Consider Notice of Review Request: Inveraray Shinty Clubhouse, Dalmally Road, Inveraray, Pa32 8Xd (Ref: 26/0006/Lrb)
Argyll and Bute Council · 14 September 2026
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 14 September 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 26/0006/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION 25/01573/PP ERECTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT COMPOUND WITH 25 METRE HIGH TOWER AND ASSOCIATED WORKS INVERARAY SHINTY CLUB, INVERARAY 18 AUGUST 2026
Page 2
STATEMENT OF CASE The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is EE Limited (“the appellant”). Planning permission 25/01573/PP for the ‘erection of telecommunications equipment compound with 25 metre high tower and associated works’ at Inveraray Shinty Club, Inveraray (“the appeal site”) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on 8 July 2026. The planning application has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site is situated along the southern boundary of the Inveraray Shinty Club grounds, accessed off of the A819 Dalmally public road with the shinty clubhouse situated to the north adjacent to established playing fields and recreational land. To the south of the site is Housing Allocation H3027, with planning permission 24/00823/PP for 16 affordable dwellinghouses imminent which would form the third phase of the wider Inveraray Masterplan within this area approved in 2017. The first phase of 10 dwellinghouses and the second phase of a retail unit within the Masterplan have been completed on site. To the east and southeast of the site is the BEAR Scotland Roads Depot beyond which is the Inveraray Primary School with open fields leading to a rising, tree covered backdrop to the west. The application proposes the formation of a telecommunications equipment compound incorporating a 25metre high swann column with crowsnest headframe incorporating the following equipment: 3 x antennas fixed to headframe; 2 x 0.6m transmission dishes; 1 x GPS Node fixed to proposed antenna pole; 1 x ORC Cabinet (600x600x2100); 1 x MK5B Link AC cabinet (1200x600x1600); 1 No. 6m x 5m compound formed from 1.8m high palisade fence with 3m wide double access gate; and ancillary equipment and cabling. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard is to be had to the development plan, and all other material planning considerations and the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is the test for this application.
Page 3
STATEMENT OF CASE Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issues in relation to the case are as follows: • Whether the site represents an appropriate location for the proposed development, having regard to its impact on visual amenity and the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and whether the development would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the historic environment. The Report of Handling (Appendix 1) sets out the Council’s full assessment of the application in terms of Development Plan policy and other material considerations. REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING It is not considered that any additional information is required in light of the appellant’s submission. The issues raised were assessed in the Report of Handling which is contained in Appendix 1. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. Given the above and that the proposal is small-scale, has no complex or challenging issues, and has not been the subject of any significant public representation, it is not considered that a Hearing is required. COMMENT ON APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION The case from the Planning Service is set out in the Report of Handling appended to this statement. With regards to the Appellant’s submission, Officers have the following comments. 1. The Planning Authority's prolonged delay in determining the application materially prejudiced the Appellant and altered the planning context against which the proposal was assessed. The Planning Authority acknowledges that the determination of the application took longer than would ordinarily be expected and notes the concerns raised by the Appellant. However, it is not accepted that the delay resulted in material prejudice to the Appellant or that it rendered the subsequent assessment of the application unfair. All planning applications require to be determined against the provisions of the Development Plan in force at the time along with all other material considerations. Whilst the adjacent residential development was not approved at the time the planning application was submitted, the site formed part of a wider Housing Allocation within adopted Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) and therefore its existence represented a material consideration in the assessment process with the Planning Authority obliged to consider the relationship between the proposed development and the wider Housing Allocation. The Planning Authority does not accept that these considerations arose solely as a consequence of delay, but that they formed part of the planning context at the time the application was determined being relevant matters that required to be considered. 2. That the Planning Authority afforded disproportionate weight to the perceived visual and heritage impacts of the proposal. The Planning Authority accepts that the proposal is intended to provide replacement telecommunications infrastructure and acknowledges the operational need for such
Page 4
infrastructure, however, the Planning Authority does not accept that insufficient weight was afforded to these considerations. Whilst the operational need for replacement infrastructure is acknowledged, this does not negate the requirement for the development to accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and other material considerations. The Planning Authority concluded that the public benefits and operational need associated with the proposal did not outweigh the identified harm arising from its siting and visual impact. 3. Insufficient weight has been given to the operational need and public benefits associated with the proposal. The Planning Authority acknowledges the importance of maintaining effective telecommunications coverage, however it is not accepted that these benefits outweigh the identified adverse impacts of the proposed development. The Planning Authority accepts that the proposal would contribute towards the ongoing provision of digital connectivity, however, support for telecommunication infrastructure does not negate the requirement for developments to be appropriately sited and designed, or to comply with the provisions of the Development Plan Whilst the Appellant characterises the visual impacts to be limited and localised, the Planning Authority remains of the view that the proposal would result in unacceptable effects on the visual amenity, character and appearance of the surrounding area, as well as the historic environment. 4. The Appellant has demonstrated that the proposed location represents the only suitable, available and deliverable site capable of meeting the operational requirements of the network. The Planning Authority acknowledges the Appellant's assessment of alternative locations and the technical requirements associated with the provision of replacement telecommunications infrastructure. However, the existence of operational constraints does not, in itself, demonstrate beyond doubt that no other suitable or potentially deliverable alternatives exist, nor does it remove the requirement for the proposed development to be assessed against the relevant planning policies and material considerations. Whilst the need to maintain telecommunications coverage is recognised, the Planning Authority remains of the view that the information submitted has not sufficiently justified the proposed siting of the development, having regard to its identified impacts on visual amenity, the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the historic environment. 5. The Planning Balance Weighs Decisively in Favour of Granting Planning Permission The Planning Authority acknowledges that telecommunications infrastructure will introduce built development into the landscape and that a degree of visibility is often unavoidable and also recognise the need for modern and reliable digital infrastructure. Whilst the Appellant contends that the proposal has been appropriately sited and designed to minimise environmental impacts, the Planning Authority remains of the view that the development would have an unacceptable effect on visual amenity and on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would adversely affect the historic environment and would fail to satisfactorily integrate with its surroundings.
Page 5
The Planning Authority deemed that the adverse impacts of the development outweighed its benefits and therefore the proposal was considered contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan comprising NPF4 and LDP2. CONCLUSION Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 requires that all decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As set out above, and for the reasons detailed in the Report of Handling appended to this statement, it remains the view of the Planning Authority that the proposed development would result in an adverse impact on the visual amenity, character and appearance of the surrounding area and would adversely affect the historic environment. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to the relevant provisions of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2). The Planning Authority remains satisfied that the reasons for refusal are appropriate and it is therefore respectfully requested that the Local Review Body dismiss the application for review and uphold the decision of the Planning Authority.
Page 6
APPENDIX 1 Report of Handling Relative to 25/01573/PP 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: 25/01573/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: EE Limited Proposal: Erection of telecommunications equipment compound with 25 metre high tower and associated works Site Address: Inveraray Shinty Club, Inveraray 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 telecommunications equipment compound with associated works as follows: 1 x 25-metre-high swann column with crowsnest headframe 3 x antennas fixed to headframe 2 x 0.6m transmission dishes 1 x GPS Node fixed to proposed antenna pole 1 x ORC Cabinet (600x600x2100) 1 x MK5B Link AC cabinet (1200x600x1600) 1 No. 6m x 5m compound formed from 1.8m high palisade fence with 3m wide double access gate Ancillary equipment and cabling (ii) Other specified operations • N/A (B) RECOMMENDATION:
Page 7
Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Argyll and Bute Council – Roads Authority Report dated 20/11/25 advising no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions being imposed on any permission granted to secure a Traffic Management Plan for the construction phase of the proposed development together with details of a parking and turning area for the service vehicle(s). Argyll and Bute Council – Environmental Health Service (EHS) Memo dated 31/10/25 advising that they have no comment to make on the proposal. NatureScot Response dated 03/11/25 advising that they have no comment to make as the proposal does not affect a protected area. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) Letter dated 17/11/25 advising that they have considered the proposal and do not have any comments to make. HES do however advise that their decision not to provide comments should not be taken as their support for the proposal. 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 planning history relevant to this site but history relating to the wider area, and referenced in the main assessment of the proposal, is provided below. 13/02860/MPLAN Inveraray Project Masterplan - MAST 1/5 Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (2015) – Granted: 26/04/17 14/02020/PP Erection of Class 1 retail store, upgrade of access and associated landscaping (amended site boundaries) – Granted: 24/09/14 18/02298/PP Erection of 10 dwellinghouses with associated car parking, upgraded access road and landscaping (revised house types and associated parking previously approved under reference 16/03138/P – Granted: 19/02/19 (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 05/12/25. (F) REPRESENTATIONS:
Page 8
(i) Representations received from: Mr Ross Lightfoot, 89 Minerva Street, Finnieston, Glasgow (04/12/25) 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: • Drawing attention to the proximity of the proposed mast to the adjacent housing application (planning ref. 24/00823/PP). • Digital Telecommunications: Planning Guidance (para. 4.35) states that, in suburban or residential areas, larger masts should where possible be sited away from direct views from main habitable windows. The current proposal places the mast immediately beside the site boundary of the proposed residential scheme. We would be grateful if this relationship could be considered during the handling of the application. Officer Comment: This comment is noted and is considered 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: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☒Yes ☐No A Design Statement has been submitted in support of the proposal which is referenced in the main assessment at Section P below. (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☐Yes ☒No ☐Yes ☒No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☒Yes ☐No Relevant INCNIRP certification and associated Health and Safety Correspondence relating to the operation
Page 9
of telecommunication proposals have been submitted with the application. (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) Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 24 – Digital Infrastructure 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 06 – Green Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 17 – Conservation Areas
Page 10
Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Connected Places Policy 44 – Telecommunications Sustainable Communities High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity 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 • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • Scottish Government - Digital Telecommunications: Planning Guidance • Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (2019) • Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Gardens and Designed Landscapes (2016) (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: • Inveraray Castle Designed Landscape • Inveraray Conservation Area (outwith but adjacent to) • West Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA (outwith but adjacent to) (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2
Page 11
☐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 ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(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 (O)(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: Area for Action AFA:A3014 Inveraray Town Centre and Waterfront allocated for local historic regeneration and enhancement (Action Programme) (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Introduction and Settlement Strategy The application is seeking to secure permission for the formation of a telecommunications equipment compound with a 25 metre high tower and associated equipment on an area of land at Inveraray Shinty Clubhouse, Dalmally Road, Inveraray. In terms of the Settlement Strategy set out in the adopted LDP2, the site is identified as being within the defined Key Rural Settlement Area (SA) of Inveraray on the proposals maps where LDP2 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 12
Site and Proposed Development The site is situated along the southern boundary of the Inveraray Shinty Club grounds, accessed off of the A819 Dalmally public road with the shinty clubhouse situated to the north adjacent to established playing fields and recreational land. To the south of the site is Housing Allocation H3027, with planning permission 24/00823/PP for 16 affordable dwellinghouses imminent which would form the third phase of the wider Inveraray Masterplan within this area approved in 2017. The first phase of 10 dwellinghouses and the second phase of a retail unit within the Masterplan have been completed on site. To the east and southeast of the site is the BEAR Scotland Roads Depot beyond which is the Inveraray Primary School with open fields leading to a rising, tree covered backdrop to the west. The application proposes the formation of a telecommunications equipment compound incorporating a 25 metre high swann column with crowsnest headframe incorporating the following equipment: 3 x antennas fixed to headframe; 2 x 0.6m transmission dishes; 1 x GPS Node fixed to proposed antenna pole; 1 x ORC Cabinet (600x600x2100); 1 x MK5B Link AC cabinet (1200x600x1600); 1 No. 6m x 5m compound formed from 1.8m high palisade fence with 3m wide double access gate; and ancillary equipment and cabling. The Design Statement (DS) submitted with the application details that the existing telecommunications mast within nearby AFAM Services site (approximately 115m to the east of the application site) is due to be decommissioned due to operational reasons and replaced by the current proposal. The DS details that the existing site at AFAM Services provides network coverage to the area, however, due to operational reasons it cannot no longer continue to provide coverage nor 5G coverage and there is an urgent requirement to decommission and remove the existing installation with the requirement for a new location for a replacement installation in order to maintain and improve coverage to this area. The DS further details that the replacement site must be in the same geographical area to ensure that the network coverage is improved effectively which has led to the consideration of this site. The DS provides details of a number of alternative sites that were considered and the reasons why they were discounted and also discusses a site consented under planning permission reference 21/02463/PP which cannot be progressed due to legal issues. Assessment Whilst the site is situated within the SA of Inveraray, where LDP2 Policy 01 gives a general presumption in favour of sustainable development, this is caveated by a number of criteria and the need for compliance with all other relevant LDP2 policies and material planning considerations.
Page 13
The site is situated within an area identified within LDP2 as an Area for Action (AFA) A3014, a strategic allocation the key aim of which is to enable investment and initiatives in the Key Rural Settlement of Inveraray related to the Conservation Area, the adjoining Strategic Masterplan Area and to continue to promote essential repairs and maintenance of the Historic Environment. The site is situated within the wider Inveraray Castle Gardens and Designed Landscape designation one of the most grandly conceived and culturally significant designed landscapes in Scotland and is in very close proximity to the Inveraray Conservation Area. The site is also adjacent to, but outwith, the West Loch Fyne (Coast) LLA. Furthermore, as detailed above, the site is directly adjacent to Housing Allocation H3027, allocated within LDP2 to bring forward 138 housing units, with the granting of planning permission for 16 affordable dwellinghouses, directly adjacent to the proposed mast site, imminent. The key consideration in the proposal is whether it complies with the policy requirements set out in NPF4 Policy 24 – Digital Infrastructure namely Part (e) (i) which only affords support to development proposals for digital infrastructure where the visual and amenity impacts of the proposed development have been minimised through careful siting, design, height, materials and, landscaping, taking into account cumulative impacts and relevant technical constraints; and LDP2 Policy 44, Telecommunications which seeks that telecommunication installations should minimise impact on the visual amenity, character or appearance of the surrounding area and not have an unacceptable impact on protected areas including Designed Landscapes and Conservation Areas. In addition to the above, the Scottish Governments Digital Telecommunications: Planning Guidance provides a good practice guide for telecommunication installations seeking that where located in suburban or residential areas, larger new masts should, where possible, be located away from direct views from main habitable windows. Officers deem that the telecommunications infrastructure proposed within this application would not fit with the wider aspirations of the area set out within LDP2 with regards to the AFA, Housing Allocation and the impact on the Historic Environment. The introduction of the proposed mast at the edge of this key area would undermine the aspirations set out in the LDP2 to transform this area contrary to the provisions of key policies NPF4 24 and LDP2 Policy 44 which collectively seek to resist telecommunication development where it would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity, character and appearance of the surrounding area and would adversely impact on protected areas including Designed Landscapes and Conservation Areas. The proposal is assessed against the other relevant NPF4 and LDP2 Policies below. 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 14
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. 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. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. In the case of the development proposed by this application it is not considered that there are any issues of compliance with Policy 3 and no material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority. Whilst Policy 3(c) would ordinarily require measures for the conservation, restoration and enhancement of biodiversity, such measures are required ‘where appropriate’ and should be ‘proportionate’ to the nature and scale of the development proposed. In this case, the proposed development is limited to a telecommunications project which would not prejudice any existing biodiversity value and therefore it is not considered appropriate or proportionate to seek biodiversity restoration or enhancement in this specific case. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in compliance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 3 and LDP2 Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity which collectively seek to ensure that development proposals incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity. NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. 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 within a Local Landscape Area (LLA) for and area identified as Wild Land. However, whilst the site is situated directly adjacent to the West Loch Fyne LLA, it is not considered that the scale of the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the LLA or the reasons for which it was designated raising no conflict with NPF4 Policy 4 or LDP2 Policy 71, Development Impact on
Page 15
LLAs which collectively seek to protect the natural environment and designated areas from inappropriate development. NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets 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. Part (d) of Policy 7 only supports development proposals in or affecting Conservation Areas where the character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting is preserved or enhanced with Part (e) seeming to ensure that development proposals 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. Part (i) only affords support to development proposals affecting nationally important Gardens and Designed Landscapes where they protect, preserve or enhance their cultural significance, character and integrity and where proposals will not significantly impact on important views to, from and within the site, or its setting. The telecommunications installation is proposed within the Gardens and Designed Landscape of Inveraray Castle and in close proximity to the Inveraray Conservation Area, designations which are acknowledged within LDP2 by virtue of AFA A3014 referenced above, being a strategic allocation the key aim of which is to enable investment and initiatives in the Key Rural Settlement of Inveraray related to the Conservation Area, the adjoining Strategic Masterplan Area and to continue to promote essential repairs and maintenance of the Historic Environment. In this instance, it is considered that the proposal would conflict with the main aims of NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policies 15, Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment, Policy 17, Conservation Areas and Policy 20, Gardens and Designed Landscapes together with the guidance contained within Historic Environment Scotlands Historic Environment Scotland Policy and associated Managing Change in the History Environment: Gardens and Designed Landscape Guidance which collectively seek to protect the Historic Environment from inappropriate developments which would have a detrimental impact. 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. Part (a) of Policy 9 states that development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings, whether permanent or temporary, will be supported. In determining whether the reuse is sustainable, the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account. The development proposed by this application is considered to be on a brownfield site by virtue of the fact that it proposes to utilise an area of land within the grounds of the established recreational facility of Inveraray Shinty Club.
Page 16
In the event that permission was to be granted, the proposed development would be consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 9 and the spatial and settlement strategy set out in LDP2 Policy 01. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. NPF4 Policy 14 part (a) states that, development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. As detailed above, the site is within an area where the introduction of the proposed mast would conflict with the wider aspirations set out in LDP2 through the AFA allocation for the investment and initiatives in the Key Rural Settlement of Inveraray related to the Conservation Area, the adjoining Strategic Masterplan Area and to continue to promote essential repairs and maintenance of the Historic Environment. Officers deem the proposal to be contrary to the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 and the sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2 namely Policy 5, Design and Placemaking, Policy 08, Sustainable Siting and Policy 10, Design: All Development which, in summary, collectively seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, are sited sensitively within the landscape and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise. Considering the above, the proposal is recommended for refusal for the reasons set out below. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission Should be Refused: See reasons for refusal below. (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: Fiona Scott Date: 06/07/26 Reviewing Officer: David Moore Date: 08/07/26 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 17
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/01573/PP 1. This proposed installation of a telecommunication equipment compound and mast is considered contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 24 (e) (i) (Digital Infrastructure) and LDP2 Policy 44 (a) & (d) (Telecommunications) as it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity, character and appearance of the surrounding area and would adversely impact on the Historic Environment contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policies 7 (Historic Assets) and 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and LDP2 Policy 15 (Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment, Policy 17 (Conservation Areas) and Policy 20 (Gardens and Designed Landscapes).