Consider Notice of Review Request: Land at Loch Stornoway Hill, Kilberry (Ref: 26/0005/Lrb)
Argyll and Bute Council · 7 October 2026
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 7 October 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
1 fair planning & design chartered planning and architectural services Response to representations submitted relative to Notice of Review 26/0005/LRB Argyll and Bute Council – Local Review Body Appellant: Adrian Clarke Project Ref: 2024033 Development: NOTICE OF REVIEW: Refusal of planning application 25/01506/PP: FOR: Erection of dwellinghouse, garage and private drainage system Site: Land at Loch Stornoway Hill, Kilberry Scale: Local development
Page 2
2 Response Thank you for the opportunity to respond to representations submitted relative to Notice of Review 26/0005/LRB. We note the Planning Authority response to the Notice of Review, plus the updated third-party submissions. For brevity, our response is listed below. We are not responding to the unfounded allegations or slander contained within some of the third-party submissions, to maintain focus on the planning merits of the case and avoid wasting everyone’s time. Please read this response in conjunction with our original statement of case for completeness. Response to third party comments: • The access already benefits from prior approval under 24/00176/PAWAY, granted by Argyll and Bute Council in June 2024, to enable extensive woodland creation across large areas of the site. Approved access tracks have recently been constructed within the landholding, and whilst the visual impacts arising from that fresh construction are prominent in the minds of opponents of the proposed house, they are not relevant to the current Notice of Review. • A 25m ‘gap’ between the public road and the approved access network only exists because the prior approval process does not cover the first 25m from the classified public road. There is no legitimate planning or road safety reason why an access crossing the 25m ‘gap’ would not be granted planning permission. • The existing 25m link was formed in conjunction with providing the approved access network within the landholding, under Class 14 permitted development rights covering temporary works in conjunction with the implementation of a development on the same land or adjacent land. • The red line boundary for the proposed house and garage planning application must, by necessity, include the existing track and a connection point to the public road network, but planning application 25/01506/PP does not seek planning permission for the existing access. • Several of the objections use similar or identical language, including a repeated misapprehension around the nature of LDP2 Policy 02, perhaps based on previous planning policies that applied in countryside settings. Policy 02 is discussed in more depth below, but in short: it is not necessary for a house to represent infill, rounding off, redevelopment or consolidation of an existing group to comply with Policy 02. • The key policies applicable to the proposed house application are correctly identified as NPF4 Policy 17 (part c) and LDP2 Policy 02, as discussed in more depth below. • The example decisions cited in our statement of case refer to similar residential proposals where – critically – the same policies apply as are applicable to the current case. They are cited as evidence that the current policy framework does in fact support one-off houses in undeveloped countryside locations without the need for such proposals to comprise infill, rounding off, redevelopment or consolidation.
Page 3
3 The restrictive provisions of LDP1 were replaced with more positive policies in support of rural development when LDP2 took effect in February 2024. • The land is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The designation is termed a Local Landscape Area (LLA). No SSSI, NSA, SPA. SAC or other environmental designations apply to the land, nor are any nearby designations adversely affected by the proposals. • We share the objector’s desire for Members of the LRB panel to visit the land in person. We undertake to attend an accompanied site visit if one is confirmed. Seeing the site in person verifies the negligible impacts arising from the proposed single house and garage – as concluded by the professional landscape architects who viewed the site and surroundings before completing the LVIA. • We share the objector’s dismay at staff turnover in the MAKI office, particularly because the original planning officer was positively disposed towards the application, and where staff turnover caused delays in the decision-making process. • The planning report of handling states, under the section titled ‘Character, Layout, Appearance and Design’ that “…the high-quality nature of the design is considered acceptable…” • Open land with no buildings, nor transport routes, nor any public viewpoints, such as the land at Ardminish Hill, does not comprise a visual receptor. • The proposed house site is not elevated in nature – but sits around the 15m contour, below a noticeable rise in ground levels to the north which renders it very discreet relative to the public domain and provides an expansive containing backdrop when viewing the land from Ardminish Hill to the south, or from the sea at Loch Stornoway. Response to Planning Authority statement of case: • Our statement of case does not cherry pick, nor does our case depend on a dissection of planning policies. We seek to ensure that the most applicable planning policies are clearly identified and applied, using the plain English understanding of their wording, as is required under planning law. • NPF4 Policy 17: Rural Homes - applies a graduated policy where different approaches apply to different areas of land, depending on the Scottish Government’s 6-fold Urban Rural Classification 2020 (see attached policy document). • Land at this location is designated as a ‘remote rural area’ in the Urban Classification maps (see attached map extract) and as such, NPF4 Policy 17, part c) applies. • NPF4 predates LDP2, so LDP2 takes precedence in the event of any conflict between policies.
Page 4
4 • LDP2 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlements – clearly forms an applicable local development plan policy of relevance to the proposal because it sets out the council’s approach to assessing development applications in the Countryside Areas. • LDP2 Policy 02 must be read in its entirety to gain a full understanding of its terms. We have already quoted the policy in previous submissions, but for completeness it is included as an attachment in full. Part A applies to this land. Parts B and C do not apply because the site is not within ‘Remote Countryside Area’ or the ‘Helensburgh and Lomond Green Belt’. • LDP2 Policy 02, confirms that proposals will be acceptable in a range of circumstances, including specific provisions for projects in Countryside Areas as detailed in Part A. • Part A has two sentences. The first confirms a presumption in favour of sustainable development of an appropriate scale, design siting and use. The second sentence confirms that certain developments will be supported in particular (infill, rounding off, redevelopment opportunities of clusters, or previously developed sites) generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments. The two sentences taken together apply a generally positive approach, followed by a specifically less onerous way for certain developments to advance within that generally positive framework. • The key matter for planning decisions is whether an individual project comprises an acceptable form of sustainable development and demonstrates appropriate scale, design, siting and use. We are not asserting that all developments should be supported, but there is a clear policy provision to support individual projects where they satisfy certain criteria. That assessment is to be made on a case-by-case basis, under LDP2 Policy 02. Our assertion is that application 25/01506/PP complies with such provisions and should be supported. • Compliance with LDP2 Policy 02 is also dependent on compatibility with subject policies 70 -76. In this case, Policy 71 and Policy 73 are relevant in this case. • Policy 71 - Development Impact on Local Landscape Area (LLA) obliges developers to undertake Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) to evaluate the degree of impact of proposals within LLA’s. Formal LVIA has been completed in this case by professionally accredited and independent landscape architects, under the robust provisions that apply to the LVIA process, at considerable cost, and as required by LDP policy. Formal LVIA is a rigorous, objective, and professional assessment of the range of considerations that relate to landscape. • Planning officer’s attempt to minimise the significance of the LVIA by labelling it a ‘technical report’ is grossly unfair. Their statements that planning judgement often draws different conclusions due to the weighting that is afforded to a range of planning considerations, is similarly unfair and does not reflect what has occurred in this case. • Planning officer’s conclusions that “The development would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the open coastal landscape,” as stated in reason for refusal 1, is directly contradictory to the conclusions of the LVIA, whose professionally accredited landscape architect
Page 5
5 authors confirm that the project would have ‘low to negligible’ impacts on landscape and visual amenity. • A degree in Planning is not equivalent to a degree in Landscape Architecture. It is professionally inappropriate for an officer from a parallel discipline to overrule the conclusions of an accredited professional in the precise discipline that they are experienced in. The delegated refusal has simply set aside the findings of the professional LVIA, without any equivalently robust, adequate or rigorous assessment. • We invite Members to view the site for themselves prior to determining this Notice of Review. • Policy 73 - Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity highlights the importance of ecology and biodiversity. This project is supported by an ecological report that confirms the absence of protected species but recommends a resurvey for otter prior to construction commencing. There is no evidence of any change in circumstances since the report was prepared, nor any specific protected species habitat in play where ecological impacts would be expected to be problematic. We accept that a pre-commencement resurvey is required as good practice for otter and that appropriate mitigation measures would arise from that if need be. As an alternative, an updated ecological report could be requested at any stage (though no such request was ever made by the Planning Authority). Biodiversity enhancements are already being advanced through extensive native woodland creation at the landholding. • We are not seeking to assert that the project comprises redevelopment. The site was however previously inhabited. The siting of a new house approximately 50m from the ruinous structures at Achaidh na h-Airde forms an appropriate arrangement which reflects historic usage of the land. • The settlement pattern at the peninsula already includes a range of low density scattered individual houses, as well as small groupings and clusters. The provision of an individual house in an appropriate containing landscape setting reflects that existing pattern successfully. • The project generates minimal visual and landscape impacts, whilst enabling a family home to be created on a good sized landholding, in a location that has previously been inhabited. • The project accords with NPF4 Policy 17, LDP Policy 02 and Policy 71, and can readily be made complaint with Policy 73 through appropriate planning conditions.
Page 6
No embedded text on this page.