Appendix A - ROH
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.
Page 1
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: 25/01506/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Adrian Clarke Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse and garage, and installation of private drainage system. Site Address: Land at Loch Stornoway Hill, Kilberry, Argyll and Bute. 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 dwellinghouse and domestic garage/ boat shed Change of use of land to Class 9 Houses Utilisation of existing vehicular access track together with upgrades to road junction Creation vehicular parking and turning arrangements. Installation of private drainage system Installation of private water supply Installation of ground mounted solar PV array Construction of a fire pond (ii) Other specified operations N/A (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material consideration, it is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: NatureScot (13th October 2025) – has no specific comments, as the proposal does not have an impact on a NatureScot designated protected area. NatureScot further advise: “Please note that although we have decided not to comment on this proposal as we consider the
Page 2
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 impacts are not likely to raise issues of national interest, it may have significant effects on the environment which may require to be considered by the relevant regulatory authority. The planning and development advice pages of our website contain guidance to help regulatory authorities assess natural heritage impacts of development proposals, including guidance on protected species.” Scottish Forestry (11th November 2025) – advise that the application area falls entirely within the boundary of a grant aided native woodland proposal, funded under the Forestry Grant Scheme. While no trees will be directly impacted, it looks like the proposed development could result in a loss of grant aided open ground, which was designed to conserve the ruined settlement of Achaidh na h-Airde. Should the development go ahead, the applicant would need to submit a revised map, to exclude the development so that Scottish Forestry can recalculate payments made/due. Various vehicle gates/ pedestrian access have also been funded by the grant scheme and any changes to these would need to be notified to Scottish Forestry. Pedestrian gates should remain unlocked to allow continued pedestrian access across the site. Argyll and Bute Council Internal Consultation Responses Area Roads Officer (2nd October 2025) – has no objections to the scheme, subject to the inclusion of planning conditions to ensure, access, parking and turning meet Road Design Standards. A refuse collection point must also be provided adjacent to the public road. Environmental Health Officer (Public Protection) (16th September 2025) – has no objections, subject to the inclusion of a planning condition to restrict construction working hours, in the interests of residential amenity. Environment Health (7th November 2025) - The above application appears to be proposing the redevelopment of land where there is an indication of previous use which may be contaminative. This comprises the location of an historic lime kiln within the planning boundary. It is recommended that should planning permission be granted, a condition that development is not permitted to start until a risk assessment has been carried out, submitted and agreed upon by the Planning Authority. Any requirement arising from this assessment for a remediation strategy and verification plan would become a condition of the planning consent, again to be submitted and agreed upon by the Planning Authority, prior to development commencing. West of Scotland Archaeology Service (24th September 2025) – confirms that the abandoned township of Achaid na h’Airde was already ruinous when it appeared on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1873, indicating that it had already fallen out of use by that date. While the remains of the ruinous buildings shown on the eastern side of the watercourse should not be directly affected by the proposed development, there would be some potential for ground disturbance associated with construction on the western side of the watercourse to encounter and remove archaeological material, and the kiln is located on this western side. The Officer recommends the inclusion of two planning conditions, the first for the erection of temporary fencing around the remains of the kiln. The second condition would require the implementation of a programme of archaeological works, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation. Flood Risk Advisor (6th October 2025) – has no objections, subject to the recommendation that the house be set at least 0.3m above surrounding ground level due to the proximity to the small watercourse. The garage/ boatshed is also to be built close to the banks of the burn and given its proximity there is some residual flood risk. It is recommended that this building is built using flood resilient construction materials.
Page 3
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Community Council South Knapdale Community Council (4th December 2025) – notes a clear divergence of opinion locally regarding the proposal. The Community Council therefore adopt a neutral stance and request the Council consider the range of views expressed by the community, the differing perspectives on landscape and visual impact, questions raised regarding the status, prior-approval conditions and use of the existing private access track, the points highlighted by Scottish Forestry, the policy considerations around whether this constitutes a re-occupation of a historic site, or is new development within the Countryside Area. (D) HISTORY: 24/00176/PNWAY – Formation of forest track. Prior approval is required on 8th March 2024. 24/00176/PAWAY – Formation of forest track. Prior approval granted on 25th June 2024. 23/01623/FGS – Forest Grant Scheme. 23/01633/FGS – Woodland creation scheme. 22/00032/PAWAY – Formation of forest track. Application withdrawn. 22/00032/PNWAY – Formation of forest track. – Prior approval is required on 18th March 2022. (E) PUBLICITY: Regulation 20 Local Application Advert – Expired on 10th October 2025 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: The application was advertised when first submitted. A total of eight respondents have provided commentary on the scheme. Seven of these raise objections and one confirms their support for the proposal. Public representations have been made by: Respondents Objecting Duncan Byatt, Carse House, Argyll and Bute, Objects Dr Lucinda Byatt, Corrarie Cottage, Kilberry, Argyll and Bute, Objects Mr Giorgio Granozio, Corrarie Cottage, Kilberry, Argyll and Bute, Objects John Campbell, The Old School House, Kilberry, Argyll and Bute, Objects Dr Carina Spink, Taigh Dearg, Ardpatrick, Argyll and Bute, Objects Ed Tyler, Taigh Dearg, Ardpatrick, Argyll and Bute, Objects Mr Andrew Watts, Objects Respondent in Support Dr Mary Ray, Ivy Cottage, Kilberry, Argyll and Bute, Supports 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.
Page 4
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Summary of Comments Received in Objection: Concerns relating to the use of forestry grants to facilitate a dwelling at this location Proposed site is on an elevated piece of ground and will be much more visible There is no information on the visual impact from Ardminish Hill or from Carse Farm Proposal will have a significant impact on the landscape designation of this area Will set an unwelcome precedent of development around Loch Stornoway Proposal will have adverse impacts on vegetation and fauna which are found within the adjacent SSSI No steps have been taken to protect or document archaeological interests of the site Does not accord with the spatial and settlement strategy for houses in the open countryside Existing forestry track is already a visual scar on the landscape Proposed development is not adjacent to any existing structure, nor is it close to any community along the Kilberry road. Comments in Support new construction will bring work to locals more people deciding to live here either permanently or otherwise allows a rural community to thrive. Officer Comment: The matters raised above are considered within the Report of Handling. (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 (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No Checklists have been provided and it is considered that there is sufficient information available to issue a decision on the proposed development. ☒Yes ☐No
Page 5
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 - 3D Visualisations - Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal - Archaeology Report - Breeding Bird Survey (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 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees 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 10 – Coastal Development NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy 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 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development
Page 6
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance 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 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) 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 75 – Development Impact of Sites on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 82 – Contaminated Land Policy 83 – Safeguarding Agricultural and Croft 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. Third Party Representations Consultation Reponses Planning History The Building Standards Technical Handbook: Domestic (June 2023) ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) ABC draft Technical Note – Argyll and Bute Windows (April 2018) TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) ABC Housing Needs and Demand Assessment ABC Housing Emergency Statement
Page 7
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: Knapdale/ Melfort Local Landscape Area Archaeological consultation area (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Class 6.20 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? Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐ Yes ☐No ☒N/A ☐ Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐ Yes ☒No ☐ Yes ☐ No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☐Brownfield ☐ Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc:
Page 8
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 ☐ Settlement Area ☒Countryside Area ☐ Remote Countryside Area ☐ Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development The application site is located at Achaidh na h-Airde, positioned on the western side of Loch Stornoway, within a predominantly rural coastal landscape. The site lies to the south of the B8024 (classified road) and is proposed to be accessed via an existing forestry track, which was permitted under prior approval reference: 24/00176/PAWAY. The surrounding area is charactered by dispersed crofting development intercepted with agricultural land, rough grazing, moorland and pockets of established woodland planting. The site occupies gently sloping ground rising from the coastal edge towards an area of higher moorland to the north. The existing landform is undulating, with levels falling generally southwards towards the shoreline. The burn (Alt Achaidh na h-Airde) runs in a north-south direction to the east of the site, discharging into Loch Stornoway. The watercourse forms a locally distinctive landscape feature. Ground cover comprises rough grassland with occasional rocky outcrops, typical of the wider landscape character. A degree of tree planting has taken place within the wider land holding and surrounding the proposed dwelling site. Sporadic tree planting and natural regeneration are also evident in the wider area. The settlement pattern within the wider area is typically dispersed, with small clusters of residential development in sheltered sites. The nearest settlement is Kilberry, which is located approximately 3 miles to the northwest of the application site. Facilities within this village include a pub and a bus stop. The nearest larger settlement where one could serve their daily needs would be Tarbert, which is located approximately 12 miles to the north east of the site. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwellinghouse which takes a contemporary form, with timber clad walls and a dark zinc and sedum roof. The design is predominantly a single storey structure with flat roofs on the outer extents enveloping around a rising formation to a contemporary style dual pitch gable on the southern elevation. The dwelling features a heavy emphasis on glazing on the southern elevation. Building mass has been broken up by the staggering of external wall extents and the irregular shape. The floorplan features an open plan living/dining/kitchen room with provision for up to 4 large bedrooms, a utility room, larder and drying room, storage room and 3 bathrooms. A detached boat shed/ garage is also proposed to the erected on the northeastern side of the dwelling, with three parking spaces to be formed adjacent. The building takes form from a L-shape design, providing a workshop/store, wet room, log store, and inside storage space for vehicles and a boat. This building would have a dual pitched roof for the main structure and a mono-pitched roof for the rear section. Vertical larch clad elevations under a zinc roof are proposed. A fire pond is also proposed to be created on the western side of the house, together with the installation of a ground mounted solar PV array of 36 panels to the north of the site. Private drainage and water infrastructure are proposed to be installed. The existing forestry access track would be utilised as the sole vehicular access to the site.
Page 9
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Settlement Strategy This report assesses a planning application for the erection of a new dwellinghouse on an exposed coastal site within the open countryside of Argyll and Bute. The site occupies an isolated position overlooking Loch Stornoway, characterised by a largely undeveloped, expansive landscape with minimal built form and strong visual connectivity to the wider coastal setting. At national policy level, National Planning Policy Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 1 seeks to ensure development is sustainable and located appropriately. 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. In terms of the adopted LDP2 the site is defined as ‘Outwith Settlement Areas’, within an area identified as ‘Countryside Area' (CA), where Policy 02 of LDP2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development, where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2. The site is considered to be on a greenfield site by virtue of its designation as CA in the adopted LDP2. Although the site is near a ruinous structure, this has been reclaimed by nature and therefore the baseline for the proposed dwelling is considered to be greenfield. In this regard Part (b) of NPF4 Policy 9 states that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development, or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the Local Development Plan. Both NPF4 and LDP2 direct new housing developments towards existing settlements or areas where services and infrastructure are available. While NPF4 Policy 17 provides some support for rural housing, this is contingent upon appropriate siting and integration with existing built form. In this case, the proposal would introduce a new and unrelated dwelling into an otherwise undeveloped landscape, contrary to the spatial strategy set out in LDP2, whereby the proposal fails to demonstrate any locational or operational need for a dwelling in this remote location. In addition, the site is not considered a sustainable location for new residential development (see Landscape Character section below), as the site would not represent an ‘appropriate site’ in the CA for development with reference to Policy 02 of LDP2. Whilst the policy in respect of CA also provides for small scale infill, rounding off and redevelopment development, the application site, however, does not fall within any of these types of development sites. The proposal in this regard fails to accord with policies 9 and 17 of NPF4 and policies 02, 04, 05, 08, and 10 of LDP2. NPF4 Policy 16(f) supports development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP where: a) the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; and b) the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods; and c) the proposal is considered with policy on rural homes. Regarding the first criterion, a buildout timescale could be agreed by planning condition. Turning to the next criterion, NPF4 Policy 15 states that development proposals will contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20 minute neighbourhoods. To establish this, consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of
Page 10
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to services and facilities. All everyday services and facilities are located within the larger settlement of Tarbert, which is a journey time significantly more than a 20 minute drive from the application site. Regarding public services, whilst it is recognised there is a bus service (no.442) that connects Kilberry to Tarbet and runs twice a day (Monday to Friday), the bus stop is not within walking distance of the application site and a car would be required to get to the nearest bus stop located in the village of Kilberry. The level of interconnectivity is therefore low due to the isolated nature of the site, where no existing residential built environment is present or previously established. In addition, and as stated above, the proposal does not accord with the spatial strategy and therefore the proposal would fail to accord with the full requirements of NPF4 Policy 16(f) and subsequently NPF4 Policy 15. Landscape Character NPF4 Policy 4(d) and LDP2 Policy 71 look to safeguard locally important landscapes from damaging developments, ensuring that development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area, or on the qualities for which it has been identified. Any adverse effects should be clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance. The application site lies within the Knapdale/ Melfort Local Landscape Area, which is recognised by policy for its high-quality landscape protecting coastal scenery, woodlands and lochs, with policies strictly managing development to maintain its scenic and rural character. Development within this area is therefore strictly controlled, to prevent adverse impacts on the landscape quality, with a preference for directing development toward existing settlements rather than open countryside. LDP2 Policy 71 requires development to meet the following criteria: a) any adverse effects on the landscape quality are clearly outweighed by social, economic, or environmental benefits of community wide importance b) the proposal is supported by a landscape and visual assessment, and c) the location, scale, design, materials and landscaping would be of a high standard and would safeguard or enhance the special qualities and character of the local landscape area. With regards to criterion (b), the application is supported by a landscape and visual appraisal. The Appraisal concludes “the landscape around the site is remote and sparsely settled. This means that there are relatively few visual receptors in the landscape which could potentially be impacted but also that the sensitivity of the landscape as a natural environment could potentially be higher, and sensitive to change. The location and design of the house however is such that there are few locations where it would be visible from and visual impact would consequently be extremely low.” The application site lies within a remote coastal location, removed from established settlements, services, and infrastructure. The surrounding area is typified by open moorland and coastal scenery, with a high degree of landscape sensitivity. The coastal edge to the south includes rocky foreshore and small inlets, contributing to the scenic quality of the wider Loch Stornoway setting. While remnants of historical structures are present on site, these are in a highly ruinous condition and no longer contribute meaningfully to an established settlement pattern or building group. The site forms part of a wider coastal landscape, typified by open vegetated slopes descending toward sheltered sea lochs. The landscape exhibits a strong horizontal
Page 11
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 emphasis, with expansive views across Loch Stornoway and limited vertical enclosure. Built development is sporadic and visually recessive within the landscape. The burn corridor introduces a linear landscape feature that provides visual and ecological connectivity between upland and coastal environments. The open nature of the site means that development has potential to be visible from the wider receptors, including coastal viewpoints. Several letters of objection have been received from public representatives raising concern on the landscape impacts of the proposal. The coastal setting is highly sensitive, with expansive views and a strong sense of openness. The introduction of a new dwelling in this location would result in a prominent and intrusive feature within the landscape, undermining its undeveloped character. Whilst the applicant argues within their supporting documentation that the visual impact will be limited, this does not automatically make a scheme acceptable. The undeveloped nature of the coastline in this area is considered to be of high landscape value. The proposed development would introduce a manmade feature into this landscape, with its associated domesticated paraphernalia, and given the nature of the proposed development and the functional appearance of the structures, there would be a loss of landscape character within the immediate locality. Whilst the Applicant has tried to mitigate the impacts on the landscape character through design considerations, the fundamental nature of introducing a residential use in this location is contrary to the existing settlement character of the area and is considered would cause adverse landscape character impacts. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to both NPF4 Policy 4(d) and LDP2 Policy 71. Natural Environment There are no statutory or non-statutory designated ecological sites covering the site itself and NatureScot confirm that the proposal does not impact on nearby designated sites. The wider site is part of a woodland and forestry plantation scheme and includes an area of designated ancient woodland. A Phase 1 Habitat and Breeding Bird Report has been submitted in support of the application, which confirms that otters were using the adjacent watercourse in 2022, when the survey was undertaken, and the wider site is used by a variety of breeding birds. The survey was already out of date when submitted with the application and no updated survey work has been provided to ascertain the impacts of the proposed development on protected species. As it cannot be concluded that the proposal would not adversely impact protected species, including otter, the proposal is considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policy 3 and LDP2 Policy 73, due to insufficient information. Historic Environment It is acknowledged that there may have historically been built form close to the site. However, the remains are in a very ruinous state and no longer function as a coherent or recognisable building group. As such, they do not provide a valid justification for new development, nor do they establish a precedent for residential use. The proposal is therefore not considered to represent redevelopment or replacement in policy terms. This is reinforced by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service consultation response, who confirm that the settlement was already in a ruinous form as mapped in 1873. WOSAS also confirm the presence of a former kiln site, which lies towards the south-eastern corner of the red line boundary, which illustrates the occupation of this area by the historic township. WOSAS confirm that planning conditions are required relating to a programme of archaeological works together with the erection of a barrier around the kiln, to safeguard it from the development works. Subject to these conditions being attached to any approval, the proposal would be considered to accord with the policy requirements of NPF4 Policy 6 and LDP2 policies 15 and 21. Character, Layout, Appearance and Design
Page 12
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place of NPF4 requires development proposals to improve the quality of an area and meet the six qualities of successful places. This is reiterated within LDP2 policies 04, 08 and 10 which set out the overarching principles for successful placemaking and sustainable development. Policy 71 of LDP2 looks to safeguard locally important landscapes from damaging developments. The LDP2 Sustainable Design Principles require that new housing must reflect or recreate the traditional building pattern or built form and be sympathetic to the setting landmarks, historic features or views of the local landscape. It also requires in terms of the design that the scale, shape and proportion of the development should respect or complement the adjacent buildings and the plot density and size. The dwelling takes form from modern design, with emphasis on large, glazed gable areas and use of modern exterior finishes. Whilst the high-quality nature of the design is considered acceptable, the location and siting, as previously stated, does not accord with policy provision. In this context, the proposal would fail to meet the six qualities of successful places as set out in NPF4 Policy 14, as it would not be connected, nor sustainable, due to its isolated location in an undeveloped area of the countryside. In addition, insufficient information has been provided to define the extents of the domestic curtilage. It cannot be assessed whether the amenity space is commensurate to the scale of the dwelling it serves, nor does it ensure that domesticated paraphernalia doesn’t sprawl into wider extents of the site, failing to safeguard the wider rural character. Whilst a planning condition could address this requirement, the overarching issue of the proposed location of the development cannot be overcome by condition and remains contrary to planning policy. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters LDP2 Policies 36, 37, 39 and 40 provide the policy requirements relating to road, access and parking requirements for new private accesses. Access to the site is proposed to be taken from the southern side of the B8024 Kilberry public road via an existing junction and access track, which were constructed recently to serve the proposed forestry scheme. The Council’s Road Officer has no objection to the access scheme put forward, subject to the imposition of planning conditions requiring the access to meet Council Design Standards. The track at present has a notable visual landscape impact, however, this could be mitigated through adding a central grass strip to the track, which could be secured by planning condition. Subject to the imposition of these conditions, the proposal would provide adequate road safety standards in accordance with policies 36, 37, 39 and 40 of LDP2. Waste, Water, Flood Risk, Drainage and Soils In accordance with NPF4 Policy 12 requirements, a planning condition would be required to ensure a refuse collection point is located adjacent to the public road. The site is located outside of fluvial and coastal flood extents, as shown upon the SEPA Future Flood Maps. There is a small burn which flows through the eastern portion of the site, the SEPA surface water and small watercourse flood maps indicate that should this burn overflow its banks, floodwaters would preferentially exceed the left bank leaving the right bank free from flood waters. Given the site slopes from north east to south west (as per Ordnance Survey Terrain50 contour data), this is an acceptable conclusion. Due to proximity to the burn, the Flood Risk Advisor recommends the boatshed is built using flood resilient construction. The Council’s Flood Risk Advisor also recommends that finished floor levels are raised 0.3m above ground level, if practicable. Regarding servicing, the proposal would look to install a private water supply and a private sewage treatment plant, due to no public infrastructure serving the area. As there is no public wastewater infrastructure, the proposed private treatment plant would be considered
Page 13
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 acceptable and in accordance with LPD2 Policy 60. A planning condition would also be required to ensure the quality and wholesomeness of the private water supply meets council standards for potable drinking water. The proposal would involve ground-breaking works, and a soil management plan would therefore be required, in accordance with Policy 5 of NPF4 and Policy 79 of LDP2. In accordance with NPF4 Policy 9 and LDP2 Policy 82, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer recommends the inclusion of a planning condition for a contaminated land assessment, due to the close proximity of a historic kiln located adjacent to the development site. Subject to the inclusion of the above planning conditions the waste, water, drainage and soils matters are considered acceptable. Impact on Neighbouring Properties Policy 14 of NPF4 does not support developments that would be detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area and Policy 14 of LDP2 confirms that proposals that would have an unacceptable, detrimental impact upon neighbouring amenity will be resisted. There are no occupied dwellings near to the application site. Notwithstanding this, impacts arising from construction works could be managed by planning conditions, for a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and restricting construction working hours, to secure good construction working practices are adhered to, in the interests of neighbouring amenity. Subject to the inclusion of the planning conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would comply with NPF4 Policies 14, 16 and 17 and Policies 5, 8, 9 and 14 of LDP2 in this regard. Other Matters Reference to the abuse of the forestry and woodland grant funding and use of a forestry track for access to the proposed development have been raised by third party representatives. These do not constitute material planning considerations in assessing the current submitted application. This application seeks to change the use of the application site to residential and full consideration of this has been outlined above. Conclusion The proposed development represents an unjustified incursion into an isolated and sensitive coastal landscape. It fails to accord with the spatial strategy of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 and does not meet the sustainability objectives set out in National Planning Framework 4. The location and siting is not considered sustainable, and the introduction of a new dwelling in this location would erode the character of the open countryside and fail to conserve the landscape qualities of this local landscape area. The presence of existing ruinous historical remains does not outweigh the policy presumption against isolated development. There are acknowledged to be a number of benefits associated with the proposed development, including the contribution it would make to existing communities and local housing outcomes; particularly in the context of the Council declaring a ‘Housing Emergency’. However, these factors would not outweigh the conflict the proposed development would have with the development plan, when taken as a whole. The proposal is considered to be in conflict with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission, having regard to s25 of the Act.
Page 14
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Approved: The proposal is considered to be in conflict with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission, having regard to s25 of the Act. As such, planning permission should be refused for the proposed development. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐ Yes ☒No Author of Report: Laura MacDonald Date: 26/03/2026 Reviewing Officer: Stuart W Ramsay Date: 23/04/2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 15
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/01506/PP 1. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 and Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 in that is represents unsustainable development in an isolated countryside location, lacking access to services and infrastructure. The development would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the open coastal landscape, contrary to established landscape protection policies of NPF4 Policy 4 and LDP2 Policy 71 which is part of the designated Knapdale and Melfort Local Landscape Area. The ruinous remains of historical structures on site do not justify or support the erection of a new dwelling and do not constitute a valid redevelopment opportunity. The proposed development would introduce an urban character/ form and use of development into this isolated, rural countryside setting eroding the settlement pattern of this area and eroding the undeveloped countryside area. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 02, 05, 08 and 71 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2024 and Policies 4a, 9b, 14, 15, 16 and 17c of the National Planning Framework 2023. 2. The Planning Authority considers that the application fails to provide sufficient and up- to-date ecological information to enable a full and proper assessment of potential impacts on protected species, including otter. The submitted ecological survey, undertaken in 2022, was out of date prior to the submission of this planning application and does not adequately reflect the current proposal or the present baseline ecological conditions of the site. As such, the information provided is insufficient to inform an appropriate assessment of likely effects on protected species and their habitats. In the absence of robust and current ecological survey data, the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development would not result in adverse impacts on protected species, nor that it would comply with relevant wildlife protection legislation. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) Policy 3 and the Argyll and Bute Council Local Development Plan 2 (2024) Policy 73.
Page 16
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 25/01506/PP (A) Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. ☐ Yes ☒No (B) The reason why planning permission has been refused: The proposal is considered to be in conflict with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act. As such, planning permission should be refused for the proposed development.