, and he believed it was perfectly reasonable for the request for only families to be allowed to stay to be put in writing. Mr Crawford advised that if it was likely that all guests would be respectful, then there would be no requirement for vetting procedures. He advised that it was fine to have a management plan in place, but he felt that the burden of highlighting concerns in relation to guests was being unfairly left to elderly and frail neighbours. Mr Crawford noted that he was concerned about the duration of the property being used for Short-Term Letting, given that the careers of the Applicants could see them not using the property as their full time home for the foreseeable future. Kathleen Watters Ms Watters advised that all of the objections highlighted in her written submission still stood, and she agreed with Mr Martin and Mr Crawford that the commitments made by the Applicant and their Agent should be committed to writing. She noted that she did not believe that the objections highlighted had been sufficiently addressed. Applicant The Chair invited the Applicant and their Agent to sum up their position. The Applicant advised that the property had CCTV at the front and rear, which is monitored regularly. She advised that this would continue to be the case going forward, and that she would also be in Helensburgh every week to monitor the property. She noted that she would ensure any disturbances were dealt with promptly, and reiterated that she was invested in avoiding disruption to neighbouring properties. The Applicant noted that she had not engaged the services of BnBHost due to profit, but due to their reputation and professionalism. She advised that this was also done to provide an additional layer of protection, and that no minimum terms for leasing or amounts had been agreed. She advised that the property would not be leased full time, and that the suggestion that it could be leased for up to 46 weeks of the year was not in line with her expectations for the property. She advised that she was also happy for BnBHost to ensure that guests were appropriately vetted, and that the property was cleaned and maintained to a high standard. She reiterated that the decision to use BnBHost was not in relation to profit, but due to the services that they could provide and their reputation. The Applicant advised that the garden bar area had been implemented by the previous owners of the property, and would be removed in due course. She noted that guests would not have access to the garden bar. The Applicant advised that her family frequently travelled together as a multi-generational family, and the size of the property did not necessarily indicate that it would be suitable for Page 14
Page 15
large party groups. She advised that it was their family home, and that they were invested in making the process work in a way that was respectful to all parties, including taking the opinions of neighbours into account. She noted that this was solely an option being taken forward during periods when the house would otherwise be empty. The Applicant’s Agent reiterated that, when he had first discussed the potential lease of the property with the Applicant, she had emphasised the importance of respecting neighbours and ensuring that the property was well looked after by guests. He noted that he was open to working with the Applicant and neighbours to provide additional comfort in the process. He advised that the management of a property was not a one-size fits all process, and emphasised that the company had years of experience in navigating best practice. He reiterated that the property would be clearly listed as not accepting stag or hen parties, and that it would be clear through the listing that the property was not suitable for parties. When asked, Iain Martin, Objector, and the Applicant and Applicant’s Agent confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. John and Patricia Crawford and Kathleen Watters, Objectors, advised that they did not feel that they had received a fair hearing. Councillor Kennedy left the meeting at this point, and did not return. DEBATE Councillor Kain advised that he generally had concerns around applications for Short- Term Let Licences in populated areas. He noted his opinion that the leasing of the property had the potential to cause further dissent in the community. He advised that he was concerned that the property would not be used as a permanent home for the Applicants for some time, due to work circumstances. The Chair advised that he understood the angst that this had caused within the community, especially given the close proximity to their premises, but noted that his own personal experiences of Airbnbs in his local area had been very positive. He noted that the properties could be very well managed, and open opportunities to interact with people from around the world. He emphasised that he understood that this did not prevent things from going wrong at times, but he was satisfied with the suggested conditions included in the report, as well as the commitments outlined by the Applicant and their Agent. The Chair advised that he believed that the checks and balances suggested were likely to be sufficient to address the concerns raised, and noted that he did not believe that everyone using Airbnb would be doing so to have parties. He advised that he would be happy to support the recommendation to approve the licence, subject to the inclusion of additional conditions relating to anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, and damage to property outlined in the report. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle advised that she had listened closely to the Applicant and Agent in terms of the proposed management of the property, as well as the concerns raised by Objectors. She advised that she believed some assumptions were being made which may not reflect the reality of experience. She advised that she believed that the Licensing Standards Officer had addressed concerns raised with the recommendation of additional conditions outlined in the report, as well as the mandatory conditions set out for all properties as standard. She advised that, while the concerns raised by Objectors were expressed well, she did feel that Officers had addressed these appropriately. Page 15
Page 16
Councillor Green advised that he concurred that the concerns raised by neighbours were often naturally shared, but felt that these concerns could be appropriately addressed by the recommended additional conditions outlined in the report. He noted that substantial reassurance had been received from the Applicant and their Agent, and noted his belief that, subject to the additional recommended conditions, the Licence would be appropriate to grant. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Sarah and Dominic Fitzgerald subject to the inclusion of additional conditions set out in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, and damage to property. The Applicant would be notified in writing of the above decision within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager and Written Submissions by Objectors, submitted) Page 16
Page 17
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE HELD BY MICROSOFT TEAMS ON WEDNESDAY, 17 JUNE 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor Emma Spence, Planning Officer Fiona Scott, Planning Officer David Moore, Senior Planning Officer Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader – Bute, Cowal, Helensburgh & Lomond 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillors Audrey Forrest, Liz McCabe and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (IF ANY) Councillor Paul Kennedy declared a financial interest in agenda item 4 (Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982: Taxi Fare Scale Review) as he holds a taxi operator license. He advised that he did not consider the connection to be significant and would remain in the meeting, however, would take no part in the discussion and decision on this item. Councillor Fiona Howard advised in relation to item 7 (Helensburgh Golf Club, Cala Management Ltd & Dunbritton Housing: Proposal of Application Notice for Residential Development) of the agenda that she had been appointed to the Dunbritton Housing Board by the Council. Having taken note of the updated Standards Commission Guidance in relation to declarations (issued on 7 December 2021) with specific reference to section 5.4(c) she did not consider that she had a relevant connection and as such would remain in the meeting. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 May 2026 at 11.30 am was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 May 2026 at 2.00 pm was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 May 2026 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. Page 17 Agenda Item 3c
Page 18
d) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 May 2026 at 10.00 am was approved as a correct record. e) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 May 2026 at 2.00 pm was approved as a correct record. 4. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW In terms of Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Local Authority requires to fix maximum fares and other charges in connection with the hire of taxis operating in their area and to review the scales for taxi fares and other charges on a regular basis. The new fare structure requires to come into force by 22 October 2026. The fares were last reviewed by Members on 18 December 2025 and took effect on 22 April 2025. Consideration was given to a report advising the Committee they were now required to carry out a further review of taxi fares and other charges. Decision The Committee agreed: 1. to propose that a 5% increase be implemented in relation to the maximum fares across tariffs 1, 2 and 3 and that this take effect from 22 October 2026; 2. to authorise the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support to advertise the proposed changes to tariffs and to invite any responses within one month of the advertisement and report back to Members at their meeting on 16 September 2026 on objections or representations received; and 3. should no objections or representations be received in relation to the proposal, to delegate to the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, in consultation with the Chair of the PPSL Committee to conclude the review without the requirement for the Committee to consider a further report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support dated 17 June 2026, submitted) 5. MR BRIAN MANGAN: CHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING PRIVATE/FAMILY USE POD TO SHORT TERM LETTING ACCOMMODATION: 11 ETIVE PARK, NORTH CONNEL (REF: 26/00161/PP) At the PPSL Committee meeting on 20 May 2026 it was agreed to continue consideration of this application until the Operational Management Plan was submitted for consideration by Members. The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of supplementary report number 2 which included the Operational Management Plan and supplementary report 3 which advised that an objection had been raised in response to this application by Councillor Julie McKenzie; and a further representation had been made in response to the submitted Operational Management Plan by Mr Ali Anderson. Page 18
Page 19
It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to the Report of Handling. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons: Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 05.02.2026; 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 31326-0001-01 01 03.02.2026 Proposed Site Plan 31326-0002-02 02 06.04.2026 Existing/Proposed Elevations and Floor Plan 31326-0002-02 01 04.02.2026 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Landscaping The increase in fence height as detailed on Proposed Site Plan - 31326-0002-02 shall be completed prior to the pod first being brought into use as short-term-let accommodation and shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of privacy and residential amenity. 3. Occupancy Restriction Notwithstanding the provisions of Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 the residential accommodation hereby approved shall be used for short-term holiday occupancy or ancillary accommodation related to the main dwellinghouse 11 Etive Park and not as a main residence and shall not be occupied by any family, group or individual for a cumulative period of more than three calendar months in any one year. A register showing dates of arrivals and departures shall be maintained at the premises and shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Planning Authority. Page 19
Page 20
Reason: In order to define the permitted occupancy having regard to the operational details submitted by the applicant and in order to avoid any potential privacy or amenity conflict which could otherwise arise. 4. Operational Management Plan Prior to the short-term-let accommodation being first brought into use, a detailed Operational Management Plan is to be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Management Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Minimum stay requirements. 2. How bookings will be recorded (pursuant to Condition 3). 3. Cleaning provision (frequency and access). 4. A description of parking and access for guest use. 5. Description of facilities provided for guest use. 6. Description of information to be provided to each guest including behavioural code of conduct. 7. How the pod and guest behaviour will be overseen and managed and the actions that the site manager will take to ensure compliance with the above. Reason: To ensure the short-term-let use is managed appropriately in the interests of residential amenity. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 29 April 2026, supplementary report number 1 dated 19 May 2026, supplementary report number 2 dated 5 June 2026 and supplementary report number 3 dated 16 June 2026, submitted) 6. WEST KINTYRE COMMUNITY COUNCIL: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PUBLIC TOILETS AND ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT PUBLIC TOILETS: PUBLIC TOILETS, TAYINLOAN (REF: 26/00436/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The application site is located at land adjacent to Tayinloan Slipway where ferry service is available connecting the Isle of Gigha. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) the application site is located within the Countryside Area wherein Policy 02 set out a presumption in favour of sustainable development where there is of appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location. Representations have been received from 19 respondents in relation to this planning application, 14 raise objection and 5 submit support. An objection has also been received from Gigha Community Council. Officers did not consider that the objections raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the report of handling and it is not considered that a discretionary hearing would add value to the planning process. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. Page 20
Page 21
It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons: Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP – Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 6.3.2026, 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. Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP – Biodiversity Enhancement Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, all physical biodiversity enhancement measures identified in the submitted biodiversity statement shall be implemented in full before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next available planting season following the development first being brought into use. Reason: To comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 17 June 2026, submitted) Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan 1/3 09.03.2026 Existing Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plan 25-3167-PP-01 09.03.2026 Proposed Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plan 25-3167-PP-02 09.03.2026 Biodiversity Statement 09.03.2026 Design Statement – 2 Pages 09.03.2026 Page 21
Page 22
7. HELENSBURGH GOLF CLUB, CALA MANAGEMENT LTD & DUNBRITTTON HOUSING: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOUSING ASSOCIATION); DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING AND RELOCATION OF A NEW CLUBHOUSE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND FACILITIES; A REVISION OF NEW AND RETAINED GOLF HOLES PROVIDING A REFRESHED 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE AND BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT AND MANAGEMENT: HELENSBURGH GOLF COURSE, 25 EAST ABERCROMBY STREET, HELENSBURGH (REF: 26/00856/PAN) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. This is an allocated housing site for 300 houses (H2004 – Helensburgh East). A small triangular area of land outside the housing allocation is included in the red line boundary at the south-eastern extent of the indicated site. This site has had previous grant of planning permission for housing and is within the settlement boundary. The land is understood to be under the control of Dunbritton Housing Association and will form part of the overall contribution towards affordable housing related to the wider development site. The boundary of the proposed application site forms part of both the existing Helensburgh Golf Club, a small area of settlement land, and an area of peatland known as “the Blackhill Mire” where the replacement golf holes are proposed to be constructed. The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and summarises the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. It was recommended that Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report and requested that flood mitigation measures be considered at the earliest possible stage of the developing project. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 29 May 2026, submitted) 8. PROGRAMME OF PROPOSED PLANNING TRAINING FOR MEMBERS Over many years a series of short training sessions or occasionally workshops/site visits have been delivered for all elected Members with an aim to improve knowledge or the planning system on a wide range of issues. A report seeking endorsement of the training programme from August to December 2026 was before the Committee for consideration. Decision Page 22
Page 23
The Committee agreed: 1. to continuing an ongoing programme of planning related training for Members of the PPSL Committee, which should also be open to any other Members not currently involved in planning decision-making; and 2. to endorse the initial subject areas for training and the provisional dates for delivery, on the understanding that the programme may be varied to take account of any additional training requirements Members may wish to identify, along with any other particular training needs identified by Officers as a consequence of matters emerging during the course of the year. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 21 May 2026, submitted) The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. E 1 9. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER Consideration was given to a request for a Tree Preservation Order. Decision The Committee agreed to the recommendation detailed in the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 17 June 2026, submitted) Page 23
Page 24
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 25
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (CIVIC HEARINGS) held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 17 JUNE 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Mr Richard Tavendale, Applicant David Walker, Solicitor Argyll and Bute Council Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Argyll and Bute Council 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jan Brown, Paul Donald Kennedy, Liz McCabe and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (TAVIES TAXIES, CAMPBELTOWN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant, Mr Richard Tavendale opted to proceed by way of audio call. The Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of their application APPLICANT Mr Tavendale advised that he had two taxi vehicles at present and required a third, to cover busy periods. Mr Tavendale further advised that with the new technology in the vehicles if one breaks down it could be off the roads for 6 weeks to 2 months, this third vehicle would ensure that the service offered to customers continues and the loses are kept to a minimum. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Kennedy-Boyle asked if the applicant thought there was an over provision of taxis in the area? Mr Tavendale advised that very recently another taxi firm had folded with the loss of two cars for hire in the area. Page 25 Agenda Item 3d
Page 26
Councillor Blair referred to the LVSA report and enquired if there was over provision in the area. Mr Walker, Solicitor, advised that when the LVSA report was undertaken there were 24 cars available for hire in the Campbeltown area, in 2023 there were 23 and now there are 19. SUMMING UP Applicant Mr Tavendale reiterated that to cover the busy period he required 3 vehicles to be available for hire, especially if one was off the road. When asked, the Applicant confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Armour stated that Tavies Taxis were a well-established taxi firm in the area, with a reputation of offering an excellent service and the extra provision would be welcomed. Councillor Armour confirmed that he would have no hesitation in approving the licence. Councillor Green stated that given the fall in taxi numbers in the area, he agreed with Councillor Armour and would be happy to approve the licence. Councillor Hardie agreed with his fellow Councillors, advising that given there were no objectors and the fall in numbers in provision of vehicles in the area, he too was happy to approve the licence. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Tavendale and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 26
Page 27
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 19 AUGUST 2026 CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In terms of Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Local Authority requires to fix maximum fares and other charges in connection with the hire of taxis operating in their area and to review the scales for taxi fares and other charges on a regular basis. The fares were last reviewed by members on 18th December 2024 and took effect on 22nd April 2025. The current maximum fares are: Tariff 1 £3.80 (hiring between 7am and 10pm) Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) Subsequent charge (each 176 yards or part thereof) @ 25p Tariff 2 £4.55 (hiring between 10pm and 7am) Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) Subsequent charge (each 150 yards or part thereof) @ 25p Tariff 3 £5.31 (public holidays) Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) Subsequent charge (each 120 yards or part thereof) @25p Charges in respect of soiling, waiting and telephone bookings are £100 (maximum), 45p per minute and 40p respectively. 1.1 At their meeting on 17th June 2026 members proposed to increase the maximum fares by 5%. The effect of a 5% increase is shown below: Tariff 1 £3.99 (hiring between 7am and 10pm) Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) Subsequent charge (each 176 yards or part thereof) @ 26p Tariff 2 £4.78 (hiring between 10pm and 7am) Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) Page 27 Agenda Item 4
Page 28
Subsequent charge (each 150 yards or part thereof) @ 26p Tariff 3 £5.58 (public holidays) Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) Subsequent charge (each 120 yards or part thereof) @26p Charges in respect of soiling, waiting and telephone bookings are £100 (maximum), 47p per minute and 42p respectively. Adverts detailing the 5% increase were placed in the local press week commencing 22 June 2026 with any representations in respect of these proposals to be made by 27 July 2026. In carrying out a review, the licensing authority must consider any such representations. 1.2 One representation was received on 29 June 2026. Members require to consider this representation prior to fixing the scales. This is attached in Appendix 1. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee are asked whether they wish to: • Proceed with the 5% increase as previously proposed at their meeting on 17 June 2026 as detailed in Appendix 2. OR • Amend the proposal as per the one representation received from the trade. If members agree to propose a further amendment to the scales members are asked to authorise the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support to advertise the proposed changes to tariffs and to invite any responses within one month of the advertisement and report back to members at their meeting in October. • If members resolve to amend the proposal and re-advertise the amended scales, and no objections or representations are received in response to that advertisement, delegate authority to the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support in consultation with the Chair of PPSL to conclude the review without the requirement for the Committee to consider a further report on the review. Page 28
Page 29
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 19 AUGUST 2026 CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2. SUMMARY In terms of Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Local Authority requires to fix maximum fares and other charges in connection with the hire of taxis operating in their area and to review the scales for taxi fares and other charges on a regular basis. The fares were last reviewed by members on 18th December 2024 and took effect on 22nd April 2025. The Committee at their meeting on 17 June 2026 proposed to increase the maximum fares by 5% as detailed in Appendix 2. Adverts detailing the 5% increase were placed in the local press week commencing 22 June 2026 with any representations in respect of these proposals to be made by 27 July 2026. In carrying out a review, the licensing authority must consider any such representations. One representation was received on 29 June 2026. Members require to consider this representation prior to fixing the scales. RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee are asked whether they wish to: • Proceed with the 5% increase as previously proposed at their meeting on 17 June 2026 as detailed in Appendix 2. OR • Amend the proposal as per the one representation received from the trade. If members agree to propose a further amendment to the scales members are asked to authorise the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support to advertise the proposed changes to tariffs and to invite any Page 29
Page 30
3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 responses within one month of the advertisement and report back to members at their meeting in October 2026. • If members resolve to amend the proposal and re-advertise the amended scales, and no objections or representations are received in response to that advertisement, delegate authority to the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support in consultation with the Chair of PPSL to conclude the review without the requirement for the Committee to consider a further report on the review. DETAIL Following the adverts in the local press week commencing 22 June 2026, no representations have been received from members of the public. One response was received by a member of the trade. This is attached in Appendix 1. Following consideration of the representation on the proposal if Members agree to proceed with the 5 % increase on the fares and other charges as detailed in Appendix 2 as proposed by the Committee at their meeting on 17th June 2026 a letter will be issued to all operators detailing the committee’s final decision on 19 August 2026. There is a right of appeal to the Scottish Traffic Commissioner by any person or any persons or organisations appearing to the Traffic Commissioner to be representative of taxi operators. Any appeal has to be lodged within a 14 day period of notification of the decision. If no appeal is lodged the new scales will be advertised in the local press as required by the Act. If Members agree to amend the proposal to amend the scales as proposed by the one representation there would be a requirement to re-advertise the proposal and report back to members on any representations received. This would delay the commencement date for the new fare tariff. 4. 4.1 4.2 CONCLUSION Members are further advised that an advert will be placed in the local press following their decision if it is agreed to fix the scales as originally proposed. This will still enable the fares to come into force by 22nd of October 2026 as previously agreed. If members agree to amend their proposal as requested by the one representation received then this proposal would need to be advertised week commencing 24th August 2026 with a 28 day period for Page 30
Page 31
representations. A further report would require to be placed before members if any representations were received. IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy- None 5.2 Financial -none 5.3 Legal – The Council require to review taxi fares in terms of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 5.4 HR -none 5.5 Customer Service-none 5.6 Risk- none 5.7 Climate Change- none 5.8 Fairer Scotland Duty- none 5.9 Equalities - protected characteristics-none 5.10 Consumer Duty- none 5.11 Island Communities- none 5.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing- none Douglas Hendry Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Policy Lead: Cllr Gordon Blair For further information contact: David Walker, Solicitor Tel: 01436 658720 Email : david.walker@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 31
Page 32
APPENDIX 1 The following objection was received from an operator in the Cowal area: Page 32
Page 33
APPENDIX 2 Tariff 1 Hirings from ranks or “flag” Hiring between 7am and 10pm Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) Subsequent charge (each 176 yards or part thereof) (general effect is an increase of 5% = 19p and 1p) £3.99 26 pence Tariff 2 Hirings from ranks or “flag” Hiring between 10pm and 7am Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) Subsequent charge (each 150 yards or part thereof) £4.78 26 pence Tariff 2 also applies to hirings from ranks or “flag” between 6pm and 10pm December 24th, 6pm and 10pm December 31st and between 7am 2nd January and 7am 3rd January (general effect is an increase of 5% = 23p and 1p) Tariff 3 Hiring from ranks or “flag” between 10pm 24th December and 7am 27th December and between 10pm 31st December and 7am 2nd January Initial Charge (860 yards or part thereof) Subsequent Charge (each 120 yards or part thereof) (general effect is an increase of 5% = 27p and 1p) £5.58 26 pence Soiling Charge - £100 maximum (with permission to display warning signs indicating that there may be an additional charge for any potential loss of earnings suffered as a consequence) Waiting Time – 47 pence per minute commencement of journey, charged on a pro rata basis per second (general effect is an increase of 2p) Taxi called by mean of telephone – 42 pence additional charge (general effect is an increase of 2p) Large Mini-bus type vehicle (carrying 5 or more passengers together at their own request)- a) Where Tariff 1 would apply – charge Tariff 2 b) Where Tariff 2 would apply – charge Tariff 3 c) Where Tariff 3 would apply – surcharge £1.37 (general effect is an increase of 7p) Fee by negotiation – for all journeys commencing within but finishing outwith Argyll and Bute, in a place of the above charges, such fares may be charged as prior to the acceptance of the hire, were proposed to the hirer and accepted by him/her Ferry Fares – The hirer shall be liable for the cost of a return ferry fare for any journey involving a ferry Page 33
Page 34
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 35
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 21/01584/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Fabulously Scottish Hotels (Oban) Ltd Proposal: Erection of Hotel Site Address: Car Park, Shore Street, Oban DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of hotel • Formation of vehicular access (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to public water main • Connection to public drainage network (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission is granted as a Minor Departure to the Local Development Plan and subject to conditions appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Argyll and Bute Council – Roads Authority Finalised response dated 06/02/23 recommending refusal of the proposed development due to the shortfall of parking provision within the site. Officer Comment: The proposed development is wholly in accordance with national planning policy but contrary solely to Policy 40 of the Local Development Plan. Lengthy negotiations have taken place with the roads engineer to try to reconcile this tension in order to allow for a positive recommendation to enable this important economic development to progress. To date, however, the Council’s roads engineers are maintaining their stance which is based upon their concerns relating to the Page 35 Agenda Item 5
Page 36
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 displacement of parking and limitations in capacity in the availability of onstreet parking and Council car parks available within the locality to accommodate the additional demand generated. These matters are set out in detail within the assessment below. Officers are recommending to Members that planning permission be granted as a minor departure to Policy 40 of LDP2. Argyll and Bute Council – Environmental Health Service (EHS) Memo dated 15/11/21 advising that the application is proposing the redevelopment of land where there is an indication of a previous use which may be contaminative and accordingly, should permission be granted, the EHS recommend that a condition be imposed to secure a phased, comprehensive site investigation and risk assessment for the site. In a separate memo dated 16/11/21, the EHS recommend that conditions be imposed on the grant of permission to restrict the hours of operation during the construction phase of the proposed development in order to protect the amenity of surrounding properties and the wider area. Officer Comment: In this instance it is noted that any concerns relating to the impact of construction activity arising from the development upon amenity are capable of being properly controlled through environmental health legislation. This suggested condition would therefore be unnecessary and should not be imposed on any grant of planning permission. Scottish Water Letter dated 04/12/21 advising no objection to the proposed development which will be serviced from the Tullich Water Treatment Works and the Oban Waste Water Treatment Works. Scottish Water do however advise that further investigations may be required once formal applications for connection to their infrastructure are submitted for consideration. Network Rail Letter dated 29/10/21 advising no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions being imposed on the grant of permission to secure a construction method statement; details of piling; vehicle incursion; lighting and construction works for the proposed development. Network Rails requirements are discussed in more detail in the main assessment of the application in Appendix A of this report. Health and Safety Executive Report dated 01/10/21 advising that the proposed development site identified does not currently lie within the consultation distance of a major hazard site or major accident hazard pipeline; therefore, at present HSE does not need to be consulted on any developments on this site. Historic Environment Scotland E-mail dated 11/10/21 advising that the application is outwith their remit for consultation purposes. JBA Consulting Ltd Page 36
Page 37
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 No objection subject to condition – 27/01/26 SEPA Following the receipt of a detailed flood risk assessment, SEPA have confirmed on 08/12/25 that they have no objection subject to conditions. Consultation responses are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (D) HISTORY: No relevant planning history. (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 04/11/21. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) 6 representations, all objecting to the proposal, received from: Mr Neil Macintyre, Cairnbhan, Albany Street, Oban, PA34 4NF (16/11/21) Ewan McDougall, Etiveawe, Lochandhu Road, Taynuilt, PA35 1JQ (29/10/21) Dilys McDougall, Harbour View, Shore Street, Oban, PA34 4JQ (25/10/21) Sheena McLean, The Kelvin Hotel, Shore Street, Oban (22/10/21) Lotte Kirchwehn, Sithean House, Isle of Iona, PA76 6SP (18/10/21) Barbara Hellenschmidt, Greenbank, Isle of Iona, PA76 6SP (18/10/21) Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: Overprovision of Hotels /Hotel Facilities • There is an oversupply of hotels in Oban, and the building of a further hotel will adversely affect the viability of other businesses. Officer Comment: Matters related to economic competition are not material to the assessment of this planning application and cannot be afforded weight in the consideration of the proposed development. Road Safety / Loss of Parking / Parking Provision Page 37
Page 38
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • The proposed development will result in the loss of an existing car park which serves locals and visitors with its loss having an adverse impact on the town. • The proposed access point will result in the loss of existing on-street parking provision. • The lack of parking within the site will result in overspill into residential and other businesses parking facilities. • The increase in vehicles utilising the proposed hotel will cause congestion on this busy route from the ferry into town and will increase the risk of pedestrian and vehicle accidents. • There is a Section 75 (S75) in place linked to Cairnbhan for parking and access to 4 parking spaces at the southern end of the existing car park which the proposed development would make difficult. • The existing opening opposite Harbour View Guest House was granted as pedestrian only to allow safe passage from the aforementioned 4 spaces to allow safe passage to the pavement without having to cross the car park. Officer Comment: The car park is a privately run car park which the Council has no control over, the car park could be closed without any input from the Council. Whilst not raising any concerns regarding the loss of on-street parking provision, or road or pedestrian safety issues, the Council as Roads Authority has objected to the proposal due to the lack of parking provision to serve the proposed development within the site which is discussed in more detail in the main assessment in Appendix A of this report. With regards to the S75, Officers sought clarification from the agent regarding the S75 relating to a previous development (04/01319/DET) which provides an undertaking for the provision of 4 parking spaces within the current application site as remote parking for the development approved under the 2004 permission. The existence of the S75 would effectively reduce the proposed onsite parking provision from 15 spaces to 11 which has not been addressed in the application and therefore clarification was sought as to whether the spaces would be retained and allocated to the 2004 permission as intended, or whether it is intended to provide alternative parking elsewhere and seek removal of the S75. The agent has confirmed that it is intended to retain the S75 agreement, effectively reducing the parking provision to 11 spaces associated with the currently proposed development. Health and Safety and Railway • The site is in close proximity to the railway line where there is a statutory exclusion zone of 10 metres. Page 38
Page 39
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • The hotel will be in close proximity to a large LPG tank on the opposite side of the railway which will give rise to safety issues. • The proposed hotel will suffer from noise from the trains providing a sub- optimal experience for guest and leading in the long terms to objections from the hotel operators to any additional trains being put on. The railway is also used for steam trains being run by enthusiasts several times a year. Officer Comment: Network Rail and the HSE were consulted on the proposed development. Network Rail raised no objection subject to a number of conditions being imposed on the grant of permission with the HSE raising no objection. With regards to noise from surrounding land uses affecting users of the hotel, this is a town centre site where a certain amount of noise is inevitable. Persons considering staying in the hotel will be aware of the proximity of the hotel to the railway, ferry terminal and public road, prior to booking accommodation. Visual Impact / Historic Environment • The proposed development does not respect the townscape character and amenity of the surrounding area. • The design of the proposed hotel is not in keeping with the historic terrace on the other side of the road. • The proposal will be detrimental to the setting of the Listed Buildings at 1- 7 Cawdor Terrace, particularly to those arriving in Oban by boat and rail. • It is understood that building on the sea facing side of a Listed Building is not permitted. Officer Comment: Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would be opposite a terraced row of listed buildings, the opposite side of Shore Street is primarily characterised by modern and industrial development associated with the railway and the ferry terminal beyond. Shore street already has modern buildings to the north of the site in the form of the residential John Anderson House and Hotel Accommodation in the form of the ‘Premier Inn’. It is not considered that the proposed development would have any materially harmful impact upon the setting of the listed buildings and both the scale and design of the proposed development are considered acceptable within this part of the Oban town centre. There is no planning policy regarding seaward facing elevations of listed buildings. Loss of Daylight/Overshadowing and Loss of View • The proposed development will overshadow the properties opposite and result in the loss of daylight. • The proposed development will result in the loss of view from existing properties on Shore Street. Page 39
Page 40
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • The proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on the quality of life and livelihood (Harbour View Guest House). • The application states that Shore Street is not a primarily residential area. This is inaccurate, with the exception of the recently constructed Premier Inn, all of the existing buildings have at least some residential use which will be impacted upon by the development. Officer Comment: A daylighting and sunlight assessment was submitted in support of the proposed development which concludes that no adverse impact will arise. The report is discussed in the main assessment of the application in Appendix A of this report. Matters related to loss of a private view/outlook are not material to the assessment of this planning application and cannot be afforded weight in the consideration of this application. The impact on the quality of life and livelihood of Harbour View Guest House has not been quantified to allow the Planning Authority to provide a meaningful comment. The comment regarding residential use within the surrounding buildings is noted. Contaminated Land • The site was filled with waste material from the demolition of the old Oban Railway Station with asbestos being witnessed as one of the waste materials. Officer Comment: The Council’s EHS officer noted that the application is proposing the redevelopment of land where there is an indication of a previous use which may be contaminative and accordingly, should permission be granted, the EHS advised that a condition should be imposed to secure a phased, comprehensive site investigation and risk assessment for the site. Opposing Windows • The windows in the proposed hotel are closer than 18 metres to those in the buildings on the opposite side of the public road. • The application suggests that the 18 metre rule does not apply as opposing buildings ‘are not permanent residences’. This is not true, the owner of the Kelvin Hotel lives in a ground floor apartment facing Shore Street and Kerrera Lodge provide medium term accommodation for homeless people i.e. homes. • The balconies will overlook the rooms in the Kelvin Hotel. Officer Comment: These comments are noted and are discussed in detail in the main assessment of the application in Appendix A of the report. Page 40
Page 41
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 With regards to the placement of balconies, these are proposed to the elevation facing away from the Kelvin Hotel. Impact on Amenity of Surrounding Properties • Noise from the proposed hotel will have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties. • Headlights from vehicles utilising the proposed hotel will result in light pollution to the windows of neighbouring properties. Officer Comment: This is a site situated directly adjacent to the main town centre of Oban, directly adjacent to the public road and in very close proximity to the main transport hub within the town where noise and activity are expected. It is not considered that the proposed development will result in a significant increase in noise or activity where it would be to the detriment to surrounding properties/uses. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: A Supporting Statement and NPF4 Statement has been submitted with the application which is discussed in more detail in the main assessment at Appendix A below. ☒Yes ☐No (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No The relevant Sustainability Checklists have been submitted and examined. It is the assessment of the Case Officer that the applicant has understood and given adequate consideration to the sustainability aspects of the proposed development, sufficient to accord with the core sustainability requirements of both national and local planning policy, specifically the relevant details of the ‘Sustainable Places’ group of policies Page 41
Page 42
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 within NPF4 and LDP2 policies 04, 08 and 09. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☒Yes ☐No (if Yes list supporting documents below) The application has been accompanied by a ‘Parking Analysis Statement’. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety Productive Places NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Page 42
Page 43
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 22 – Economic Development Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 82 – Contaminated Land Local Development Plan 2 Schedules (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. (delete as appropriate) • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) Page 43
Page 44
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • ABC Economic Development Action Plan • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Has a Sustainability Checklist been submitted: ☒Yes ☐No (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (O) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No (P)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Oban Harbour Railway Pier – Health and Safety Zone (Explosives) • The Kelvin Hotel, 1-3 Cawdor Place, Shore Street – B Listed Building (Impact on Setting) • 4-6 Cawdor Place, Shore Street – B Listed Building (Impact on Setting) • 7 Cawdor Place, Shore Street – B Listed Building (Impact on Setting) (P)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (P)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A Page 44
Page 45
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (P)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: A4004 Oban – South Pier/Railway - Strategic: town centre, waterfront and strategic transport hub. (P)(v) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Introduction and Settlement Strategy The proposal the subject of this application is seeking to secure planning permission for the erection of a 30 bedroom hotel at Shore Street, Oban. In terms of LDP2, the site is identified as being within a ‘Settlement Area’ where Policy 01 gives a presumption in favour of redevelopment of brownfield sites where the proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and is in compliance with all other relevant LDP2 policies. Site and Proposed of Development The application site is situated on Shore Street on the edge of the defined town centre of Oban. The site comprises a flat area of ground which is currently being used as a private car park. The site is bounded by the Oban to Glasgow railway line along its north and north western boundaries with John Anderson House, a block of residential flats, to its north eastern boundary. To the south, on the opposite side of the public road, is a terrace of properties comprising the Kelvin Hotel, Kerrera Lodge (providing homeless accommodation) and Harbour View Guest House. The site tapers to a point at the south western end of Shore Street. No buildings are present on the site. The proposal is seeking to secure planning permission for a contemporary designed and finished hotel providing 30 letting bedrooms. The proposed hotel comprises a three storey, mono-pitched roof structure which takes a rectangular form with its main elevation parallel with the public road which reflects the established development on Shore Street. The proposed hotel is to be finished in white coloured render with elements of natural stone cladding and composite cladding to its elevation with a dark grey coloured zinc roofing. Windows and doors are dark coloured aluminium clad units. Page 45
Page 46
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The hotel will provide its reception on the ground floor with lifts and stair accesses leading to the upper floors along with 12 en-suite bedrooms, 2 of which will accommodate disabled access. On the first floor are a further 13 en-suite bedrooms with 5 en-suite rooms on the second storey each with external terraces facing out over Oban Bay, Kerrera and Mull. Key Determining Issues As is detailed in Appendix A below, it is considered that the proposed development accords with all the relevant policies and principles of NPF4 and the relevant policies of LDP2 except for one key issue. The one policy of LDP2 that does not accord with the proposed development is Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision which requires off-street car and vehicle parking for specified categories of development and to be provided in accordance with a schedule (LDP2 ‘Table 5’) that varies according to the category of development proposed. The specific requirement in this case is for 39 off-street parking spaces to serve the development. However, due to the precise nature of the site, the proposal provides for just 15 parking spaces, 4 of which are reserved through a longstanding legal agreement to serve an existing off-site development elsewhere. Therefore, the currently proposed hotel development would provide only 11 off-street parking spaces. Given this shortfall, the Council’s roads engineers have objected to the application on the grounds that the requirements of LDP2 Policy 40 have not been met. However, Policy 40 of LDP2 sits uncomfortably with Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport - of NPF4. One of the key national planning policy principles of NPF4 is, “To encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably.” In support of this key planning principle, NPF4 Policy 13 (e) states that, “Development proposals which are ambitious in terms of low/no car parking will be supported, particularly in urban locations that are well-served by sustainable transport modes and where they do not create barriers to access by disabled people.” The developer in this case has stated that the proposal has been specifically designed to reduce reliance on private motor vehicles and has been advanced on the basis of low car parking provision given the town centre location of the development and the very close proximity to the Oban railway station, the Oban bus station and the Oban island ferry terminal. In addition, both the location and the design of the building offers no material barrier to disabled people. Whilst, in the case of a conflict between the National Planning Framework and a Local Development Plan, Section 24 (3) of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that the most recently adopted Plan (in this case LDP2) should have primacy, officers consider that the arguments put forward by the developer to accept a much reduced level of off-street parking provision in this case are acceptable given the above and the studies that the applicant has carried out into existing Oban town centre public car parking provision and uptake (see Appendix A below). Page 46
Page 47
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Officers have worked with the developer and with our roads engineers to try to resolve this policy conflict but no resolution acceptable to all parties has been forthcoming. Given the above and the detailed discussion in Appendix A, officers are recommending that Members accept the low parking provision aspect of the proposed development as a minor departure to Policy 40 of LDP2 and resolve to grant planning permission. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No The proposal is considered to be an acceptable minor departure to Policy 40 of LDP2 (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal for the erection of a hotel building, along with the associated infrastructure and landscaping, is a suitable proposal which accords with the principles and polices contained within NPF4 as underpinned by all but one of the relevant planning policies contained within the adopted LDP, and one which will benefit the local economy in accordance with one of the central challenges for Argyll and Bute, that of delivering sustainable economic growth. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan As outlined above. The proposal for the erection of a hotel building, along with the associated infrastructure and landscaping, is a suitable proposal which accords with the principles and polices contained within NPF4 as underpinned by all but one of the relevant planning policies contained within the adopted LDP, and one which will benefit the local economy in accordance with one of the central challenges for Argyll and Bute, that of delivering sustainable economic growth (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐ Yes ☒No Author of Report: Colin Bradley Date: 29.07.2026 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 30.07.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 47
Page 48
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 21/01584/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 30/07/21, supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Floor Plans – Scheme Design 1509 05 D 22/09/21 Perspective View, Section – Scheme Design 1509 10 02/08/21 Elevations – Scheme Design 1509 11 02/08/21 Site Plan – Scheme Design 1509 12 B Location Plan 02/08/21 Shore Street Hotel – Daylight & Sunlight Report – 17 PAGES 13/12/21 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP - Finishing Materials Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until samples of materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings 3. PP – Sustainable Drainage System Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753 and sewers for Scotland 4th Edition. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. Note to Applicant Page 48
Page 49
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Further advice on SuDS can be found in SEPA’s Standing Advice for Small Scale Development – www.sepa.org.uk 4. PP - Waste Management Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until a Waste Management Strategy for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Waste Management Strategy shall include details of how much waste the proposal is expected to generate and how it will be managed including: i. Details of provisions to maximise waste reduction and waste separation at source; ii. Details of measures to minimise the cross-contamination of materials, through appropriate segregation and storage of waste; convenient access for the collection of waste; and recycling and localised waste management facilities. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Waste Management Strategy unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 12. 5. PP - Landscaping and Biodiversity Enhancement Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until details of the proposed treatment of the soft landscaping areas within the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of: i) Location, design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; ii) Surface treatment of proposed means of access and hardstanding areas; iii) Proposed hard and soft landscape works; iv) A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development. The development shall not be occupied until such time as the boundary and surface treatment have been completed in accordance with the duly approved scheme. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next available planting season following the development first being brought into use. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures including those to be incorporated into the fabric of the building shall be implemented before the development is first brought into use. The biodiversity statement should refer to: Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity, and to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. Page 49
Page 50
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 6. PP – Contaminated Land Unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, no development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted by the developer (at their expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on site and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with the Environmental Health Service. The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with the relevant authoritative guidance including PAN 33 (2000) and BS 10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up to date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and must include: a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model including (where necessary) a detailed site investigation strategy. The desk study and the scope and method of recommended further investigations shall be agreed with the Council prior to addressing parts b, c and d of this condition. Should the desk study show the need for further assessment this will be undertaken in the following sequence: b) A detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of the risk such contamination presents. c) Development and agreement of a remedial strategy (if required) to treat/remove contamination ensuring the site is made suitable for its proposed use (this shall include a method statement, programme of works, and proposed verification plan). d) Submission of a verification report for any agreed remedial actions detailing and evidencing the completion of these works. Written confirmation from the Planning Authority that the scheme has been implemented and completed shall be required by the developer before any development hereby approved comments. Where remedial measures are required as part of the development construction detail, commencement must be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the potential risks to human health, the water environment, property, and, ecological systems arising from any identified contamination have been adequately addressed. 7. PP - Construction Method Statement Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no construction work shall commence until a Construction Method Statement, which includes plant details, locations and lifting plans, is submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and agreed in conjunction with Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineers. Reason: To ensure construction can be carried out without adversely affecting the safety of, or encroaching upon, the operational railway. Note to Applicant Page 50
Page 51
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Regard should be had to the advisory comments from Network Rail in relation to the proposed development details of which are available to view on the planning application file via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. 8. PP – Piling Works Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until details of proposed piling works have been submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and agreed in conjunction with Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineers. Reason: To ensure construction can be carried out without adversely affecting the safety of the operational railway. Note to Applicant Regard should be had to the advisory comments from Network Rail in relation to the proposed development details of which are available to view on the planning application file via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. 9. PP – Vehicle Incursion Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until an assessment for vehicle incursion has been carried out. Where a potential risk of vehicle incursion is identified the developer shall submit details of the proposed barrier/kerbing to be constructed to the Planning Authority for approval and agreed in conjunction with Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineers. Reason: To ensure that there is no potential for vehicles to encroach onto the railway should they collide with the boundary fencing. Note to Applicant Regard should be had to the advisory comments from Network Rail in relation to the proposed development details of which are available to view on the planning application file via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. 10. PP – Finished Floor Level and Flood Risk Mitigation Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, the finished floor levels for the development shall be set to a minimum of 5.1m AOD with a property floor protection level of 5.4m AOD (by utilising flood resilience and resistance measures). The development hereby approved must also have a safe flood free access / egress on ground that is entirely above 4.56m AOD. Reason: To ensure that the building remains safe and operational during floods and to ensure that there is safe access/egress available from the building during a flood event. Note to Applicant Page 51
Page 52
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Regard should be had to the consultation comments from JBA Consulting Ltd advisory comments from Network Rail in relation to the proposed development details of which are available to view on the planning application file via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. 11. PP - Timescale to be Agreed for Completion No development shall commence until details of the proposed timescale for completion of the approved development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved timescale for completion unless an alternative timescale for completion is otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 12. Parking and Turning as Shown The parking and turning area shall be laid out and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 13. PP - Vehicular Access Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, the new proposed vehicular access at the junction with the public road shall be upgraded in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08/005a with visibility splays of 2.4 metres to point X by 42 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access. The access shall be surfaced with a bound material in accordance with the stated Standard Detail Drawing. Prior to work starting on site the access hereby approved shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions 1.05 metres above the access. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the dwellinghouse first being occupied and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Note to Applicant: • A Road Opening Permit under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 must be obtained from the Council’s Roads Engineers prior to the formation/alteration of a junction with the public road. • The access shall be constructed and drained to ensure that no surface water is discharged onto the public road. • No new walls, fences, hedges etc. will be permitted within 2 metres from the channel line of the public road. • Applicant to be responsible for the costs of moving road signs, street lighting columns and pillars as necessary as well being responsible for the costs incurred due to any required changes in traffic orders including re-lining alterations. Page 52
Page 53
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 21/01584/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction 1.1. The proposal the subject of this application is seeking to secure planning permission for the erection of a 30 bedroom hotel. 2. Location of Development 2.1. The application site is situated on Shore Street on the edge of the defined town centre of Oban. The site comprises a flat area of ground which is currently being used as a private car park. 2.2. The site is bounded by the Oban to Glasgow railway line along its north and north western boundaries with John Anderson House, a block of residential flats, to its north eastern boundary. To the south, on the opposite side of the public road, is a terrace of properties comprising the Kelvin Hotel, Kerrera Lodge (providing homeless accommodation) and Harbour View Guest House. 2.3. The site tapers to a point at the south western end of Shore Street. No buildings are present on the site. 3. Settlement Strategy 3.1 In terms of LDP2, the site is identified as being within a ‘Settlement Area’ where Policy 01 gives a presumption in favour of redevelopment of brownfield sites where the proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and is in compliance with all other relevant LDP2 policies. 3.2 In order to address the determining issues, the key considerations in this application are: 3.1.1. Compliance with the Development Plan and other relevant planning policy 3.1.2. Impact on historic built environment 3.1.3. Sufficiency of proposed parking provision 3.1.4. Any other material considerations. 4. Proposal 4.1. The proposal is seeking to secure planning permission for a contemporary designed and finished hotel providing 30 letting bedrooms. The proposed hotel comprises a three storey, mono-pitched roof structure which takes a rectangular form with its main elevation parallel with the public road which reflects the established development on Shore Street. The proposed hotel is to be finished in white coloured render with elements of natural stone cladding and composite cladding to its elevation with a dark grey coloured zinc roofing. Windows and doors are dark coloured aluminium clad units. 4.2. The hotel will provide its reception on the ground floor with lifts and stair accesses leading to the upper floors along with 12 en-suite bedrooms, 2 of which will accommodate Page 53
Page 54
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 disabled access. On the first floor are a further 13 en-suite bedrooms with 5 en-suite rooms on the second storey each with external terraces facing out over Oban Bay, Kerrera and Mull. 4.3. The proposed hotel is situated directly opposite Kerrera Lodge, on the opposite side of the public road, which, as detailed above, is understood to currently be in use as homeless accommodation and at other times as a bed and breakfast. Kerrera Lodge forms part of a terrace of buildings on this side of Shore Street with the Kelvin Hotel adjoining its northeast elevation and the Harbour View Guest House to its southwest elevation. This terrace of buildings is Category B Listed which is considered in more detail below. 4.4. The Supporting Statement (SS) submitted with the application details that the windows on the southeast facing elevation of the proposed hotel are approximately 12 metres from the windows on the front facing elevation of Kerrera Lodge and the Kelvin Hotel. The SS indicates that this distance is similar to other development within the vicinity, making reference to the Claredon Hotel and Kilmartin Court further along Shore Street. 4.5. The SS outlines that it is considered that 12 metres is a reasonable and appropriate window to window distance within the town centre context, particularly having regard to the limited existing privacy and amenity of the premises on Shore Street, with ground floor windows immediately adjacent to the public footway, and in close proximity of to the public road carriageway. 4.6. The SS further state that, in terms of the privacy and amenity of residents in the proposed hotel itself, this also does not need to accord with the same standards as would be expected for permanent residential dwellings and therefore the privacy and amenity of users of the hotel is considered to be acceptable. 4.7. Whilst the adopted Sustainable Siting and Design Standards (SSDS) of the LDP provides detailed guidance on the placement of windows in relation to residential dwellinghouses, there is no such defined standard for commercial properties such as hotels, hostels and bed and breakfasts, however, it is considered reasonable for reduced levels of privacy and amenity for such premises compared to residential properties due to the nature of their use/occupation. The SSDS also accepts that the distances set out in the guidance may not be possible in densely built areas. 4.8. Whilst the Planning Authority accepts that commercial developments do not require the same privacy and amenity standards as permanent residential developments, further information was sought from the Applicant in relation to the impact that the proposed development would have on daylighting to the properties opposite. The Applicant commissioned a specialist firm to produce a Daylight and Sunlight Report (DSR) in support of the proposed development. The detailed DSR is published in full on the planning application file and is available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. 4.9. The report, in summary, assesses the impact that the proposed hotel may have upon the existing building, across from and with direct view of the proposed hotel, by comparing the provision of daylight and sunlight under both the existing and proposed conditions. The DSR follows the guidance and methodology outlined in BR 209 ‘Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight – A Guide to good practice (2nd Edition)’. The DSR details that to quantify the effect on daylight and sunlight several metrics were assessed as part of this report including the Vertical Sky Component (VSC), the Average Daylight Factor (ADF), and the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH). These were determined using dynamic simulation modelling techniques following the relevant guidance. Page 54
Page 55
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 4.10. The DSR detail that modelling and calculation results demonstrate that the proposed hotel fully complies with the recommendations outlined in BR 209. Windows and rooms of the existing buildings across from the proposed hotel will receive sufficient levels of daylight and sunlight post-development. In this regard, the Planning Authority is satisfied that the development of the site with the proposed hotel will not have any significant adverse impact on privacy or amenity of existing uses. 4.11. Whilst the site is not within any designated Natural or Built Heritage Designation, the terrace of buildings directly opposite the site, 1-7 Shore Street, which encompasses the Kelvin Hotel, Kerrera Lodge and Harbour Guest House, are Category B Listed Buildings (LB). Accordingly the proposed development has to be considered in regards to the impact that it will have on the setting of this terrace of LBs. This is discussed in more detail in the relevant section below. 4.12. The site is within a predominantly commercial area on the periphery of the defined town centre where it is considered that a hotel would fit well within the existing mix of development. 4.13. A new vehicular access is proposed at the southwestern corner of the site from Shore Street to serve the proposed hotel which will provide access to 7 of the proposed 11 parking spaces, with the remaining spaces accessed via the existing access to the northeast serving John Anderson House and the Premier Inn. 4.14. Connection to the public water and public drainage network is proposed to serve the development. 5. Compliance with National Policy 5.1. NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 1 seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. In this case, given the small scale nature of the development proposed and its alignment with all other relevant policies in NPF4 and those supporting policies in the LDP2, it is considered that the development proposed would be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 1 as underpinned by LDP2 Policies 01 and 04 and the adopted Sustainability Checklist. 5.2. NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate, Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 2 seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the Page 55
Page 56
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. It is considered that the proposed development would be consistent with Policy 2 of NPF4 having had due regard to the specifics of the development proposed and to the overarching planning policy strategy outlined within the adopted LDP2, notably Policies 01 and 04, and the adopted Sustainability Checklist. 5.3. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 3 seeks that biodiversity measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the development proposed. In this instance, the proposal represents the development of a brownfield site with no existing biodiversity measures and limited scope for such measures to be secured within this site, however, there are small pockets of landscaping proposed within the development which could be enhanced to provide biodiversity enhancement measures, with such details capable of being secured by a planning condition. With a condition to secure proportionate biodiversity enhancement and creation opportunities the proposed development is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 3 as underpinned by LDP2 Policy 73. 5.4. NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. The development proposed by the current planning application is considered appropriate in terms of its type, location and scale such that it will have no unacceptable impact on the natural environment. The proposed development is not within any designated European site of natural environment conservation or protection, it is not located within a National Park, a National Scenic Area a SSSI or RAMSAR site, or a National Nature Reserve. Neither is it located within a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area or within an area identified as wild land. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 4 as underpinned by LDP2 Policies 70 through to 78 inclusive. 5.5. NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 7 seeks to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Part (a) of Policy 7 seeks to ensure that any proposals which are likely to have a significant impact on historic assets or places are accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and/or place. Page 56
Page 57
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 As detailed above, the terrace of buildings directly opposite the site, 1-7 Shore Street, which encompasses the Kelvin Hotel, Kerrera Lodge and Harbour View Guest House, are Category B LBs. Accordingly the proposed development has to be considered in regards to the impact that it will have on the setting of this terrace of LBs. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would be opposite a terraced row of listed buildings, the opposite side of Shore Street is primarily characterised by modern and industrial development associated with the railway and the ferry terminal beyond. Shore street already has modern buildings to the north of the site in the form of the residential John Anderson House and Hotel Accommodation in the form of the ‘Premier Inn’. It is considered that the sympathetic design of the building, together with the muted palette of finishing materials proposed, will provide an appropriate contrast between the old and the new and will not give rise to any significant adverse impact on the remaining setting of the terrace of LBs. Whilst the application provides details of the proposed finishing materials, boundary treatments and landscaping, the finer details of these will be secured by condition to ensure that they are of the highest standard to help integrate the hotel building into its site and wider surroundings. It is not considered that the proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on historic assets or places consistent with NPF4 Policy 7 as underpinned by LDP2 Policies 15 and 16. 5.6. NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 9 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. The development proposed by this planning application represents the sustainable reuse of a brownfield site situated within the Main Town Settlement Zone of Oban within the LDP, where such proposals are directly supported by Policy 9(a) of NPF4 and underpinned by LDP2 policy 1. With regards for the need in Policy 9(c) to demonstrate that development land is, or can be made, safe and suitable for a new use, the Council’s EHS advised that as the application is proposing the redevelopment of land where there is an indication of a previous use which may be contaminative, should permission be granted, a condition should be imposed to secure a phased site investigation and risk assessment for the site. With such a condition the proposal complies with NPF4 Policy 9(c) which aligns with Policy 82 of LDP2. The development proposed by this planning application represents the sustainable reuse of a brownfield site situated within the main town centre of Oban within the LDP, where such proposals are directly supported by Policy 9 of NPF4 as underpinned by LDP2. 5.7. NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 12 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy as defined within the policy document. Page 57
Page 58
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The development the subject of this planning application seeks to secure permission for a 30 bedroom hotel. Whilst this is a development which will generate waste when operational, it will benefit from regular waste uplifts by the Council and will be expected to comply with our adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. Notwithstanding this, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition to secure a statement addressing the requirements of Part (c) of Policy 12 to ensure compliance. With conditions to secure a waste management statement for the operation of the hotel, the proposal is considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 12 as underpinned by LDP2 Policy 63. 5.8. NPF4 13 – Sustainable Transport NPF4 13 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The application proposes a 30 bed hotel using an existing vehicular access with a new second vehicular access spurring from Shore Street and the provision of 15 car parking spaces within the site, 4 of which are reserved for use through a longstanding legal agreement for use by an existing commercial development elsewhere. The number of actual off-street parking spaces available to serve the development currently proposed is therefore 11 plus a small bicycle parking area. Whilst the national planning policy seeks as one of its key aims to reduce the reliance on unsustainable travel, Policy 40 of LDP2 – Vehicle Parking Provision - requires off-street car and vehicle parking for specified categories of development and to be provided in accordance with a schedule (LDP2 ‘Table 5’) that varies according to the category of development proposed. The specific requirement in this case is for a minimum of 39 off- street parking spaces to serve the development; a shortfall of at least 28 off-street parking spaces. In their consultation response to the application, the Roads Authority recommended refusal of the proposed development due to the minimum requisite parking provision of 39 spaces not being met within the proposal. The Roads Authority did not raise any objection to the proposed vehicular access spurring from Shore Street to serve the development. It is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with policies 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public and Private Access Regimes, policy 36 – New Accesses and Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access. During the period of November 2021 to March 2026 ongoing discussions have periodically taken place between the Agent and the roads engineer regarding the proposed development, including Parking Assessments and Parking Surveys being undertaken by the Agent, the parameters of which were set by the roads engineer. Despite these discussions, assessments and surveys, the roads service has maintained their recommendation of refusal with a finalised response issued on 06/02/23 stating the following: “Roads note the survey carried out however overall, general concerns remain in regards to the Council’s car park capacity so as to provide adequate provision for current demand and to ensure any future additional growth in demand is provided for. Roads also note that the private car park could be closed at any time therefore removing that parking provision currently used. If that was to happen there would be some Page 58
Page 59
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 displacement onto the current Council parking in and around the Shore Street/Albany Street areas and potentially causing further displacement from these locations to spread around the wider town area. The same displacement issues will arise if the hotel development plans are given the go ahead and if potential additional hotel customer and service traffic is generated then that would also add to the demand on the Council’s parking provision. Issues with traffic circulation, (creating additional road miles and associated emissions) when looking for suitable parking spots already exists in some parts of the town. If this is to be avoided going ahead in the wider town area then adequate parking capacity needs to be preserved”. Whilst the stated position of the roads service is both welcomed and understood, there is a clear conflict here between the key national planning policy aims within NPF4 and the one planning policy within LDP2 that seeks a materially different approach. One of the key national planning policy principles of NPF4 is, “To encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably.” In support of this key planning principle, NPF4 Policy 13 (e) states that, “Development proposals which are ambitious in terms of low/no car parking will be supported, particularly in urban locations that are well-served by sustainable transport modes and where they do not create barriers to access by disabled people.” The developer in this case has stated that the proposal has been specifically designed to reduce reliance on private motor vehicles and has been advanced on the basis of low car parking provision given the town centre location of the development and the very close proximity to the Oban railway station, the Oban bus station and the Oban island ferry terminal. In addition, both the location and the design of the building offers no material barrier to disabled people. As noted above, the proposal site is within approximately 300m walking distance of the bus stops on Station Road, 400m walking distance of Oban Railway Station, and 550m of the Calmac Ferry Terminus. It is thus accessible by a choice of existing public transport connections. In the case of a conflict between the National Planning Framework and a Local Development Plan, Section 24 (3) of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that most recently adopted plan (in this instance LDP2) should have primacy. Officers consider the arguments put forward by the developer to accept a much-reduced level of off-street parking provision, in this instance, is acceptable as evidenced by the car-parking studies as undertaken by the applicant into Oban town centre car parking provision and uptake. These studies, the parameters of which were agreed with the roads officer, were carried out in July 2017, at a ‘peak’ weekend to be indicative of peak summer months. The studies showed that during the peak times, 16:00 on Friday and 13:00 on Saturday, 76 vacant spaces and 72 vacant spaces respectively were available within Oban town centre. With regards to likely peak times for the hotel and its end-users, 18:00 – 19:00 on Friday and 08:00 – 09:00 on Saturday there were 80 parking spaces available and 85 spaces available respectively. These studies detail that although there is sub-standard, in-curtilage provision as compared to the prescribed parking levels required for a hotel development in line with Page 59
Page 60
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 policy 40 of LDP2 within the curtilage of the proposed development, there is sufficient parking provision to accommodate any overspill of the parking requirement within the wider town centre. Officers are therefore respectfully recommending that Members accept the low parking provision aspect of the proposed development as a minor departure to Policy 40 of LDP2 and resolve to grant planning permission. If the above is accepted, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 13 as substantially underpinned by LDP2 Policies 35, 36 and 39 but as a minor departure to LDP2 Policy 40. 5.9. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 14 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. Policy 14(a) seeks development proposals to be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale with Part (b) giving support to proposals where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places. The proposed hotel building is an attractively designed, three storey, mono-pitched roof structure which takes a rectangular form with its main elevation parallel with the public road which reflects the established development on Shore Street. The proposed hotel is to be finished in white coloured render with elements of natural stone cladding and composite cladding to its elevation with a dark grey coloured zinc roofing. Windows and doors are dark coloured aluminium clad units. It is considered that the proposed hotel building is of an appropriate scale, design and finishes which will fit well within this site which is in an area where there is no distinct architectural style evident with a varied mix of styles and finishes, some traditional and some more modern buildings of no particular architectural merit. The proposed redevelopment of this brownfield site to provide a purpose built, attractively designed and finished hotel, within landscaped grounds, would result in a visual improvement to the streetscene within this part of Oban. The development gives regard to the siting and orientation of the development within the wider streetscene at this location. The site is on the edge of the defined town centre, within close proximity to the transport hub and a wide range of local services. In the event that planning permission were to be granted, the proposed development is considered to represent a suitably sited, designed development in compliance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 and the sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2 namely Policy 04, Sustainable Development, Policy 05, Design and Placemaking, Policy 09, Sustainable Design, Policy 10, Design: All Development and Policy 11, Design: Conversions and Change of Use which, in summary, collectively seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, make use of existing infrastructure, are of an appropriate scale, sustainable design and finishes for their site; and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise. Page 60
Page 61
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 5.10. NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. The development the subject of this planning application proposes connection to the existing public water supply and drainage infrastructure in the control of Scottish Water. In their response to the application Scottish Water raised no objection to the proposed development which will be serviced from the Tullich Water Treatment Works and the Oban Waste Water Treatment Works. Scottish Water do however advise that further investigations may require to be undertaken once formal applications for connection to their infrastructure is submitted to them for consideration. The proposed water and drainage infrastructure to serve the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 18 as underpinned by LDP2 Policies 04 and 08. 5.11. NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Policy 22 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. As detailed above the development the subject of this planning application proposes a connection to the public water network to which Scottish Water has not objected. Since the application was first submitted, NPF4 has been adopted which has brought the site into a Coastal Flood Risk area and therefore consultations were undertaken with SEPA and JBA. In their initial response to the application SEPA advised that SEPA Future Flood Maps show that there is a coastal flood risk covering almost the entire site area noting that the site is below 5m AOD, therefore the ground level of the proposed hotel is lower than the Coastal Flood Boundary + climate change and freeboard. Accordingly, in order to overcome their objection, SEPA requested the submission of a detailed FRA which would require to demonstrate that the proposed development avoids the coastal flood risk area for a 1 in 200 year event including an appropriate allowance for climate change. In their response to the proposal, JBA deferred their decision until details of the finished floor levels of the proposed development were provided and shown to be set to a minimum of 4.9m AOD with a property flood protection level of 5.4m AOD (by utilising flood resilience measures). JBA advised that these values could be refined by a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). A detailed flood risk assessment has now been provided which has allowed SEPA to withdraw their objection subject to a planning condition requiring the finished floor levels for the development to be set to a minimum of 5.1m AOD with a property floor protection level of 5.4m AOD (by utilising flood resilience and resistance measures). The development hereby approved must also have a safe flood free access / egress on ground that is entirely above 4.56m AOD. These matters can be secured by planning condition. With planning conditions to secure the requirements of SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Assessor, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 22 as underpinned by national flood risk policy and LDP2 Policy 55. Page 61
Page 62
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 5.12. NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety NPF4 Policy 23 seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. The development the subject of this planning application is on a site bounded by the Oban to Glasgow railway line. Whilst the railway line can be reasonably described as a potential ‘safety hazard’ for the purposes of Policy 23, Network Rail have been consulted and have raised no objection to the proposed development on safety grounds subject to a number of conditions and informatives being imposed on the grant of permission to secure Construction Method Statement; details of any piling works; an assessment for potential vehicle incursion and details of external lighting within the development. In addition to the above, due to the proximity of the site to the Railway Pier which is defined as an ‘Explosive Interest’, consultation was undertaken with the HSE. However, in their response to the planning application, the HSE advised that the proposed development site identified does not currently lie within the consultation distance of a major hazard site or major accident hazard pipeline; therefore at present HSE does not need to be consulted on any developments on this site. With regards to construction noise, the EHS suggested that should permission be granted, conditions be imposed with regards to the hours of operation on site during the construction period of the proposed development. However, construction hours are not generally conditioned by the Planning Authority, with any issue arising during the construction period of development, a matter dealt with under separate EHS legislation. With planning conditions to secure the requirements of Network Rail, the development is considered to be compliant with the aims of NPF4 Policy 23 as underpinned by LDP2 Policy 14. 5.13. NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism NPF4 Policy 30 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate sustainable tourism development which benefits local people, is consistent with our net zero and nature commitments, and inspires people to visit Scotland. Part of Policy 30 provides a number of criteria which require to be considered in proposed tourism ventures, as follows. i. The contribution made to the local economy; ii. Compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of the nature and scale of the activity and impacts of increased visitors; iii. Impacts on communities, for example by hindering the provision of homes and services for local people; iv. Opportunities for sustainable travel and appropriate management of parking and traffic generation and scope for sustaining public transport services particularly in rural areas; v. Accessibility for disabled people; vi. Measures taken to minimise carbon emissions; vii. Opportunities to provide access to the natural environment. The Agent has submitted the following statement addressing the criteria set out in Policy 30(b). Page 62
Page 63
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 “There are clear economic benefits to the proposal. The proposal will provide employment to local people and will bring visitors to the town who would be expected to add to the economy of the town through shopping, eating out and visiting attractions. The proposed use is compatible with the local area as it is on a street with existing guest houses and a Premier Inn. There is no expected impact on the local community. The site is currently used as a private car park and so the proposal will not hinder the provision of homes and services for local people. As noted, the site is located within walking distance of public transport connections, including bus, rail and ferry. The proposal will thus promote sustainable travel and minimise carbon emissions. The proposal will be accessible for disabled people. The submitted floorplans (drawing reference 1509 05 D Floor Plans) show that two rooms have been designed specifically to cater for disabled people. These rooms includes accessible showers and toilets and are located on the ground floor for ease of access. A publicly available disabled toilet is also proposed on the ground floor, within the reception foyer. Upper floors will be accessible by both stairs and lifts. Access to the natural environment is limited in the urban setting of the site. Landscaping will be provided on the site, providing a biodiversity gain compared to the current use”. Policy 30 gives direct support to tourism development provided that the criteria set out in Part (b) of the policy is taken into account. It is considered that the information submitted satisfactorily addresses the criteria set out in Policy 30(b) In this regard the proposal is considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 30 as underpinned by LDP2 Policies 22 and 23. Page 63
Page 64
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 65
House Slipway FB 9.4m Hall 4 to 6 John Depot SHORE STREET Terminal Mast Car Tank ESS The Waterfront 7 Liby9 Car Park 10 to 15 RAILWAY PIER Cawdor Terrace Cawdor Place 10.1m Albany Apartments Oban Ferry DRIMVARGIE ROAD GLENSHELLACH TERRACE PW 7 House (Govt Offices) 16 to 21 Park Mean High Water Springs & Mean Low Water Springs Hotel Anderson Landing Stage MLWS Navigation Light L Twr 4 3 2 1 17 to 32 House Cameron 35 Ps 56 Cawdor (Fixed Green White Green) Bollards Health Centre 1 to 3 1 to 12 ALBANY STREET 22 to 32 1 to 16 Sorting Office Hall An t-Òban / Oban (Station) FB ESS © Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to: 21/01584/PP O 0 25 5012.5 Meters Application Site Page 65
Page 66
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 67
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 67 Agenda Item 6
Page 68
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 68
Page 69
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 69
Page 70
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 70
Page 71
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 71
Page 72
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 72
Page 73
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 73
Page 74
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 74
Page 75
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 75
Page 76
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 76
Page 77
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 77
Page 78
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 78
Page 79
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 79
Page 80
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 80
Page 81
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 81
Page 82
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 82
Page 83
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 83
Page 84
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 84
Page 85
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 85
Page 86
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 86
Page 87
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 87
Page 88
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 88
Page 89
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 89
Page 90
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 90
Page 91
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 91
Page 92
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 92
Page 93
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 93
Page 94
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 94
Page 95
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 95
Page 96
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 96
Page 97
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 97
Page 98
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 98
Page 99
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 99
Page 100
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 100
Page 101
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 101
Page 102
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 102
Page 103
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 103
Page 104
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 104
Page 105
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 105
Page 106
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. Page 106
Page 107
Elmlea 67 Cross 59 1 to 4 27 21 2.7m B 881 Courthouse Car Park 26 30 38 9 11 2 to 8 15 PH Garage 3 12 14 16 30 37 15 PW 2 Cowal View 82 1 to 15 76 SPRINGFIELD PLACE to 57 65 55 49 45 Public 11 6 9 32 1a PLEASANT ROAD 11c 3 1a 3 PH 15 17 9 24 23 1 to 14 12 2 to 8 25 13 1 PH HIGH STREET CHURCH 1 1 to 4 113 to 107 95 53 11 10 30 12 CASTLE STREET MOUNT 19 Eaglesham Terrace DRIVE Court 20 20.1m 1 28.7m W ATERGATE 21 5 to 9 18 10 14 (Garage) 3 135 Leisure Centre Bute 121 3 105 71a 81 7 55 9.1m W Moat 41 Bank CASTLEHILL Park 6 9 17 19 7 25 49 15 28 7 34 Rothesay Trinity PLEASANT 1 To22 24 26 20 23 1 to 7 MOUNT 4 to 7 ESS Rowanlea RUSSELL STREET STUART 2 72 123 61 Rear of Club Factory DW Castle 43 32 13 15 31 PH 24 5 40 30 17 15 1 to 37 Church 34 16 11a 5 Park PH 6 15 28 35 31 27 LB 4 Skeoch View 27.1m 133 LANE 4 Library and Museum Station 103 BROADCROFT LANE 51 MONTAGUE STREET 47 28 PH 45 1 8 11 39 6 37 20 18 10 22 24 Trinity 29 11 El Sub Sta 1 BISHOP TERRACE Beechlea 10 to 24 78 B 878 STREET 68 115 97 5 Bute Yard 55 STREET Posts 51 21 23 25 27 19 36 2 1 Car 21 23 22 26 STORE LANE Court 26 10.7m WEST PRINCES STREET 19 21 17 to 131 125 8 74 70 Police to PH FB 36 23 47 The Old 13 7.3m 2a 28 11b 6 Morningside 7 Elderslie Council Offices 7 16 Health Centre 33 BISHOP STREET 2 8 to 12 Path © Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to: 25/01690/PP O 0 30 6015 Meters Application Site Page 107
Page 108
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 109
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: 26/00047/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mr S Islam Proposal: Change of use of ground floor retail unit to cafe/restaurant and two short term holiday lets along with the external colour change Site Address: Zing Organics (The Rest) The Old Post Office Building Campbeltown Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6SX DECISION ROUTE Committee Decision under Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Change of use of ground floor unit from Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 Class 1A to Class 3, and formation of 2no. short term letting (STL) units • Change of external colour • Installation of replacement doors on south and east elevations • Existing window on north elevation to be blocked off, and installation of extractor and flue • Existing window opening to be reinstated on north elevation (ii) Other specified operations • Internal alterations (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 Development Plan Policy and subject to the conditions, reasons and advisory notes appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Tarbert & Skipness Community Council – 23.03.2026 Objection as Members were concerned that there is an over provision of STL units in Tarbert; and that the proposal would lead to a loss of a business premises. Officer Comment: Over supply of STL units is a consideration that carries limited weight. Regarding the comment on the loss of a business premises, part of the property would be used as a restaurant/ café. The potential impact on the town centre is assessed further in the main assessment of the proposal at Part (P). Page 109 Agenda Item 7
Page 110
Area Roads - Mid Argyll Kintyre And Islay • Initial consultation response dated 11.03.2026 Recommendation: Refusal. Area Roads advised that the proposal is located adjacent to the A83 Tarbert to Campbeltown (Trunk) Road within a 20mph speed restriction in Tarbert. There are no existing on-site parking facilities available or space to provide any. Area Roads further commented that whilst the number of vehicle movements generated by the restaurant/café will not be significantly different than that of the former use, the addition of 2nos. STL units will generate additional traffic and under the local plan, parking should be provided at 1 space per unit. • Subsequent consultation response dated 02.04.2026 Recommendation: Refusal. Area Roads commented that the applicant has provided a Traffic Statement and updated Site Plan (528/01A) which identifies private parking outwith the applicant’s control. It remains the position of the Roads Authority that although the number of vehicle movements generated by the restaurant/café will not be significantly different than that of the former use, and any parking allocation can be offset from this, the addition of 2no. STL units would generate additional traffic and under the local plan, parking should be provided at 1 space per unit. Transport Scotland - 05.03.2026 No objection. Environmental Health – MAKI – 04.06.2026 No objection subject to conditions. The Environmental Health Officer commented that no detail has been provided on the extraction system regarding technical specifications or mitigation measures that may reduce any negative impact to neighbouring residential properties. Should the application be approved, a condition relating to submission of information on the cooking odour extraction system, measures to control odour emissions and measures to control noise emissions from any extraction or ventilation system and noise output from any fans should be imposed. The Environmental Health Officer also advised that the STL units would be subject to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022 which will require the host of any new STL to apply to the Council for a licence. Conditions applied to STL licences are intended to address noise and antisocial behaviour from the operation of STLs. (D) HISTORY: 08/00645/ADV Erection of signage (retrospective) Approved 07.05.2008 08/00655/COU Conversion of flat to post office and external alterations (retrospective) Approved 16.05.2008 21/01150/PP Re-painting of shopfront Approved 22.09.2021 Page 110
Page 111
(E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Listed Building/Conservation Advert Expiry Date: 03.04.2026 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Two representations have been received from Councillors in relation to the application. One representation supports the proposal, while the other provides neutral comments on the application. Support • Councillor Anne Horn 03.06.2026 Neutral • Councillor Alastair Redman 03.06.2026 In addition, a total of 11 public representations have been received in relation to the application, comprising 9 representations in support of the proposal and 2 representations objecting to it. Support • Mr Md Shamsul Islam (Applicant) The Rest Flat Campbeltown Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute 17.03.2026 • Mr Md Shamsul Islam (Applicant) 03.06.2026 • Mr Aaryan Islam 7 Inchgarvie Loan Glasgow G5 0AR • Mr Md Rajon Miah Bon Accord Harbour Street Tarbert Argyll And Bute 17.03.2026 • Mr Bilal Hossain Up Left Flat 1 54 Longrow Campbeltown Argyll And Bute 19.03.2026 • Mr Kenny Mcglynn Ground Flat Ardencreena Lady Ileene Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute 09.04.2026 • Mr Steven Bleasby Beach Hill Pier Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute 12.03.2026 • Mr Davie Todd 52 New Parliament Place Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6GY 25.03.2026 • Mr Declan Stevenson 14A Davaar Avenue Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6NG 09.04.2026 Objection • Mr Peter Bates Dunivaig Pier Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute 09.03.2026 • Mr Michael Kirk Allt Nan Croabh Pier Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute 10.03.2026 Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: Supporting and Neutral Comments: • The proposal which includes a restaurant/café and accessible STL units would meet demand from visitors. • The proposal would bring economic benefits to Tarbert, including further investment into the local economy and the creation of new job opportunities. The proposal would also help to ensure a property within the town centre remains occupied and economically active. Page 111
Page 112
Officer Comment: The above representations are noted. • The target customers of the proposed STL units would be utilising public transport. There is sufficient parking provision nearby, and the application site is well served by public transportation. Many existing businesses and premises within Tarbert operate successfully without on-site/private parking provision. • Concerns are raised regarding the apparent inconsistency in Area Road’s consultation responses, noting that no objection was offered to a similar planning application 26/00664/PP, while refusal has been recommended for the current proposal. Officer Comment: Planning application 26/00664/PP for the ‘Change of use of former shop to an additional en-suite bedroom for an existing guest house’, is currently under consideration by the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority must assess each application on its own individual merits. It is noted that the nature of planning application 26/00664/PP differs from the current application, in particular the current proposal involves the intensification in use of the site to form 2no. STL units in addition to the change of use of a Class 1 retail unit to a Class 3 restaurant/ café. Area Roads has recommended refusal of the current application, advising that the addition of 2no. STL units would generate additional traffic and therefore parking provision should be provided at one space per unit. Despite there being no on-site car parking available, based on the particular circumstances and wider consideration of this case, Officers consider that it is reasonable to accept the use of the nearby public car park by patrons utilising the proposed STL units. This matter is considered further in the main assessment of the proposal below. • The consultation response from Area Roads was provided at a very late stage and there was insufficient time for members of the public to provide representation on the consultation response within the consultation period. Officer Comment: Publication and consultation are separate statutory procedures which could be subject to different deadlines. Notwithstanding the above, public representations received prior to a formal decision being made are taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. Objection Comments: • There is a genuine need for permanent residential dwellings in Tarbert. The proposal is not compatible with the Housing Emergency Action Plan 2024, in that the ground floor unit should be used for permanent residential use. Comments: The ground floor unit was previously used as a retail unit and is currently vacant. The proposal would not lead to the loss of any residential accommodation. • Concern raised in relation to the oversupply of STL units in Tarbert, which would have an impact on its character. Comments: The current proposal involves the change of use of the ground floor unit. Part of the unit would be used for restaurant/ café use, while the remaining part would be used for STL use. Considering the scale of the Page 112
Page 113
proposal, it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant impact on the character of Tarbert of the Tarbert Conservation Area. This matter is considered further in the main assessment of the proposal at Section P below. • The unit involved should be used for business/ commercial use. Comments: Part of the ground floor unit would be used for restaurant/ café use. This matter is considered further in the main assessment of the proposal at Section P below. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: Yes (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist Whilst no Sustainability Checklists have been submitted, given the nature and scale of the development proposed, it is considered that sufficient information exists to issue a decision on the proposed development. It is the assessment of the Case Officer that the applicant has understood and given adequate consideration to the sustainability aspects of the proposed development, sufficient to accord with the core sustainability requirements of both national and local planning policy, specifically the relevant details of the ‘Sustainable Places’ group of policies within NPF4 and LDP2 policies 04, 08 and 09. No No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No Page 113
Page 114
(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place Productive Places 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 12 – Shopfront Design Policy 13 – Advertisements Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 17 – Conservation Areas Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 23 – Tourism 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 45 – Supporting our Town Centres and Retailing Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Page 114
Page 115
Local Development Plan 2 Schedules (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended) (GPDO) • ABC Technical Note 2 – Advertisement & Signage Policy (Sept. 2017) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre- application consultation (PAC): No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing Members should consider: • How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development, and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process. • The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance. At the time of writing, 13 representations have been received in relation to this planning application. Of these, 10 support the proposal, 2 object to it, and 1 provides neutral comment. It is the opinion of Officers that the representations received, together with officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report, provide all the information required to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations in this case. In this instance it is not considered that the objections raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the current Report of Handling and it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process. A full report is provided within Appendix A. No Page 115
Page 116
(O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Tarbert Conservation Area • A number of Category B and C Listed Buildings, and Scheduled Ancient Monuments nearby • A83 Trunk Road • SPR Paths • AFA: A3004 • Article 4 Directions • Advertisement Regulation 11 (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application Brownfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy Settlement Area ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: AFA: A3004 (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The proposal seeks planning permission for the change of use of a ground floor retail unit to provide a cafe/restaurant and two short term holiday lets along with a change to the external colour at The Rest, The Old Post Office Building, Campbeltown Road, Tarbert. In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2), the application site is located within the Settlement Area of Tarbert wherein Policy 01 gives a general presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is compatible with surrounding uses; provides suitable access and infrastructure; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and it complies with all other relevant LDP2 policies. Page 116
Page 117
The application site is located within the village centre of Tarbert. The application site is situated within an area characterised by mixed use development, with a row of retail units dominating the ground floor streetscape and residential properties occupying the upper floors surrounding the site. In terms of sustainable transport means to access the application site, public transportation services, and active travel options are available with public car parks located within walking distance. There is no existing on-site parking associated with the site with the current proposal not altering the current situation. Area Roads were consulted on the proposal and recommended that the application be refused. Area Roads advised that whilst the number of vehicle movements generated by the proposed restaurant/café use would not be significantly different compared to the former use of the premises as a retail unit, the addition of 2no. STL units would generate additional traffic and therefore Area Roads seek that parking provision should be provided at 1 space per 1 STL unit, equating to the provision of 2 car parking spaces. Area Roads further advised that the car parks identified in the submitted drawings are outwith the applicant’s control. However, considering the particular circumstances of this case and wider planning considerations, Officers deem it reasonable to accept reliance on nearby public parking facilities to serve the proposed development. Whilst the introduction of two STL units could be deemed to represent an intensification of use at the site, the availability of public transport services, active and sustainable travel options, together with the relatively small parking shortfall of two spaces, leads Officers to conclude that the proposed development would not give rise to such clear and demonstrable harm as to warrant the refusal of planning permission. Whilst the proposal does not fully accord with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 40 in respect of off- street parking provision, the considerations outlined above are considered to carry sufficient weight to justify approval of the application as a minor departure from the Development Plan. A fully detailed assessment with reference to the above determining factor, and all other material considerations is set out in Appendix A to this report. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission Should be Granted: See Section (S) below. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan Table 5 of LDP2 Policy 40 Vehicle Parking Provision sets out the car parking standards to be applied to various categories of development. There are no existing on-site parking facilities available, and the proposal does not seek to alter the existing parking arrangements. Area Roads has recommended refusal of the application, advising that parking should be provided at a rate of 1 car parking space per STL unit. On this basis, a total of 2no. parking spaces would be required in connection with the proposed development. In the particular circumstances of this case, however, it is considered that this shortfall can be accepted as a minor departure to policy having regard to wider material considerations. The application site occupies a central location within Tarbert, where public transport services and options for active and sustainable travel are available. Whilst the introduction of the two STL units would increase the overall intensity of use of Page 117
Page 118
the site, the resulting shortfall amounts to 2no. parking spaces. Furthermore, public car parks are available within a short walking distance of the site and can reasonably be used by patrons of the proposed STL units. Taking these factors into account, it is not considered that the absence of 2 on-site parking spaces would give rise to such clear and demonstrable harm as to warrant refusal of the application. Whilst the proposal does not fully accord with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 40 in respect of off-street parking provision, the considerations outlined above are considered to carry sufficient weight to justify approval of the application as a minor departure from the Development Plan. (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Long Ting Yip Date: 30.07.2026 Reviewing Officer: Fiona Scott Date: 30/07/26 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 118
Page 119
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 26/00047/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 11.01.2026, 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 and Site Plan 528/01 A 13.03.2026 Existing and Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations 528/05 B 26.02.2026 Details of New Doors 528/07 26.02.2026 Design and Access Statement – 2 Pages (4 & 5 of 5) 12.01.2026 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP - Short Term Residential Accommodation (e.g. Holiday Letting) Notwithstanding the provisions of Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 the residential accommodation hereby approved shall be used for short term holiday occupancy only and not as a main residence and shall not be occupied by any family, group or individual for a cumulative period of more than three calendar months in any one year. A register showing dates of arrivals and departures shall be maintained at the premises and shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to define the permitted occupancy having regard to the fact that the premises are unsuitable for occupation as a permanent dwelling due to ^IN; having regard to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. Note to Applicant: For the avoidance of doubt this permission only provides for the occupation of the premises on a short term basis on the grounds that the development is unsuited to full time residential occupation. Specifically the occupation of the premises as a dwelling shall require the benefit of a separate planning permission. 3. PP – Bicycle Storage Further Details Required Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use, full details of the layout of a bicycle storage area within the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. 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’. Page 119
Page 120
4. PP – Ventilation and Extraction to Control Odour Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until a scheme for the control of odour arising from the operation of the permitted use has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a detailed specification of a) the cooking odour extraction system; b) measures to control odour emissions; and c) measures to control noise emissions from any extraction or ventilation system and noise output from any fans. The permitted use shall not be commenced until the duly approved ventilation, extraction and odour control system is operational and thereafter it shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instruction unless it is replaced by an alternative system with the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the area in terms of noise and odour nuisance. Note to Applicant: Site specific advice may be obtained by contacting the Council’s Environmental Health Officers. Page 120
Page 121
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • Holiday Accommodation – Short Term Lets The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022 will require the host of any new short-term let to apply to the Council for a licence. Conditions applied to short-term let licences are intended to address noise and antisocial behaviour from the operation of short-term lets. • Environmental Health Consultation Advice Please note the advice and guidance contained in the consultation response from Environmental Health is available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. Page 121
Page 122
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 26/00047/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Proposed Development 1.1. Planning permission is sought for the change of use of a ground floor retail unit to form a restaurant/café and 2no. STL units together with a change to the external colour at The Rest, The Old Post Office Building, Campbeltown Road, Tarbert. 1.2. The proposal involves a change in the use of a ground floor unit falling within Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 Class 1A, Retail, to Class 3, Restaurant/Café; incorporating the formation of 2no. STL units. 1.3. Externally, the building would be repainted to Oxford Blue (RAL 260 30 10, BS 381C 105). An existing window on the north elevation would be blocked off to allow for the installation of an extractor and flue to support the operation of the kitchen of the proposed restaurant/café. An existing window opening which is currently blocked on the north elevation would be reinstated with 2 doors on the south and north elevations replaced. 2. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 2.1. The application site is located within the centre of Tarbert, abutting the A83 Campbeltown Public Road. The application site is situated within an area characterised by mixed use development, with a row of retail units dominating the ground floor streetscape and residential properties occupying the upper floors surrounding the site. 2.2. The property involved is a two-storey traditionally designed and proportioned building painted a cream colour located within Tarbert Conservation Area. 2.3. The ground floor unit, subject of the application, is currently vacant with the upper floor of the building, which would remain unchanged under the current proposal, being utilised as STL units within the ownership of the applicant. 3. Settlement Strategy 3.1. In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2), the application site is located within the Settlement Area of Tarbert wherein Policy 01 gives a general presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is compatible with surrounding uses; provides suitable access and infrastructure; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and it complies with all other relevant LDP2 policies. 4. Compliance with National and Local Development Plan 2 Policy Argyll and Bute ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) was adopted on 28.02.2024 which, together with NPF4 which was adopted on 13.02.2023, represent the Development Plan providing the policy background against which proposed developments are assessed. The proposal is assessed against the relevant NPF4 Policies below which include details of the associated LDP2 policies. 4.1. NPF4 Policy 1 Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises seek to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Page 122
Page 123
Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. 4.2. NPF4 Policy 2 Climate, Mitigation and Adaption seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and/ or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. 4.3. NPF4 Policy 7 Historic Assets and Places aims to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Part d) of Policy 7 sets out that development proposals in or affecting conservation areas will only be supported where the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its setting is preserved or enhanced. Part e) of the policy further states that development proposals in Conservation Areas will ensure that existing natural and built features which contribute to the character of the conservation area and its setting, including structures, boundary walls, railings, trees and hedges, are retained. LDP2 Policy 17 also relates to conservation areas, and in summary and of relevance seeks to ensure proposals respect the architectural, historic and other special qualities of the area. The application site is located within the Tarbert Conservation Area. The site is also within close proximity to a number of Listed Buildings, in particular the Category B listed Tarbert Harbour Walls including former Weighbridge, Slipways and Beilding (reference: LB48935), and Scheduled Ancient Monuments SM276 Tarbert Castle and SM3410 Tarbert, medieval burgh & environs. It is considered that the overall siting, design, scale and materials of the proposal respect the local character and surrounding historic environment and is in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. The proposed works are not anticipated to result in a material detriment to the character and appearance of the streetscene, Listed Buildings nearby, Scheduled Ancient Monuments nearby, wider Tarbert Conservation Area, and their respective settings. The proposal includes the installation of replacement external doors on the south and east elevations. For the south elevation, the proposed replacement door would be a uPVC door with an arched toplight and white finish. For the east elevation, the proposed replacement door would be a partly glazed uPVC door with a glass toplight and white finish. It is considered that the design and material of the doors are acceptable, and that they respect and are in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. Considering the above, the proposal is considered compliant with NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policies 15, 16, 17 and 19 which collectively seek to protect the Historic Environment from inappropriate developments which would have a detrimental impact. 4.4. NPF4 Policy 9 Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings 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. Page 123
Page 124
The development represents brownfield development by virtue of the fact that the proposal represents the reuse of an existing building which is directly supported by NPF4 Policy 9a) with no conflict with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 02. 4.5. NPF4 Policy 12 Zero Waste seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy as defined within the policy document. Whilst this is a development likely to generate waste when operational, waste and recycling facilities would be provided within the boundary of the property. It is considered that the proposal is considered consistent with NPF4 Policy 12 and LDP2 Policy 63 which seek to ensure that effective provision for waste/recycling is provided within developments. 4.6. NPF4 Policy 14 Design, Quality and Place aims to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle. Part a) of Policy 14 sets out that development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. Part b) of the Policy sets out that development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places: Healthy, Pleasant, Connected, Distinctive, Sustainable, and Adaptable. In this regard, it is considered that the overall siting, design, scale and materials of the proposal respect the local character and surrounding area and accords with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 and the sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2 namely 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, and Policy 12 Shopfront Design which, in summary, collectively seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, are sited sensitively within the landscape making use of existing infrastructure, are of an appropriate scale, sustainable design and finishes for their site; and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise. 4.7. NPF4 Policy 27 City, Town, Local and Commercial Centres aims to encourage, promote and facilitate development in our city and town centres. Part a) of the policy supports development proposals that enhance and improve the vitality and viability of city, town and local centres, including proposals that increase the mix of uses. Part f) of the policy states that development proposals for residential use at ground floor level within city/town centres will only be supported where the proposal will: i. retain an attractive and appropriate frontage; ii. not adversely affect the vitality and viability of a shopping area or the wider centre; and iii. not result in an undesirable concentration of uses, or ‘dead frontages’. LDP2 Policy 45 Supporting Our Town Centres and Retailing also supports development proposals that seek to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of our established town centres. This support includes retail, commercial, and other developments where the scale is appropriate to the size and function of the settlement. In this regard, it is noted that there is no change to the fenestration on principal elevations and a large portion of the frontage would be used for the restaurant/ café use thereby ensuring that the frontage would remain attractive and appropriate. It is not considered that the proposal would adversely affect the vitality and viability of a shopping area or the wider centre and would not result in an undesirable concentration of uses, or ‘dead frontages’. Considering the above, the proposal is considered compliant in principle with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 27 and LDP2 Policy 45. 4.8. NPF4 Policy 29 Rural Development sets out that development proposals in remote rural areas (within which the application site is located) will be supported where the proposal supports and sustains existing communities; and is suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design and environmental impact. Page 124
Page 125
The proposal includes the formation of a restaurant/café, and STL units involving the diversification of an existing business. As assessed above, it is also considered that the proposal is suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design and environmental impact. The proposal is therefore considered meets with the main aims of NPF4 Policy 29. 4.9. NPF4 Policy 30 Tourism seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate sustainable tourism development which benefits local people, is consistent with our net zero and nature commitments, and inspires people to visit Scotland. Part a) of the policy supports tourism development in locations identified in the LDP. Part b) sets out a range of matters that tourism related development will take into account. This includes the contribution made to the local economy, compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of activity and the impact of increased visitors; impacts on communities; opportunities for sustainable travel, appropriate parking and traffic generation, and public transport; accessibility for disabled people; measures to minimise carbon emissions; and opportunities to provide access to the natural environment. Part e) of NPF4 Policy 30 states that development proposals for the reuse of existing buildings for short term holiday letting will not be supported where the proposal will result in an unacceptable impact on local amenity or on the character of a neighbourhood or area. LDP2 Policy 23 Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities supports improved tourist facilities and accommodation where the development is in a form scale and location which is consistent with its surroundings; and respect and integrate well with the landscape/townscape character and amenity of the surrounding area. LDP2 Policy 25 Tourism Development Opportunities identified areas with a potential for the sustainable growth of the tourism industry. The application site being located in Tarbert is benefited by LDP2 Policy 25, where priority will be given to those developments which make use of previously developed sites, locations which are accessible by a variety of means of transport, where there is existing infrastructure capacity, and/or where a proposal will fill a recognised gap in the identified tourism network. It is considered that the application partly for STL use is in line with the broad aims of these tourism related policies. The Environmental Health Officer raised no objection to the application advising that that should the current planning application be approved, the development would be subject to licensing requirements for STL use. The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022 will require the host of any new STL to apply to the Council for a licence. Conditions applied to STL licences are intended to address noise and antisocial behaviour from the operation of STL. Considering the above, the proposal is considered compliant in principle with the relevant policies of NPF4 Policy 30, LDP2 Policies 23 and 25. 5. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters 5.1. NPF4 Policy 13 Sustainable Transport 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. Part b) of Policy 13 states that development proposals will be supported 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: i. provide direct, easy, segregated and safe links to local facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks before occupation; ii. will be accessible by public transport, ideally supporting the use of existing services; v. supply safe, secure and convenient cycle parking to meet the needs of users and which is more conveniently located than car parking. 5.2. LDP2 Policy 33 – Public Transport Infrastructure supports patterns of development which utilise existing or potential public transport corridors as the preferred option. Page 125
Page 126
5.3. LDP2 Policy 40 Vehicle Parking Provision (Table 5) sets out the car parking standards to be applied to various categories of development. Having regard to the parking standards in LDP2 Policy 40, it is noted that there is no explicit standard for STL use, however, there are parking standards for similar bed and breakfasts, hotels and hostels, and housing (use class 9) and flatted dwellings uses. Considering the nature of the application and making references to the above standards, it is considered that one space per one letting room should be provided, in that a total of 2nos. of parking spaces should be provided for the proposed development. 5.4. There is no existing on-site parking associated with the site with the current proposal not altering the current situation. Submitted information states that a secure cycle store will be provided at the rear of the building, but no detail has been provided. 5.5. The application is accompanied by a Traffic Management Measures Statement which anticipates that most of the guests would utilise public transport, or use active travel means including bicycles or walking to access the proposed STL units. The Statement details that the relevant information would be provided in relation to public transportation, car park(s) within an information package and/or on booking website(s). 5.6. Transport Scotland was consulted and raised no objection to the proposed development. 5.7. Area Roads were consulted on the proposal and recommended that the application be refused. Area Roads advised that whilst the number of vehicle movements generated by the proposed restaurant/café use would not be significantly different compared to the former use of the premises as a retail unit, the addition of 2no. STL units would generate additional traffic and therefore Area Roads seek that parking provision should be provided at 1 space per 1 STL unit, equating to the provision of 2 car parking spaces. Area Roads further advised that the car parks identified in the submitted drawings are outwith the applicant’s control. 5.8. In this regard, it is noted that the application site is located within the centre of Tarbert, where public transportation services are available. There are bus services connecting nearby ferry terminals, Lochgilphead, Campbeltown, and Glasgow. In addition, active and sustainable travel options are also available, and the proposal supports the use of bicycles with cycle storage indicated as being provided within the proposed development. The siting and design of the application is in line with NPF4 Policy 13 and LDP2 Policy 33, in which the importance of walking, cycling and proximity to public transport links is highlighted. 5.9. It is also noted that there are two major public car parks within short walking distance of the application site. These include the car park to the west of the application site along Campbeltown Road near the Tarbert Bus Shelter, and a car park to the east of the application site along the Tabert Harbour Walls. It is noted that only the former is owned and managed by the Council, with the latter outwith the Council’s management and control. Whilst acknowledging that the introduction of the 2 STL units would intensify the overall site usage, the shortfall of 2no. on-site parking spaces is considered to be relatively small and, given the active and sustainable travel options set out above, it is not considered that this level of shortfall would result in such clear and demonstrable harm. 5.10. Considering all of the above, and in the particular circumstance of this case, it is considered that the shortfall of on-site parking spaces can be accepted as a minor departure to policy in that it is reasonable to accept the use of the nearby public car parks by patrons of the proposed STL units. Whilst it is recognised that the proposal does not fully meet the provisions of Policy 40, Vehicle Parking Provision of LDP2 in terms of off-street parking, the mitigating factors detailed above are considered to be of sufficient materiality to allow the application to be approved as a minor departure to the Development Plan. Notwithstanding the above, to ensure the proposed bicycle storage is properly designed and retained during the operation of the proposed STL units, a relevant planning condition is recommended should permission be granted. Subject to the relevant condition, it is considered that the proposal is compliant in principle with the relevant policies of NPF4 Policy 13, LDP2 Policies 32 and 33. Page 126
Page 127
6. Noise and Odour Impact 6.1. NPF4 Policy 23 Health and Safety seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. LDP2 Policy 14 Bad Neighbour Development states that any proposal that would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring land uses resulting from noise or vibration; and odour or fumes would be resisted. 6.2. The upper level of the building is currently used as STL units, and there is no window opening on the upper floor within close proximity to the proposed flue. 6.3. No detailed technical specifications of the proposed extraction or ventilation system is provided. 6.4. The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the proposal subject to a planning condition in relation to the submission of information on the cooking odour extraction system, measures to control odour emissions and measures to control noise emissions from any extraction or ventilation system and noise output from any fans necessary in order to protect the amenity of the area in terms of noise and odour nuisance. 6.5. Considering the above, the proposal is considered compliant with the relevant policies of NPF4 Policy 23, and LDP2 Policy 14. 7. Conclusion 7.1. The determining factors in the assessment of this application are considered to be whether this location is acceptable for the proposed development having regard to its effect on tourism, town centre policies, historic environment, parking and associated transport matters, and impact on amenity. 7.2. The proposed development has been assessed against all of the above potential constraints and designations and has been considered to raise no issues or concerns other than the aforementioned with associated proposed conditions where necessary. 7.3. Based on the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with relevant policies of NPF4 and as a minor departure to Policy 40 of LDP2 and there are no other material considerations that would justify withholding planning permission. Page 127
Page 128
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 129
The Chalet Westlea Kingsway 1 KINTYRE STREET 3 2 ab Knap Rest Bankhead Play Area Cottage Iona KINTYRE PLACE Quay JuraHouse Linthouse Ardminish Southcliffe 7 to 12 5 3 4 Finlaggin Mean High Water Springs Kerryview 2c 1c 3 BRUNSWICK ST 1 LB Tigh-na- Brae House 2 3c 1 ab 4 Posts BURNSIDE Dungrianach Lochview Penlea Liby Breezycliff 22 to to 1 Place 2 MLWS A 8015 17 16 14 John Smith 3a & b Office Sorting Sub StaView The Lochead Parish Church Path 6 15 4 to 12 El Kingsley Rozel Dunelm Craig Afton Line of Posts © Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to: 26/00047/PP O 0 10 205 Meters Application Site Page 129
Page 130
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 131
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference: 26/00986/PAN Applicant: Ladyfield Renewable Energy Park Ltd Proposal: Proposal of application notice for the installation and operation of approximately 3.2KM of underground electrical and telecommunications cabling and associated temporary works required to connect the Ladyfield Renewable Energy Park to the SSENT Creag Dhubh Substation. Site Address: Land Between Ladyfield Renewable Energy Park and Creag Dhubh substation Approximately 8KM North of Inveraray ____________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 BACKGROUND The submitted Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) is for the installation and operation of approximately 3.2KM of underground electrical and telecommunications cabling and associated temporary works required to connect the Ladyfield Renewable Energy Park to the SSEN Creag Dhubh Substation currently under construction by SSEN. Members are requested to note that a planning application is required in this instance as the applicants do not have permitted development rights as a statutory undertaker in respect of Electricity Undertakings under Class 40 of the GPDO. The electrical cabling will comprise 33kV infrastructure installed underground within a trench typically approximately 1.2m in width and buried at a depth of approximately 1.0-1.2m below ground level. Telecommunications cabling will also be installed in the same trench. The installation of the cabling will involve trench excavation, cabling laying, backfilling and restoration of the disturbed ground. Ladyfield Energy Park was granted S36 Consent by the Scottish Ministers on 02.05.2025. This comprises up to 13 wind turbines anticipated to generate around 58.5 megawatts (“MW”), and a battery electricity storage system (“BESS”) of around 41.4MW capacity. For general information the Planning Authority raised no objection to this proposal. A link to the company’s website in respect of the project which contains general information relating to the approved S36 Energy Park and the proposed grid connection which this PAN relates to is provided below. Ladyfield Renewable Energy Park The submitted PAN notice took effect from 09.06.2026 from which a minimum of 12 weeks must elapse prior to the submission of a formal application for planning permission. The proposed public consultation strategy set out in the PAN to undertake appropriate notifications and hold four public consultation events is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the PAN regulations. As there was no PPSL in July the PAN is being reported to August PPSL. The Council has also recently undertaken an EIA screening for this proposal under REF 26/00852/SCREEN. It was the view of Officers that no EIA was required. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION Page 131 Agenda Item 8
Page 132
The site comprises a linear area of land between the boundary of the Ladyfield Energy Park site and the Creag Dhubh substation. The underground cable will generally follow the line of the A819 and then branch off to the northwest at an appropriate point to connect to the substation. The intention of the applicant is to run the cable a close to the line of the road as possible. The Proposed Development is located within both public highway and a rural area of Argyll and Bute characterised by upland moorland and forestry areas. It’s anticipated that the area of works will be approximately 12m in width and the boundary to be used for planning refined accordingly. The Proposed Development is linear, located approximately 8km north of Inveraray, between National Grid Reference (NGR) 209092, 716491 and NGR 208806, 719448 (the Site). The cabling would be installed in the public highway verge, where feasible, in a northerly direction for approximately 1.9km. Where verge installation is not possible, installation would take place within the carriageway itself. After approximately 1.9km, the cabling would leave the A819 corridor and run northwest across upland / commercial forestry land for approximately 1.3km before connecting into the Creag Dhubh Substation. Some tree felling may be required, although this is likely to be minimal as works will utilise the existing access tracks and previously sterilised land where possible. Construction within the public highway corridor will require the implementation of traffic management measures, likely including temporary two-way traffic signals to maintain access in both directions. A temporary working area around the cabling trench will be required. Construction within the forestry / upland area will be facilitated by utilising the existing forestry tracks, and temporary tracks where forestry tracks are not currently present. Land uses along the route include public highway infrastructure associated with the A819, commercial forestry and areas of rough grazing. The Site lies within a sparsely populated area with limited residential receptors, with the nearest being North Tullich, approximately 500m from the Proposed Development. The northern section of the Site lies within the North Argyll Area of Panoramic Quality, a designated local landscape, while a portion along the A819 corridor is situated adjacent to the Glen Etive and Glen Fyne Special Protection Area (SPA) to the east. 3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY These PAN submissions are not a planning application and therefore do not require to be evaluated and determined in accordance with Section 25 of the Planning Act against the Development Plan at this stage. However, a number of Development Plan Policies will inform the assessment of any future detailed application. The relevant policies are set out below: LDP 2 Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas High-Quality Places Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 17 – Conservation Areas Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Page 132
Page 133
Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 22 – Economic Development Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High-Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact of Sites International and National Importance Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 80 – Geodiversity National Planning Framework 4 This is a statutory Plan for the purposes of determining Planning Applications under Section 25 of the Planning Act and therefore NPF 4 Policies will also have to be considered in the determination of any future planning application. 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 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 24 – Digital Infrastructure Productive Places NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development 4.0 POTENTIAL MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Material considerations include: • Statutory/Non-Statutory Consultee Comments/ • Third Party Comments • Comments from Area Roads Manager in respect of the potential impacts on the operation of the A819 will be of particular importance in respect of considering and future proposals and a Page 133
Page 134
Construction Traffic Management Plan will be required. (It is noted and welcomed that this matter has already been recognised by the applicants in their screening submissions). 5.0 CONCLUSION This report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the PAN. Summarised are the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations. The list is not exhaustive, and further matters may arise as and when any planning application is received, and in the light of public representations and consultation responses. Officers are content that the steps set out within the PAN are acceptable and in accordance with the necessary community engagement requirements. 6.0 RECOMMENDATION That Members have regard to the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the submitted PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submissions. Author of Report: David Moore Date: 27.07.2026 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 28.07.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 134
Page 135
© Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to: 26/00986/PAN O 0 430 860215 Meters Application Site Page 135
Page 136
This page is intentionally left blank