West Kintyre Community Council: Demolition of Existing Public Toilets and Erection of Replacement Public Toilets: Public Toilets, Tayinloan (Ref: 26/00436/Pp)
Argyll and Bute Council · 17 June 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 17 June 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 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: 26/00436/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: West Kintyre Community Council Proposal: Demolition of existing public toilets and erection of replacement public toilets Site Address: Public Toilets Tayinloan Argyll and Bute DECISION ROUTE Committee Decision under Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of replacement public toilets building (ii) Other specified operations • Demolition of existing public toilets building (B) RECOMMENDATION: The proposal is recommended for approval of Planning Permission subject to conditions and reasons appended below. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Isle of Gigha Community Council - 28.04.2026 Objecting to the proposed development advising as follows. A consultation with residents of the Isle of Gigha had been conducted. The majority of the respondents do not support the application on the following grounds: • Objections were raised to the removal of waiting room, which would have a negative impact on ferry passengers, in particular school students. • The existing waiting room is also used as a short-term storage area for goods transporting to and from the island. The loss of such space would impact businesses on the Isle of Gigha. • Concerns raised regarding the proposal for the facilities to operate on a charging basis. • Isle of Gigha Community Council should have been engaged in earlier stages of the development process. • Existing building should be fully renovated with the addition of accessibility facilities instead of replacing the building.
Page 2
Comment: Officer’s comment is available in Part (F) and/or assessed further in Appendix A. Environmental Health - MAKI - 08.05.2026 No objection. Area Roads Mid Argyll Kintyre and Islay - 14.04.2026 No objection advising that the proposal is situated at the end of the C21 Tayinloan Ferry (Public) Road, adjacent to the Tayinloan Ferry Car Park (No. 42). Parking is available at the adjacent car park. The Roads Authority note that the applicant has considered pedestrian safety in respect of the ramp orientation and proposes to install a protective/pedestrian barrier at the end. The Roads Authority advise that consideration should be given in the future to improve the pedestrian link between the toilet and the footway on the north side of the vehicle accessway/crossing point. Flood Risk Assessor - 13.04.2026 No objection. (D) HISTORY: None (E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application Expiry Date: 01.05.2026 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: A total of 19 representations has been received for the application, of which 5 are in support, and 14 in objection of the proposal: Support • Miss Lusanda Donnelly Atharnach Glenbarr Argyll and Bute PA29 6UT 02.04.2026 • Mrs Emma Byers Smithy House Tayinloan Tarbert Argyll and Bute 01.04.2026 • Ms Marilyn Shedden 2 Fernoch Crescent Lochgilphead Argyll and Bute PA31 8AE 01.04.2026 • Ms Maggie Young 2 Fernoch Crescent Lochgilphead Argyll and Bute PA31 8AE 01.04.2026 • Mr Aaron O'Hanlon 8 Cara View Tayinloan Argyll and Bute PA29 6XJ 03.04.2026 Objection • Mr Tony Philpin Tighcruinn Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AA 13.04.2026 • Mr Joseph Teale Post Office House Ardminish Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute 02.04.2026 • Mrs Margaret Wilkieson New Quay South Isle of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AD 02.04.2026 • Mrs Louise Braithwaite Drumallan Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 04.04.2026 • Mr Anthony Walker 1 Gallochoille Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 02.04.2026
Page 3
• Miss Charlie-Jane Elder 1 High Row Ardminish Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute 02.04.2026 • Miss Rona Allan 1 Raon Mor Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AG 04.04.2026 • Mr Nigel Braithwaite Drumallan Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 03.04.2026 • Ms Marion Stevenson Cuddyport Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 22.04.2026 • Mr John Bannatyne 1 Grianan Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AE 04.04.2026 • Ms Margaret McSporran Acarsaid Alainn Isle Of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 04.04.2026 • Miss Hannah Storie Post Office House Ardminish Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute 02.04.2026 • Mr Keith Wilson Heather Lea Ardminish Isle of Gigha Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute 13.04.2026 • Mr Neil Bannatyne Ardlamy Farm Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 04.04.2026 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: As noted above, representations are published in full and are available to view on the Council’s website. In brief summary, respondents have raised the following points: • New toilets are much needed to cater the needs of the locals, and passengers using ferry service to and from the Isle of Gigha. The proposal is also able to cater for the needs of visitors travelling on the Kintyre Peninsula and such provision would enhance the area. Comment: The above representations are noted. • Objection was raised to the removal of the waiting room, which would have a negative impact on ferry passengers, in particular school students. Concerns were raised that other existing shelters in the vicinity are inadequate, especially during adverse weather conditions and in the event of an extended wait due to delay of the ferry service. Comment: This matter is assessed further in Appendix A. • The existing waiting room is also used as a short-term storage area for goods being transported to and from the Isle of Gigha. The loss of such space would impact businesses on the island. Comment: Storage use within the existing waiting room is not considered a community facility under LDP2 Policy 50, Retention of Community Facilities nor key services under LDP2 Policy 51, Retention of Key Services. This matter is also assessed further in Appendix A. • The existing building should be fully renovated with the addition of accessibility facilities. • The replacement building should incorporate a larger footprint compared to the existing building. • The replacement building should incorporate a fully pitched roof which is more aesthetically appropriate.
Page 4
Comment: This matter is assessed further in Appendix A. • Interior space should be rearranged to cater for demand. Suggestions were given in terms of internal facilities, for example provision of baby caring facilities and adult changing facilities. Comment: An informative is recommended below to advise the applicant to have regard to the suggestions made within the public representations, particularly in relation to internal facilities within the proposed toilets. • Concerns raised regarding the proposal for the facilities to operate on a charging basis. The accessible toilet should be free of charge and accessible via a radar key. Comment: Cost and/or payment means to use the facilities are not material planning considerations. Notwithstanding the above, an informative is recommended below to advise the applicant to have regard to the suggestions made within the public representations, particularly in relation to internal facilities within the proposed toilets. • Residents of the Isle of Gigha have been excluded from the project planning stage considering the facilities at the ferry terminal in Tayinloan are essential island infrastructure. Comments: The Planning Authority has had no input into the project planning stage of the proposed development. The Isle of Gigha Community Council were consulted, and statutory public consultation was undertaken. Consultation response and public representations received are material considerations which inform planning assessment. (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 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 within NPF4 and LDP2 policies 04, 08 and 09. Yes Yes
Page 5
(v) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. 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 (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 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety Productive Places NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith 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 Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities
Page 6
Connected Places Policy 42 – Safeguarding Piers and Harbours Sustainable Communities Policy 50 – Retention of Community Facilities Policy 51 – Retention of Key Services Policy 55 – Flooding High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) 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) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) (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, representations have been received from 19 respondents in relation to this planning application. 14 respondents raise objection and 5 submit support. It is the opinion of Planning 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 No
Page 7
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. The determining factor in the assessment of this application is whether the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and whether the issues raised by third parties raise material considerations of sufficient significance to withhold planning permission. In this instance the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the provisions of both National and Local Planning Policy whilst providing improved public toilet provision. A full report is provided within Appendix A. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • SEPA Flood Zones (Coastal (Future Flood Maps)) • HSE Consultation - Outer Zone • West Kintyre (Coast) LLA (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 Countryside Area ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A
Page 8
(P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The proposal seeks planning permission for the demolition of an existing public toilet block and the erection of a replacement public toilet block at Tayinloan. The application site is located on 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 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location. NPF4 Policy 29 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. NPF4 Policy 30, Tourism part b) sets out a range of matters that tourism related development will take into account with LDP2 Policy 23, Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities supporting improved tourist facilities and accommodation subject to a number of criteria. LDP2 Policy 50, Retention of Community Facilities states that development involving the loss or change of use of facilities (including any ancillary land) presently used or last used for community purposes will only be permitted subject to specific criteria. 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 landscape, biodiversity effects, provision of tourist/ community facilities, road network/parking, and flood risk. Officers note that there is a body of opposition to the proposed development alongside a smaller proportion of support for the proposal. Overall, having assessed the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan as a whole and considering representations and consultee comments submitted, it is considered that there are no substantive grounds to withhold consent, and it is recommended that planning permission should be granted, subject to the conditions set out below. This application would normally have been determined as a local application under the Council’s agreed scheme of delegation. However, the application has received sufficient public representations to require the planning application to be put before Members for determination. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance, including issues raised by third parties, to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. (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: No
Page 9
Author of Report: Long Ting Yip/Fiona Scott Date: 28.05.2026 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 02/06/26 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 10
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 26/00436/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 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. 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 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.
Page 11
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • Area Roads Consultation Advice Please note the advice and guidance contained in the consultation response from Area Roads is available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. • The applicant is advised to have regard to the suggestions made within the public representations, particularly in relation to internal facilities. These representations are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website.
Page 12
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 26/00436/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Proposed Development 1.1. Planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing public toilets and the erection of replacement public toilets, located at Tayinloan. 2. Location and Nature of Proposed Development 2.1. The application site is located at land adjacent to Tayinloan Slipway where ferry service to the Isle of Gigha is available. Tayinloan Ferry Car Park is located to the south of the application site across the vehicular access to the slipway, and Ferry Farm cluster with a tearoom is to the immediate northeast of the application site. 2.2. The proposal seeks to replace the existing public toilet building, which is ageing and without provision of accessible facilities and inclusive design. The existing public toilets provide one female W.C. with a washhand basin; and one male W.C. with two urinals and a washhand basin. A small waiting room is also provided within the existing building. The applicant stated that the existing building could not be modified to include a fully compliant accessible access ramp due to the height of the finished floor level and the space required to achieve compliant gradients and landing. The proposed replacement building comprises a single storey structure which would have a similar footprint when compared to the existing building. The building would feature wet dash rendering in white, and a mono pitched roof with profile steel composite panels. White uPVC windows with frosted glass, and black coloured rainwater goods would be installed. Having regard to its overall siting, scale, massing and design, the proposed development is deemed acceptable in that it would not have any detrimental visual impact on the established landscape/townscape, local character and appearance. Regarding public representations received providing comments on the internal facilities to be provided within the replacement building, an informative is recommended to advise the applicant to have regard to suggestions made within the public representations. In terms of any potential impact on amenity to the surrounding area, the proposal mainly represents the replacement of an existing toilet building. The Environmental Health Officer was consulted and raised no objection to the application. The replacement toilet building would provide the same sanitary facilities as the existing building, with the addition of an accessible entrance and a dedicated accessible W.C. facility. No waiting room would be provided in the replacement toilet building. The anticipated demolition and construction period of the proposed development is approximately five months during which time two temporary portable toilet units would be provided on site. Officers are satisfied that the proposal is an acceptable development which would not give rise to any significant adverse visual impact within its site or wider setting and one which would provide improved public toilet provision.
Page 13
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 Countryside Area wherein Policy 02 set out a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location. 4. Compliance with National and Local Development Plan 2 Policy Argyll and Bute ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) was adopted on 28 February 2024 which, together with NPF4 which was adopted on 13 February 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. 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 3 – Biodiversity seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. A Biodiversity Statement is submitted along with the application. The statement proposes the installation of small planters for plants for pollinators; installation of bee hotels; and installation of sparrow colony nest boxes. A relevant condition is recommended to ensure the provision of such biodiversity enhancement installations. As such, subject to the condition, it is not considered that the proposed development would have a material detrimental effect on the established natural environment within its immediate surrounding due to the scale of the proposed development compliant with NPF4 Policy 3 and LDP2 Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats and Species. 4.4. NPF4 Policy 4- Natural Places seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. The application site is located within the West Kintyre (Coast) Local Landscape Area (LLA). The proposal represents replacement of an existing toilet building, which already has an established
Page 14
landscape presence and forms part of the supporting/ancillary facilities at an existing ferry slipway and adjacent car park. As such it is not considered that the proposed development would have a material detrimental effect on the established natural environment within its immediate surrounding due to the scale of the proposed development compliant with NPF4 Policy 4, Natural Places and LDP2 Policy 71, Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA). 4.5. 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. The development represents brownfield development by virtue of the fact that the proposal represents the replacement of an existing building which is directly supported by NPF4 Policy 9(a) with no conflict with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 02. 4.6. 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. The application site is located at land adjacent to Tayinloan Slipway and adjacent to the Tayinloan Ferry Car Park. Public transportation including a bus service and a ferry service are available. Area Roads were consulted in this regard and have no objection to the application, commenting that consideration should be given in the future to improve the pedestrian link between the toilets building and the footway on the north side of the vehicle accessway/crossing point. As such, an informative is recommended to remind the applicant to note the consultation comments of Area Roads. In view of the above the proposal is deemed consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policy 13, Sustainable Transport and does not conflict with the provisions of LDP2. 4.7. 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’. Part (a) of Policy 14 seeks development proposals to be designed to improve the quality of an area, whether in urban or rural locations, and regardless of scale. As detailed above, having regard for its overall siting, scale, massing and design, Officers are satisfied that the proposed development is deemed acceptable in that it would not have any detrimental visual impact on the established land/townscape, local character and appearance whilst providing improved public toilet provision. The proposed development would be consistent with the relevant provisions 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 and Policy 10, Design: All Development 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. 4.8. NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. The application site is located adjacent to the coast. According to SEPA Future Flood Map (i.e. the 1 in 200-year with climate change event), the site partly lies within the indicative limits of coastal flooding as per the SEPA Future Flood Map.
Page 15
The Council’s flood risk advisor was consulted in this regard, raising no objection, citing that the application is for a like-for-like replacement of toilet block, thus there is no change to flood risk. The proposal falls below the criteria for consultation with SEPA due to the development being a like-for-like replacement toilet block. In view of the above the proposal is deemed consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policy 22, Flood Risk and Water Management and LDP2 Policy 55, Flooding. 4.9. 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. The proposal to provide a replacement toilet block, with improved facilities meets with the main aims of NPF4 Policy 29. 4.10. NPF4 Policy 30,Tourism, 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. 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. The application site is located at land adjacent to Tayinloan Slipway which is also within a short distance of the village of Tayinloan; and situated along the wider A83 trunk road corridor. It is noted that the public toilets are used by a wide range of users, including ferry passengers, locals, and visitors visiting the local area, along on the A83 trunk road and wider Kintyre Peninsula. The proposal would support ongoing economic activity related to tourism and improve provision of rural infrastructure. As assessed in the above paragraphs, the proposed development is also considered suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design and environmental impact. No waiting room would be provided in the replacement toilet building. The applicant confirmed that the footprint of the building could not be enlarged to incorporate a waiting room within the replacement building. The reason being the applicant does not own or have control over the surrounding land; and the replacement building with similar footprint would require to comply with current Building Standards to accommodate the accessible WC and the accessible access ramp. A site visit was conducted on 21.4.2026, where it was noted that there are two other shelters around the Tayinloan Slipway. This includes a covered and three sides enclosed 5-bay bus stop shelter with seating available located towards the southwest of the application site across the vehicular access to the slipway; and a partly enclosed shelter at the head of the slipway. Considering there are provisions of similar passenger waiting facilities available within the vicinity, it is not considered that there would be a significant detrimental effect from its loss on the overall provision of waiting facilities within the local area that it currently serves. Considering the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with NPF4 Policy 30, Tourism, LDP2 Policy 23, Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities and Policy 50, Retention of Community Facilities. 4.11. LDP2 Policy 50, Retention of Community Facilities states that development involving the loss or change of use of facilities (including any ancillary land) presently used or last used for
Page 16
community purposes will only be permitted where: it is clearly demonstrated that the facility is surplus to the requirements of the community or communities it serves, either for its current purpose or an alternative community use, or; it is clearly demonstrated that is no longer financially viable to retain the facility and that all reasonable attempts have been made to retain it, or; there would be no significant detrimental effect from its loss on the overall provision of similar facilities within the local area that it currently serves, or; alternative provision of equal or greater benefit to the community is made available at a suitable location within the local area. Isle of Gigha Community Council were consulted and objected to the proposal on grounds summarised above, subsequent to a consultation with households of the Isle of Gigha. Public representations received suggest that the existing waiting room is also used for short term storage area to allow storage of goods being transported to and from the Isle of Gigha. In this regard, it is considered that the storage use is not directly related to the main purpose of the existing waiting room. In addition, the storage area is not a community facility under LDP2 Policy 50, Retention of Community Facilities nor a key service identified under LDP2 Policy 51, Retention of Key Services as such, these policies are not applicable to the short-term storage area. 4.12. LDP2 Policy 42, Safeguarding Piers, Ports and Harbours supports development within established commercial harbour port and pier areas, where the proposal is ancillary to activities taking place within that particular facility and that the proposal would not adversely affect the commercial viability or efficient operation of the facility for marine related uses. The proposed development providing a replacement toilet block raises no conflict with the provisions of this policy. 5. Conclusion 5.1. 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 landscape, biodiversity effects, provision of tourist/ community facilities, road network/parking, and flood risk. Officers note that there is a body of opposition to the proposed development alongside a smaller proportion of support for the proposal. 5.2. 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. 5.3. Based on the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with relevant policies of NPF4 and the adopted Argyll and Bute LDP2 and there are no other material considerations that would justify withholding planning permission.