Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 14 August 2026
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 14 August 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 7 August 2026 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on FRIDAY, 14 AUGUST 2026 at 2:00 PM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: LAND NORTH EAST OF GLENMACHRIE, GLENEGEDALE, ISLE OF ISLAY (REF: 26/0003/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 10) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 11 - 32) (c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 33 - 34) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Contact: Lynsey Innis, Committee and Democratic Services Officer Tel: 01546 604338 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Page 1 of 4 Central Validation Team at Argyll and Bute Council 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD Tel: 01546 605518 Email: planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100696363-006 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Mrs Samantha Tillbrook 80 Swift Street 80 KY118ZL Scotland Dunfermline Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Page 2 of 4 Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. Siting of pod, installation of septic tank and associated works (Retrospective). Argyll and Bute Council Land North East of Glenmachrie 651134 133320 Page 4
Page 5
Page 3 of 4 What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * I am requesting a review of the refused planning to allow us to site a storm pod, install septic tank and supporting infrastructure to allow us to visit the Island an utilise our land for visits with our young family. The long term goal is to build a property on the island as per the previously approved 23/00426/PPP to move our family and our life to the island. We will require a base on the island to do this and visit until we are in a position to build, the pod will allow us to do this. We have engaged with a number of timber build companies such as Scot frame, who have carried out a substantial number of projects on the island, to discuss development on our land. Our Pod is to facilitate the future build as we were informed utilisation of a caravan for example is not the preferred option of the council and due to visiting a substantial number of times and staying in near identical pods over the south of the island we believed this would be looked upon more favourably. 25/00032/PP 09/04/2026 09/01/2025 Page 5
Page 6
Page 4 of 4 Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mrs Samantha Tillbrook Declaration Date: 08/06/2026 Payment Details Online payment: ZZPL00003062 Payment date: 08/06/2026 14:11:00 Created: 08/06/2026 14:11 Page 6
Page 7
6000 3200 3200 2600 2300 6000 3200 2600 2600 3070 2500 2500 6000 3200 2600 2600 2500 floor plan SOUTH WEST ELEVATION cross section SOUTH EAST ELEVATION NORTH WEST ELEVATIONNORTH EAST ELEVATION bedsofa ensuite kitchenette DECKING multi sensor alarm to comply with BS 5839: Part 6: 2004. PIR aav PIR CEILING PENDANT LIGHT FITTING DOUBLE SWITCHED SOCKET OUTLET HIGH LEVEL DOUBLE SWITCHED LIGHT SWITCH ELECTRIC CONSUMER UNIT AND METER IF LOCATED TOGETHER (1000mm ABOVE F.F.L.) WALL MOUNTED FLOOD LIGHT PIR FITTING WITH INTEGRATED PIR SOCKET OUTLET EXTRACTOR FAN FIRE ALARM ALL ELECTRICAL WORKS TO COMPLY WITH BS 7671:2018 Notes Revision DateDrawn Drawing No. All dimensions to be verified on site prior to commencement of works or manufacture of any components. This drawing should not to be scaled from. If in doubt - Ask! This drawing is the property of MG Architectural Services and must not be reproduced without the written consent from MG Architectural Services. ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL-INDUSTRIAL Craighead Farm, Mauchline, Ayrshire, Scotland, KA5 6EX Paper Contract MR & MRS TILLBROOK Willowbank Glenegedale, Isle Of Islay, Argyll And Bute PA42 7AQ Drawing Title floor plan, cross section & elevations. 2025-01-15 S TILLBROOK Jan 2025 A3 PREFABRICATED HOLIDAY CLAMPING POD Cladding: Metrotile roof shingles to side and roof cladding. Colour: Charcoal grey. LARCH cladding to front and rear gables. Colour: Natural timber Doors & Windows: Doors & windows to be double glazed Upvc units. Colour: Anthracite Smooth Grey RAL 7016. 3.0 Scale 1:50 Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 25/00032/PP Head of Development and Economic Growth 9 April 2026 Page 7
Page 8
Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 25/00032/PP Head of Development and Economic Growth 9 April 2026 Page 8
Page 9
Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 25/00032/PP Head of Development and Economic Growth 9 April 2026 Page 9
Page 10
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 11
STATEMENT OF CASE ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 25/0003/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE 25/00032/PP FOR SITING OF POD, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND ASSOCIATED WORKS (RETROSPECTIVE) LAND NORTH EAST OF GLENMACHRIE, GLENEGEDALE, ISLE OF ISLAY 30 JUNE 2026 Page 11 Agenda Item 3b
Page 12
STATEMENT OF CASE The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mrs Samantha Tillbrook (“the appellant”). Planning permission 25/00032/PP for the siting of a pod, installation of septic tank and associated works (retrospective) on Land North East of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay (“the appeal site”) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on the 9 April 2026. This decision is the subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site the subject of this Review is situated to the north east of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay comprising an area of rough grazing, generally rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 0.114 hectares in area. The pod, which has been sited, is broadly rectangular shaped in floor area incorporating a barrel-roof design providing a kitchenette/living/bedroom area, a separate bathroom/ensuite and a decking area. The materials palette includes grey coloured metrotile roof shingles to the side and roof with natural larch cladding to the front and rear gables. 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. 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 opportunity for development with the pod and whether it complies with National and Local Planning Policy. The Report of Handing (Appendix A) sets out the Council’s full assessment of the application in terms of these determining issues. 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 Page 12
Page 13
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. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site benefits from an extant planning permission in principle, reference 23/00426/PPP, until 23 July 2026, this permission merely establishes the principle of a dwellinghouse on the site. To date, no detailed siting or design details for the proposed dwellinghouse on the site have been submitted to the Planning Service for consideration. In the absence of a live planning permission for the development of the site with a dwellinghouse, the proposed pod is not considered to be an appropriate development, which has resulted in the introduction of an incongruous feature within the site and the wider landscape. The proposed pod should not be granted permission in isolation without being backed up by an associated live planning permission for the development of the site with a dwellinghouse. The aspiration of the appellant to utilise the site for the proposed pod to allow them to visit the island is not a material planning matter. CONCLUSION Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 (as amended) requires that all decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It remains the view of the Planning Service, as set out in the Report of Handling appended to this statement, that the granting of permission for the pod would result in a development which would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. Taking account of the above, it is respectfully requested that the application for review be dismissed. Page 13
Page 14
APPENDIX A - REPORT OF HANDLING 25/00032/PP _________________________________________________________________________ Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 25/00032/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mrs Samantha Tillbrook Proposal: Siting of pod, installation of septic tank and associated works (Retrospective) Site Address: Land North East of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay, Argyll and Bute _________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE (i) Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 _________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of pod • Formation of vehicular access to access road • Installation of septic tank (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to services _________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons stated _________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: 23/00426/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse – Approved – 20.07.2023 Page 14
Page 15
Other history of relevance in proximity: 14/01665/PPP - Site for the erection of 3 dwellinghouses, installation of septic tank and formation of vehicular access - Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 04.09.2014 (relates to a site across the road from the current application site). 18/00811/PPP - Site for the erection of 3 dwellinghouses - Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 05.07.2018 (relates to a site across the road from the current application site). 21/02033/PP - Erection of dwellinghouse with integral garage including formation of vehicular access and installation of sewage treatment plant - Land North West of Glenmachrie (Plot 2), Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 09.03.2022 (relates to a site across the road from the current application site). 19/01135/PP - Erection of dwellinghouse, formation of vehicular access and installation of septic tank - Plot 1 Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 31.10.2019. 19/01280/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse - (Plot 1) Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 12.08.2019. 19/01281/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse - (Plot 2) Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 12.08.2019. 19/01282/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse - (Plot 3) Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 12.08.2019. 19/01283/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse - (Plot 4) Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 12.08.2019. 19/01284/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse - (Plot 5) Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 12.08.2019. 20/01702/PP - Formation of access and installation of sewage treatment plant to serve 5 dwellinghouses - Approved 12.01.2021. 24/02085/PPP - Erection of two detached dwellinghouses and installation of septic tanks – Approved 21.10.25 _____________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: ABC Roads – No objection subject to conditions - 31.01.2025 Highlands & Islands Airport Lid. (HIAL) – No objection – 06.02.2025 SEPA – No objection – 05.02.2025 Flood Risk Officer - No objection – 24.01.2025 SSEN Transmission – No objection – 28.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: Oban Times Advertisement - published 30.01.2025, expired 20.02.2025 Page 15
Page 16
Neighbour notification in accordance with the requirements of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 _________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: N/A (ii) Summary of issues raised: N/A _________________________________________________________________________ (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A design or design/access statement: No (iv) Sustainability Checklists: TN06 Sustainability Checklist – Yes – 09.01.2025 TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist – Yes – 09.01.2025 Based on the available information, it is considered there is sufficient information available to issue a decision on the proposed development. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: No _________________________________________________________________________ (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (i) 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. Page 16
Page 17
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 NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development 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 Connected Places Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) (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 4/2009. • Consultation Responses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) Page 17
Page 18
• TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods: Planning Guidance (Scottish Government) (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): Yes 24/02197/PREAPP – ‘Looking to apply for permission to site holiday pod for use prior to applying for full planning permission for dwellinghouse on land as per PPP. Once house had been build we will consider change of use to holiday pod for visitors’ – 20.12.2024 _________________________________________________________________________ (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No _________________________________________________________________________ (N) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): Not required _________________________________________________________________________ (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: None (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: 5.2 Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: N/A Peat Depth Classification: 0.00 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? No (O)(iii) Woodland Page 18
Page 19
Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) 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 Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy Countryside Area ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: n/a _________________________________________________________________________ (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The application for planning permission proposes the siting of a pod and the installation of a septic tank and associated works at Land North East of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay, Argyll and Bute. This is a retrospective application. The application site is within the countryside as designated in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2). It is also within the Scottish Water mains supply and an airfield safeguarding zone (Islay Airport) (but does not meet the relevant consultation trigger) in LDP 2. The application site, which is generally rectangular in shape and measures some 0.114 hectares in area, comprises an area of rough grazing. Planning permission 23/00426/PPP was approved at the application site on 20.07.2023 for the erection of a dwellinghouse. This is an extant permission. To date, however, no Reserved Matters application has been submitted. The Proposal As detailed above, the application proposes the siting of a pod and the installation of a septic tank and associated works. It is a retrospective application. The pod, which is broadly rectangular shaped in floor area and incorporates a barrel-roof design, comprises a kitchenette/living/bedroom area, a separate bathroom/ensuite and a decking area. The pod measures approximately 6m (L) x 3.2m (W) x 2.6m (H). The decking area, which is accessed directly from the kitchenette/living/bedroom area, measures approximately 2.5m (L) x 3.1m (W). The materials palette includes metrotile roof shingles to the side and roof cladding (colour: charcoal grey) and larch cladding to the front and rear gables (colour: natural timber). The pod will be accessed via a set of double-glazed doors on its north-west elevation. Page 19
Page 20
Access to the pod will be via an existing field access which is accessed directly from the public road (A846). Condition 3 of 23/00426/PPP requires the formation of the junction serving the current application site (which is the same site as that approved under 23/00426/PPP for the erection of a dwellinghouse) in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08/002 Rev a; with visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres x 136 metres. It is intended that this access would serve the pod which is the subject of this application, the dwellinghouse approved under any reserved matters application, and any development of a further two houses on adjoining/adjacent land under 24/02085/PPP which was approved on 21.10.25. The Councils Roads Engineer has advised that the following matters should be addressed by condition on any approval; 1.Connection of site access to the public road, 136 x 2.40 x 1.05 metres. 2. Connection of site access to the public road to be constructed as per standard detail drawing ref: SD 08/002 Rev B. Radius to be 6.00 metres minimum. Access width to be 5.50 metres minimum. 3. Positive surface water drainage to be installed to prevent the discharge of surface water onto the public road. 4. Turning and parking for two vehicles. 5.Turning head for a commercial vehicle to be provided to serve the three dwellings. 6. No fences, walls or hedges within 2.00 metres of the public road. 7. Vehicular gates to be set back a minimum distance of 6.00 metres from edge of public road. Gates to open inwards to site. Gate posts to be set back 1.00 metre on each side of the 5.50 metre wide access. 8. Existing roadside ditch to be cleaned to establish the correct invert level, prior to installing culvert. 9. Existing ditch to be culverted under the proposed new vehicular access, to the satisfaction of Roads & Infrastructure Services. 10. Headwalls to be provided at each end of the culvert under the private access. 11. New access to be sited no closer to an existing access than 25.00 metres. 12. Refuse collection point to be provided adjacent to the public road. Had the recommendation of this decision been to approve the application it would have been necessary to impose a condition requiring the satisfactory submission and discharge of these details. The pod is sited within the north-east portion of the application site. Parking for 2No. vehicles will be provided adjacent to the pod. A septic tank which will incorporate a soakaway, will be installed along the southern boundary of the application site. Principle Policy 3 ‘Biodiversity’ of NPF4 states that any potential adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, of development proposals on biodiversity, nature networks and the natural environment will be minimized through careful planning and design. Policy 4 ‘Natural Places’ of NPF4 states that development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Page 20
Page 21
Policy 9 ‘Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings’ of NPF4 states that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. Policy 14 ‘Design, quality and place’ of NPF4 states that development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. Policy 29 ‘Rural Development’ of NPF4 states that development proposals in remote rural areas, where new development can often help to sustain fragile communities will be supported where the proposal satisfies 3No. criteria. In terms of the adopted LDP2, and as detailed previously, the site is within a designated Countryside Area (CA). Herein, Policy 02 of LDP 2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant subject policies such as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP 2. Policy 05 ‘Design and Placemaking’ of LDP 2 states that to achieve good quality places, proposals should endeavour to comply with a number of placemaking criteria which include that the design should develop the area’s sense of identity by understanding and embracing the existing distinctive characteristics, with the design respecting and complementing its surroundings in terms of density, appearance, height, scale, massing, materials and finishes. Policy 08 ‘Sustainable Siting’ of LDP 2 states that a number of criteria (8No. in total) will apply in respect of sustainable siting when assessing any proposal for development. Criteria relating to integration, design, layout, parking, residential amenity and energy efficiency are assessed further below in the section titled ‘other material considerations’ and therein under the respective heading. As the application site does not comprise a sloping site, the second criterion of the policy is not relevant to the application proposal. Policy 09 ‘Sustainable Design’ of LDP 2 goes on to state that development proposals should demonstrate consideration of and where possible utilisation of sustainable design and construction methods in terms of embodied energy; conversion and re-use; and adaptability. Policy 55 ‘Flooding’ of LDP 2 states that development on the functional flood plain (land with greater than 0.5% (1 in 200) probability of flooding in any year) will be considered contrary to the objectives of this plan, except in the limited circumstances set out in part c) of this policy. Development elsewhere will be subject to assessment as set out in parts a) and b) of this policy, as relevant. It goes on to state that in all cases where the potential for flooding is highlighted, the planning authority will exercise the ‘precautionary principle’ and refuse development proposals where such proposals do not comply with parts a), b), c) or d) of this policy and/or on the advice of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). These policies are considered further below. As detailed above Policy 29 of NPF4 states as follows: ‘Development proposals in remote rural areas, where new development can often help to sustain fragile communities, will be supported where the proposal: i. will support local employment; ii. supports and sustains existing communities, for example through provision of digital infrastructure; and iii. is suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design and environmental impact. Page 21
Page 22
Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal by its nature does not, in itself, provide for direct local employment opportunities, nonetheless given that the intended use of the pod is for vacation purposes by the applicant, the proposal would support the local service sector (shops/public houses/restaurants etc.). For this reason, it is considered that the proposal would therefore support local employment in so far as stated. Furthermore, and for generally the same reasons, as the proposal would supports the local service sector, it would therefore support and sustain the local/existing community in this part of Islay. Matters in respect of the third criterion of Policy 29(c), that is, whether the proposal is suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design environmental impact, will be assessed in detail under the heading ‘Other relevant material considerations’ below. In overall terms, it is therefore considered that the principle of the siting of a pod at the application site is acceptable, subject to the consideration of the below matters. Other relevant material considerations are assessed in further detail below. Siting & Design In respect of design matters, given that the pod is simple in its form and that it would utilise simple palette of traditional materials, it is considered that, in itself, its design is acceptable in the local context. However, it sits as an isolated feature within a field and is visible from the road. The proposal therefore appears as an isolated feature of prominent visibility at the current time. However, and as detailed previously, planning permission in principle for the erection of a single dwellinghouse at this application site was approved on 20.07.2023 under 23/00426/PPP. Whilst no reserved matters application have, to date, been submitted for the dwellinghouse, this permission in principle nonetheless remains extant and, as such, represents a material consideration in the context of the current proposal. Notwithstanding that no details of the design/scale/massing/proportions and siting of the dwellinghouse have been submitted, it is nonetheless considered that the addition of a pod at the application site would represent overdevelopment of the site such that the combination of the site density and form of development would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. For this reason, the proposal fails to comply with Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5, 8, 9 and 10 of LDP 2 to the extent specified. Impacts on Neighbouring Properties As detailed above, no reserved matters application for the dwellinghouse which was approved in principle under at the application site under 23/00426/PPP have been submitted to date. Nonetheless because this permission is extant, the current proposal for the pod must therefore be assessed in the context of a dwellinghouse being present at the application site. The potential for two additional dwellings in the immediate locality under 24/02085/PPP are also material to the consideration of these matters. Although the proposed orientation and disposition of the approved dwellinghouse is currently not known, given scale of the application site, it is considered that a dwellinghouse even of moderate scale and massing would require to be sited generally in close proximity to the proposed pod. At such close distance, combined with the lack of any established intervening boundary treatment, it is therefore considered that this form of development and inter- relationship would create unacceptable residential impacts for the occupiers of both the dwellinghouse and the pod by reason of loss of privacy/overlooking/noise and/or disturbance. This potential for unacceptable noise and disturbance would also be applicable for the adjoining plot of land where PPP for two houses has been granted under 24/02085/PPP. Page 22
Page 23
For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed development would also fail to comply with Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5, 8 and 9 of LDP 2 in so far as stated. Biodiversity Policy 3 of NPF4 states that proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity including restoring degraded habitats and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Local developments must include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity and measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the development. This is also reinforced by Policy 73 of the LDP 2. In this case, there is no loss of biodiversity given the existing site context within which the pod is located. However, it is acknowledged that a planning condition could be attached to secure planting which would improve biodiversity at the application site. Access, Parking & Road Safety As detailed above, ABC Roads have no objection to the proposal. Notwithstanding this, overlaying Drawing No. 2024-DEED-02 Rev A. ‘Site Plan’ submitted with the current proposal with approved Drawing No. 23-2932-PPP-02 Rev B. ‘Site Plan’ shows that the current proposal would be accessed by the same singular access as that of the extant permission. However, the current drawing shows the siting of 2No. parking bays where the proposed access terminates. Given this arrangement, no access could be provided to serve the dwellinghouse approved in principle in the extant permission under 23/00426/PPP. Technical requirements in respect of access and parking associated with this use are capable of being addressed by condition as set out in the Area Roads Engineer Response. Recommendation The proposed development is contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5, 8, 9, 10 and 35 of LDP 2 in that it would, if permitted, create a form of development that would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and cause unacceptable impacts upon residential amenity for existing and future occupiers. It is therefore considered that planning permission should be refused for the proposal. Enforcement Considerations: There is currently a live Enforcement Case relating to this unauthorised development and therefore the existing structure should be removed within 3 months of the date of this decision (or any subsequent unfavourable appeal decision) and the ground restored to its condition prior to the development taking place to avoid formal enforcement action being taken. _________________________________________________________________________ (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No _________________________________________________________________________ (R) Reasons why planning permission or a Planning Permission in Principle should be granted: N/A _________________________________________________________________________ (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan: N/A _________________________________________________________________________ Page 23
Page 24
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No _________________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Francis Gillespie Date: 09.06.2025 Reviewing Officer: David Moore Date: 08.04.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 24
Page 25
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/00032/PP 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5, 8, 9, 10 and 35 of LDP 2 in that it would, if permitted, create a form of development that would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and cause unacceptable impacts upon residential amenity for existing and future occupiers. It is therefore considered that planning permission should be refused for the proposal. Page 25
Page 26
APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 25/00032/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. No (B) The reason why planning permission has been Refused: The proposed development is contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5, 8, 9, 10 and 35 of LDP 2 in that it would, if permitted, create a form of development that would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and cause unacceptable impacts upon residential amenity for existing and future occupiers. It is therefore considered that planning permission should be refused for the proposal. Page 26
Page 27
Marchrie View FB 17.4m Drain A 846 © Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to: 26/0003/LRB O 0 25 5012.5 Meters Site Page 27
Page 28
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 29
Roads & Infrastructure Services – Traffic and Development Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay Area OBSERVATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATION Our Ref: 26/0003/LRB Contact: Allan Finlay Tel: 01546 604640 Planning Application No: 26/0003/LRB Dated: 16th Jun 2026 Received: 16th Jun 2026 Applicant: Mrs Samanth Tilbrook Proposed Development: Siting of pod, installation of septic tank and associated works (Retrospective) Location: Land North East of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay Type of consent: Local Review Body (LRB) Ref. No(s) of Drg(s) submitted: RECOMMENDATION: Comments Only Item Ref. COMMENTS 1 2 3 4 5 The site is located off the A846 Port Askaig to Ardbeg (Public) Road, within a rural 60mph speed restriction. The site is accessed from an existing sub-standard junction, approx. 500m south east of the main airport access. This LRB is in relation to the previously rejected application Ref: 25/00032/PP (Siting of pod, installation of septic tank and associated works). The wider site has been subject to the following relevant applications:- 19/01280-01284/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouses (Plots 1-5, NW of access); 20/01702/PP - Formation of access and installation of sewage treatment plant to serve 5 dwellinghouses (Plots NW of access); 23/00426/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouses (Plot 6, SE of access); 24/02085/PPP - Erection of two detached dwellinghouses and installation of septic tanks (Plots 2&3). It has been made clear to the respective applicants that a development with more than five dwellings will require a road that is constructed to an adoptable standard. Roads and Infrastructure Servies (RIS) consider this application will count as one of the five. RIS have stipulated that the connection with the public road is to be upgraded as per the Council’s Standard Detail SD08/002. This has been conditioned in all previous applications. It is noted that works to the access have commenced but remains unsurfaced and incomplete (see photo below). The previous Roads response on application Ref 25/00032/PP stated “No objections subject to conditions” however it is noted that the footprint of the 2no. parking bays is in conflict with the indicative access to Plot 6 (23/00426/PPP). Access looking from NW - 23/06/2026 Page 29
Page 30
Item Ref. SUMMARY 1 The previous position set out by Roads and Infrastructure Services (RIS) has not changed in respect of application 25/00032/PP however RIS would note that with regard to the 2no. parking bays, if application for Plot 6 (23/00426/PPP) is reactivated then the parking and access arrangement will require to be revised and agreed with RIS. It is noted that all land is within the same ownership and contained within the same plot. Signed: Allan Finlay, Technical Officer Date: 25/06/2026 Page 30
Page 31
OFFICIAL Your Ref: 26/0003/LRB Dear Lynsey, In the absence of accurate location information, I am unable to undertake a full assessment of this retrospective planning application. However, based on the submitted drawings, it is apparent that the proposed structure is located in close proximity to Islay Airport. Notwithstanding this, the structure has a maximum height of only 2.6 metres and, given that the application is retrospective, I am satisfied that it does not give rise to any safeguarding concerns in relation to Islay Airport. Accordingly, Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL) has no objection to the granting of this retrospective planning permission on safeguarding grounds. Andy Brown HIAL Safeguarding Officer. Safeguarding Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd Inverness Airport Dalcross IV2 7JB https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r06/___www.hial.co.uk___.ZXV3Mjphcmd5bGxhbmRidXRlY291bmNpbDE6YzpvOmRlNjI4OTBlMDU5MDM3YWZhZjc4NWRjMWUyYmMzNmQ0Ojc6MGFmOTplMmEzYTk2NzVjYjU2YzIzODlkNzZkZmE3YWQ0YTVhOWY1ZTdjOTE1OTQyMWI2OWY0MjE2YTYyZWU3MzUxZjdmOnQ6VDpG Values Page 31
Page 32
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 33
Classification: OFFICIAL Good morning, Please see the response to 25/0003/LRB As per the planning in principle 23/00426/PPP standing on the land we are currently engaged with Scotframe to determine the best use of the land taking into consideration the conditions set in the original PPP. We are currently proposing a "Spey" style 1 ½ story property on the land. Please see attached initial visual of property for reference, orientation and footprint to be confirmed and application to be submitted once design approved with Contractor. As stated the pod is for our use only so do not see the " disturbance, lack of privacy/ overlooking or noise" stated in the rejection notice being a contributing factor. The parking for the pod will utilise the access road up to the point of construction of the property, at that point an additional 1 x space layby style as shown on drawing) will be created to allow parking and access to property to be maintained. Once Construction of the property has been complete, parking will be as per drawing at front of property. The pod is to allow a base on the island prior to and during construction of a family dwell house, we are well aware of the vast number of pod style properties on the island due to utilisation of these during visits. We are also aware that these are vastly more favourable than " caravans" hence the application. We hope that the application and the concept drawing are looked favourably upon. Many thanks Samantha Cunningham Page 33 Agenda Item 3c
Page 34
Page 34