Consider Notice of Review Request: Land North of Tigh-Na-Clachan, Clynder (Ref: 26/0004/Lrb)
Argyll and Bute Council · 4 August 2026
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 4 August 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 Land North of Tigh-Na-Clachan, Rahane, Argyll and Bute Planning Application Reference Number 25/00378/PP Local Review Board Reference Number 26/0004/LRB 25th June 2026
Page 2
STATEMENT OF CASE The planning authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr Gordon Harrison of GH Architects Ltd., 73 Glasgow Road, Dumbarton G82 1RE (‘the appellant’). The planning application, reference number 25/00378/PP, for the erection of erection of a dwellinghouse and garage, and installation of sewage treatment plant and soakaway at Land North of Tigh-Na-Clachan, Rahane, Argyll and Bute (“the appeal site”) was refused under delegated powers on 20th March 2026. This refusal has been appealed and is subject of referral to the Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site has a frontage onto the B833 Rosneath Road and is located within the Countryside Development Management Zone as identified on the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 – adopted February 2024. The application site is a greenfield site as it has not previously been developed. The site measures approximately 3309m2 and is currently used for rough grazing (as stated on the planning application forms.) The application site gently slopes upwards from east to west from the road, from approximately 4m AoD to 11.5m AoD (approximately 7m height difference over the depth of the application site.) The proposed access to serve the proposed house is by means of a new private access junction on to an existing farm track, with an access junction onto the B833 adopted road, that serves Little Rahane Farm. The location of the new access driveway into the proposed house plot from the existing farm track is to be located approximately 41m from the existing junction with the B833. There is an existing dwellinghouse, also fronting onto the Rosneath Road, adjacent to the southern side of the farm track, known as ‘Tigh-na-Clachan.’ To the north and west are open fields. SITE HISTORY The planning history of the site and locality is detailed in Section D of the Report of Handling. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that: “where, in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with that plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” This is the test for this application. STATEMENT OF CASE As detailed above, the planning application was refused by Argyll and Bute Council on 20th March 2026. Having regard to the appellant’s Planning Appeal Statement, Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issues in relation to the case are as follows: - • Whether the proposed dwellinghouse would disturb, degrade or erode potential peat on the site which is identified as Class 3 peat area.
Page 3
• Whether the proposed development will have an adverse impact upon visual landscape character. REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING It is considered that no new planning considerations have been raised in the appellants’ submission. The Statement of Appeal seeks to challenge the assessment of the proposed against Local Development Plan. It is noted that additional information has been submitted in the form of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and brief comments are made in respect of this additional information. The Report of Handling (attached) sets out the Council’s assessment of the application in terms of Development Plan policy and other material considerations. A copy of the consultation response from ABC Planning Policy Team dated 21st August 2025 is also attached. The landscape character assessment set out in the Council’s Report of Handling refers to the Nature.Scot National Landscape Character Assessment – Landscape Character Type 38 – Open Ridges, and this is also attached for the Members assistance in this local review. A detailed planning policy assessment is covered in the Report of Handling, and a copy of the Site Visit Photos (attached) are also included. As such it is considered that Members have all of the information required to determine this case. Given the above and that the proposal is small-scale, has no complex or challenging issues and has not been the subject of significant body of conflicting representation, then it is considered that a Hearing is not required. COMMENT ON APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSION Having regard to the grounds for review set out in the appellant’s submission, the following points are noted: Landscape Character Para. 6.1: Existing Development Context The appellant states “The proposal cannot reasonably be described as isolated countryside development as it sits adjacent to Tigh-Na-Clachan, the shared access serving Little Rahane Farm and existing woodland.” The term “isolated” has not been used in the Report of Handling and the planning authority has not used this as a reason for refusal. We agree that it is not an isolated location, indeed the report of handling explains that it is within an ‘accessible rural’ area where there is pressure for housing. Para. 6.2: Ribbon Development It should be noted that the Report of Handling does not say that the development proposal is ‘ribbon development’ but that it would begin to establish a pattern of ribbon development and would start to close the open gap between the existing, small and consolidated group of houses at Glengair (including Tigh-na-Clachan’) and the hamlet of Rahane to the north. This puts the pressure for further development which would then, if it joined the properties to the north, would become ribbon development extending an existing cluster of houses in a linear development pattern to the north, into undeveloped farmland.
Page 4
Rounding Off Para 7 As stated in the Report of Handling “The settlement pattern along the road comprises of small groups and occasional single houses running parallel to the waterfront (Loch Gare) with open spaces in between which are predominantly rough grazing with small sections of woodland.” The term “isolated countryside development” has not been used. It is recognised that there is a house immediately adjacent and this was given planning permission as being rounding off to the grouping at Glengair. As stated in the Report of Handling, this was only approved because the existing farm access track formed a clear and defined physical limit that meets with the policy requirements of being considered ‘rounding off’. In contrast, the appeal site is part of a large, rough grazing field. It is not considered to be part of an existing building grouping as it is encroaching into an open field and is not considered to be ‘rounding off’. It is not bound on its northern boundary by any natural or established built feature. As such, the planning authority has strong concerns that proposed development beyond the existing edge of built development (as clearly demarcated by the farm track that wraps around to the north and west of tigh-na-Clachan) would result in the start of an inappropriate, linear form of development encroaching into an important undeveloped gap between the existing cluster of buildings around Gleangair and the hamlet of Rahane to the north. It is acknowledged that the appellant seeks to mitigate this concern by incorporating native tree planting to establish a new strong northern landscape edge, however the Local Development Plan clearly defines rounding off as: “development positioned largely between substantial building(s) on one side and a substantial ground or natural feature on the other side, and arranged such that the local pattern of development terminates at this point.” On this basis, the planning authority does not consider that the proposed development can be supported as being ‘rounding-off development’ as it does not qualify as ‘rounding-off development’ as defined in the adopted LDP 2. ‘Rounding-off’ as defined in the LDP 2 is clearly based on existing ground or natural features and does not mention the creation of new landscape features. LVIA The appellant has prepared a LVIA and it should be noted that officer’s did not request a LVIA as it was considered there was sufficient information, including the landscaping proposals available to make a professional and competent assessment of the impacts. It is considered that ‘breaking into’ this large and clearly-defined field enclosure, would adversely harm the open gap between the existing house at Tigh-Na-Clachan and the hamlet at Rahane. This open gap is recognised as an important feature of the landscape character in Nature Scot’s Landscape Character Assessment which recognises the “intermittent band of built development.” This feature is only retained and protected if the gaps remain and this house, even though modest, is filling in this important gap. At the moment, the edge of the existing cluster of houses at “Glengair” is clearly demarcated by a boundary feature, the farm access track, which serves to visually ‘contain’ the built development which is visually distinct from the open farmland to the north. Once this containing feature, or edge, is compromised by built development that encroaches into this important landscape gap then the integrity of the gap
Page 5
will be severely compromised. The appellants proposal that a part of an existing field enclosure can be developed and that the visual impact can be mitigated by a new landscape boundary to the north of the proposed development is one that could be repeated on subsequent occasions once the existing edge to built development has been breached. Peatland It is agreed that this issue could potentially be resolved subject to further information but it is not considered that this is something that could be satisfactorily resolved by means of a planning condition. NPF4 Policy 5 part (d) states “where development on peatland, carbon- rich soils or priority peatland habitat is proposed, a detailed site specific assessment will be required”. The results of the survey could mean the location of the development requires to be substantially changed and this would require a new planning application. It is therefore not a requirement that can be conditioned, similar to matters such as flood risk assessments, which can affect whether the principle of development or the location of a proposal is acceptable. If Members are minded to support this appeal then the planning authority submits that a Peatland assessment must be prepared and reviewed by the local biodiversity officer and planning officers prior to reaching a decision. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The Council’s Local Housing Strategy 2022-2027 acknowledges the growth of population serving the MoD naval base at Faslane as a significant factor that will impact upon need and demand in the wider housing system. Increasing the supply of affordable housing also remains a priority for the Helensburgh and Lomond Area. The appellant submits that this proposed development for a large, 5-bedroom house will address housing need by contributing towards meeting significant demand from Faslane naval Base expansion; relieve pressure on local housing supply and contribute towards the need for high-quality family homes in rural areas. It is noted that this is a speculative development for a large house and whilst it may potentially meet a very limited need for one family employed at the Naval base, this is not considered to justify an exception to local development plan policy. It is noted that the proposed development does not make any contribution to affordable family homes within the area. 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. On the basis of the balance of planning considerations, and notwithstanding the submitted appeal statement, Council officers consider that the proposed development fails to consider the principles of local living; and that it would have an unduly adverse impact upon visual landscape character contrary to all relevant Development Plan policy. It is not considered that there are any other material considerations in this instance that would warrant a departure from these provisions. APPENDED DOCUMENTS • Report of Handling
Page 6
• Site Visit Photographs • Argyll and Bute Council Planning Policy Team Consultation Response • Nature.Scot National Landscape Character Assessment – Landscape Character Type 38 – Open Ridges • Proposed conditions should Members be minded to support this appeal.
Page 7
Classification: OFFICIAL 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: 25/00378/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Gordon Harrison Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site Address: Land North of Tigh-Na-Clachan, Clynder, Argyll and Bute DECISION ROUTE ☒Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☐Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of dwellinghouse • Ground engineering works to re-contour ground levels • Formation of parking area and private driveway with access junction onto existing track • Connection to private waste treatment plant and soakaway • Installation of a rainwater harvesting system • Installation of a retention pond (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to public water supply (B) RECOMMENDATION: 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: Development Policy Section: 16.04.2025 Proposal is contrary to the Development Plan policy and should be refused. Policy 17 of NPF4 refers to the Scottish Government’s 6 fold Urban Rural Classification 2020. The majority of Argyll and Bute is covered by the Remote Rural Classification which, under part (c) of Policy 17 allows a degree of flexibility for
Page 8
Classification: OFFICIAL housing in the countryside. However, the application site sits within an area classified as Accessible Rural, and so only parts (a) and (b) of the policy apply. In this case the proposal does appear to meet any of the criteria within part (a). The LDP2 Spatial Strategy clarifies that whilst the Plan allows a flexible approach to development in countryside, it looks to steer the majority of development to the existing settlements. The policy itself clarifies that that countryside development must be sustainable development of appropriate siting. Whilst the fragility of Remote Rural areas has been recognised through NPF4 Policy 17 (c) (thus allowing LDP2 Policy 02 to be applied in those cases), it can be taken that the Accessible Rural areas are those areas where development would not be sustainable development of an appropriate siting. Supporting the above, is the 20 Minute Neighbourhood and Local Living policy (NPF4 Policy 15). Consideration must be given to the existing settlement patterns, and the interconnectivity to facilities. It is recognised that in many parts of Argyll and Bute 20 Minute Neighbourhoods are not viable, and in order to support fragile remote communities, a more flexible approach of Local Living can be considered. Revised response 05.09.2025 Since the original consultation response (above) a letter by the Chief Planner has been published (on 30th April 2025) clarifying the intent of NPF 4 Policy 17, and a revised consultation response is considered to be required to reflect that clarification. Policy 17 of NPF4 refers to the Scottish Government’s 6-fold Urban Rural Classification 2020. The majority of Argyll and Bute is covered by the Remote Rural Classification which, under part (c) of Policy 17 provides support for housing in the countryside. Proposals that support the resettlement of previously inhabited areas are supported under part (d). However, this proposal sits within an area classified as Accessible Rural so neither (c) nor (d) apply. The original consultation response concluded that parts (a) and (b) of NPF 4 Policy 17 both had to be met, assessing the language of part (a) of “will be supported” to mean, that in the absence of meeting any criteria in part (a) the proposal should NOT be supported. However, this interpretation has been reassessed with reference to the Chief Planner’s letter which states that: “policies 17 and 29 on rural homes and rural development are supportive policies that encourage sustainable development in rural areas. This positive position is embedded across NPF4, with ‘rural revitalisation’ being one of six spatial principles, spatial strategies identifying a wide range of opportunities across rural areas, and several national developments expected to be located in rural areas. We want to be clear that NPF4 is not intended to reduce flexibility of supportive local rural policies,..” It is now clear that the wording of 17(a) was not intended to be interpreted in such a restrictive manner (as in the original response). Instead, it appears to be only one consideration for supporting a proposal, and that if part (b) applies, (circling back to Policy 15) then Policy 17 (and therefore Policy 16) can be considered to be met. It is recognised that in many parts of Argyll and Bute 20 Minute Neighbourhoods are not viable, and in order to support fragile communities in remote rural areas, a more
Page 9
Classification: OFFICIAL flexible approach to Local Living can be considered. However, in an Accessible Rural area there is likely to be higher development pressure, and so careful consideration needs to be given as to whether a house in this location would comply with Local Living policy. LDP2 Policy 2 requires a proposal in the countryside to “demonstrate that there will be no adverse effects (either individually or cumulatively) on natural heritage resources, built and/or cultural heritage resources, and landscape and visual amenity”. This is assessed through the Sustainability Checklist, which I note has been submitted. Should it be considered that this demonstrates preliminary evidence of any particular sensitivities (resulting from the scale of the development, its perceived prominence in the landscape, sensitivity of receptors such as historic assets, or siting impacting on landscape transition from one character to another) then a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) or Visual Impact Illustrations (VII) should be requested, as per TN21. Area Roads: 14.04.2025 No objections subject to conditions. The conditions relate to improvements of the junction on to the B833 to achieve a visibility splay of 75 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres, the first 5m are to be bound with no greater gradient than 5%. Scottish Water: 14.04.2025 No objections. This does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. There is sufficient capacity in the Belmore Water Treatment Works to service the proposal. There is no public waste water infrastructure in the vicinity of the site. The applicant should consider a private waste water drainage scheme. A surface water drainage connection will not be allowed into the public combined sewer system. Environmental Health: 04.04.2025 No objections. Recommends conditions to protect local amenity with regard to general nuisance, disturbance, noise and lighting. Flood Advisors: 16.04.2025 No objections but it is recommended the private waste treatment plant is relocated as it should be above 5.68mAOD level. The site lies outwith the indicative limits of fluvial and surface water flooding as per the SEPA Future Flood Maps. The coastal flood extent overlaps the eastern site boundary. However, it is evident from the application that the proposed dwellinghouse lies outwith the flood extent, on ground above 7.50mAOD (as shown by site topographic data in the site plans). The 200- year with climate change coastal flood level at the site is 5.08mAOD) plus 0.6m freeboard give an appropriate minimum Finished Floor Level of 5.68mAOD. (D) HISTORY: None
Page 10
Classification: OFFICIAL (E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application Expiry Date: 01.05.2025 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: None received 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. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist In summary the checklist states: • The house will provide a new family home with facilities to work from home and reduce the need to travel for work. • There is a bus route on the B833 and a bus stop just along the road at Herons View. • The site is low quality rough grazing. • Over recent years there has been a large increase in the number of personnel / staff of Faslane Navel Base which is close by. This has led to increased demand for family homes in the area and a further 40% increase is proposed in the near future. • This area was previously designated a rural opportunity area. ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No
Page 11
Classification: OFFICIAL • The proposal will use all existing available infrastructure i.e. water, electricity & broadband • Proposal is to plant native woodland & hedging and form a retention pond to support biodiversity. No loss of trees. • No impact on mature trees adjacent to the site which provide a landscape backdrop to the site. • Utilisation of an existing farm track serving Little Rahane Farm. • Limited cut and fill. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Design Statement In summary the statement says the design approach has considered the rural context and proposing natural materials to complement the adjacent house. The house is set back 27m from the road. The design and planting will develop the area’s sense of identity. It is sited at the bottom of the hill with backdrop of mature trees and hillside to integrate into the environment. This alongside new screen planting along the B833 will minimise the visual impact of the house. Biodiversity Statement New native tree and hedge planting listed including all the species plus details of the retention pond and the bat/bird boxes etc. ☒Yes ☐No (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
Page 12
Classification: OFFICIAL Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources (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.
Page 13
Classification: OFFICIAL • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • ABC Housing Needs and Demand Assessment • ABC Housing Emergency Statement • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) • Review of Fragile Areas and Employment Action Areas in the Highlands and Islands - Executive Summary (2015) (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 There have been no representations. It is considered that the proposed development has been assessed in accordance with all relevant provisions of the Local Development Plan. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Peat – Class 3 (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: 5.2 - Land capable of use as improved grassland. Few problems with pasture establishment but may be difficult to maintain. Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☒Class 3 ☐N/A Peat Depth Classification: Unknown. 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
Page 14
Classification: OFFICIAL (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 ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☐Settlement Area ☒Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The application is for a detached 5-bedroom, dwellinghouse within a rough grazing field fronting onto the B833, located between the settlement areas of Rahane to the north and Clynder / Rosneath to the south. Site and its Surroundings The site is located within the greenfield land. It lies north of another property called Tigh Na Clachan in the countryside to the south of the village of Garelochhead and north of Clynder and Rosneath. Tigh Na Clachan is a modern property and gained permission around 10 years ago (13/02739/PP) and further south to this is a consolidated and established cluster of houses including Glengair, Altmore and Ardchoille. The access to the site is shared with Little Rahane Farm which sits further up on the hillside to the north west of the application site. The level of the site along the font boundary is elevated slightly above the level of the road behind a ditch and a hedgerow. The ground levels generally slope up from the front to the rear of the site at a relatively gentle gradient. A thin belt of trees runs along a slightly steeper bank at the rear (west) edge of the site. The site is part of a rough grazing field. Proposed Development The proposal is for a one and half storey detached dwelling with a double garage. The proposed house is orientated with the principal elevation facing due east such that it addresses Rosneath Road and the Gareloch beyond. The line of the front elevation is set back approximately 20.0 m from the front boundary with Rosneath Road. This ‘set-back’ distance from the public road is similar to that of the existing house to the south, Tigh-na-Clachan. The line of the principal elevation is set roughly on the 7.50 metre contour line which is approximately 2.7 m above the prevailing road level. Proposed access to the site is via an existing shared farm track that has a junction with the B833 adopted road adjacent to the south of the application site. This existing track presently serves Little Rahane farm and Tigh-na-Clachan. It is proposed to be widen and otherwise improve this access junction as part of this proposal. Private access will be off of the farm track at a point towards the south west corner of the application site. The proposed detached garage is to be sited to
Page 15
Classification: OFFICIAL the rear (west) of the proposed house. It is proposed to form a SUDs / retention pond to the southern side of the house in order to provide for surface water attenuation and enhanced biodiversity. The house is 210 sqm, and the garage is 28 sqm in ‘footprint’ area. The height of the ridge level at its highest point is approximately 7.5m. The house is made up of two linked volumetric forms. The northernmost, principal volume comprises kitchen / dining area, utility space, home office, guest bedroom and family bathroom at ground level with 4 no. bedrooms, each with an en-suite shower room, at first floor level. The roof is hipped at either end. The eaves level on the principle (east) elevation and side elevations is a little more than halfway between the 1st floor FFL and ceiling level (sometime referred to as a 1 ½ storey design). The principal elevation includes a projecting gabled form and a flat-roofed wall-head dormer. The roof plane on the rear elevation continues downwards to an eaves level just above the ground floor window and doorheads. There are two flat-roofed dormer additions on the rear facing roof-slope. A living area is to be accommodated in a single-storey ‘wing’ addition attached to the south side of the principal 1 ½ storey volume. The level of the ridge of the roof is set below the level of that of the main roof and there is a ‘half-hip’ on the (south) end elevation. There are large expanses of glazing on the ground floor elevations on the principal (east-facing) and end (south-facing) elevations. The proposed materials are walls, natural stone feature gable and basecourse, with main walls being smooth off white render and horizontal larch cladding. The windows are to be dark grey composite and roof would be natural slate. The house is orientated in the same way as the neighbouring house facing the loch and on the same building line. The site has a backdrop of rough hillside and mature native trees. The cut and fill is minimised and only what is necessary to allow level access to the house. New natural screen planting is proposed to compliment and expand the existing woodland and provide a landscape feature to the north of the site. Spatial and Settlement Strategy The Local Development Plan 2 identifies the site as being in the ‘Countryside’ zone wherein Policy 02 applies. The policy establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2. Policy 02 further states that certain development will be supported, generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments, where these comprise infill, rounding off, redevelopment opportunities of clusters; or previously developed sites however, it is not considered that the development proposal falls into any of these specifically identified criteria. In addition, as set out in greater detail below, it is considered that the siting and scale of the development proposal would be incongruous within, and detrimental to the visual landscape character and as such cannot be supported by LDP 2 Policy 02. Policy 16 of NPF4 requires that proposals on land not allocated for housing in the LDP must be supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; be consistent with Local Living policy (NPF4 Policy 15); and (given that this site is not within a settlement boundary or part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan) that either: • Delivery of sites is happening earlier than identified in the deliverable housing land pipeline; or • The proposal is consistent with policy on rural homes (policy 17)
Page 16
Classification: OFFICIAL In terms of the first ‘bullet’ point, LDP2 has the following housing allocations located within the Garelochhead and Rosneath peninsula areas which remain undeveloped: H2009, H2010, H2011, H2012. Therefore this criterion would not be applicable and the proposal must therefore be consistent with Policy 17 to gain support. Policy 17 of NPF4 refers to the Scottish Government’s 6 fold Urban Rural Classification 2020. The application site is located within an area classified as “Accessible Rural” (in the 6 fold Urban Rural Classification 2020), and so parts (a) and (b) of NPF 4 Policy 17 apply. In this case the proposal does not meet any of the criteria within part (a) as the site is not an allocated site, nor is it a brownfield site or is it securing a historic asset or supporting a rural business or croft. It is also not the reinstatement of an existing house. However, the revised consultation response by the development policy team (based on the publication of a Chief Planners Letter) states that their interpretation is that Policy 17 (a) is not intended to be interpreted in a restrictive manner. Instead, it is only one consideration for a proposal and if (b) can be met (in relation to Local Living) then Policy 17 can be considered to be met. It is therefore considered that even though the proposal does not meet any criterion under part (a) that in itself does not result in policy conflict, it is simply the case that no express support is provided by Policy 17a. The proposal is assessed against NPF4 Policy 13, 15 and also LDP2 Policies 32 and 33 relating to local living and sustainable transport. It is recognised that in many parts of Argyll and Bute 20 Minute Neighbourhoods are not viable, and that in order to support fragile communities in remote rural areas, a more flexible approach of Local Living can be considered. However, in an Accessible Rural area there is likely to be higher development pressure, and so careful consideration needs to be given as to whether a house in this location would comply with Local Living policy. The proposed siting is 2 miles (approx.) to Rosneath where there are facilities such as a primary school and small supermarket. The other nearby settlement is Garelochhead which is a little further away. The road is a 40mph zone in the vicinity of the site and there is no pavement alongside the road to allow safe walking into Rosneath, but cycling is possible. There is also a bus service along this road but no bus stop and no step off. The closest bus stop at Herons View is some two thirds of a mile from the site. Taking all the above factors into account, the site is not ideal in terms of local living as it is not easily accessible on foot given the lack of pavement. However, the site is adjacent to a bus route, and if a step off was provided to safely flag down a bus (which could be conditioned if approved) then it would be considered to meet NPF4 Policy 15 in relation to local living given as this would reduce the difficulties of getting to the local service centre of Rosneath and Garelochead by sustainable and active travel. It is not considered commensurate with the scale of development to require a footpath all the way into Rosneath. Scale, Massing, Form, Detailed Design and Material Finishes In terms of the detailed design, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is an appropriate response to the site context. The scale and massing are appropriate and ‘tie in’ with the neighbouring house which also has a hipped roof, projecting gable form and a stone finish. It meets all the criteria within Policy 10 of LDP2. It is considered that the palette of materials relates satisfactorily with the adjacent house,
Page 17
Classification: OFFICIAL Tigh-na-Clachan, and the rural character generally with the arguable exception of smooth white rendered walls which may have a rather stark prominence as opposed to the recessive material qualities of stone, slate and naturally weathered timber. Tigh-na-Clachan for example has panels of ‘natural’ or stone coloured render on the walls which results in a more recessive building that helps it to blend into its natural backdrop. This issue could be addressed by means of planning condition were the proposed development supported by all other planning policies. In terms of sustainable siting and energy efficient design, Policies 04 and 09 apply alongside NPF4 Policy 1 and 2. In terms of general sustainability measures the checklist has been submitted by the applicant. The details are all summarised in Section G above. The materials are considered to be appropriate with durable slate for the roof, for the walls timber/render and natural stone and UPVC windows. The proposal is therefore considered to meet Policies 09 and 04 in relation to sustainable design and construction. Landscape Character NPF 4 Policy 14 requires that development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in an urban or rural location regardless of scale. The policy continues to the effect that development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area, or inconsistent with the six (identified) qualities of successful places will not be supported. NPF 4 Policy 17 supports proposals for new homes in the rural areas where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and is suitable in terms of location and environmental impact. The expected “Policy Outcome” for the above is (amongst other considerations) is to safeguard and enhance the distinctive character, sense of place and natural and cultural assets of rural areas. Policies 05 and 08 of LDP2 cover placemaking criteria in terms of respecting site topography, developing a design that respects the areas sense of identity and siting to integrate into the landscape. In addition, Policy 02 states if a proposal is not rounding off or infill or redevelopment then support is only given for “sustainable development where this of an appropriate scale, siting, design and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant subject policies.” The site is located along a stretch of road between Garelochhead and Cynder. The settlement pattern along the road comprises of small groups and occasional single houses running parallel to the waterfront (Loch Gare) with open spaces in between which are predominantly rough grazing with small sections of woodland. It is not considered that the development proposal constitutes rounding off or infill development. LDP2 glossary describes rounding off as “New development positioned largely between substantial building(s) on one side and a substantial ground or natural feature on the other side and arranged such that the local pattern of development terminates at this point.” The neighbouring house at ‘Tigh Na Cara’ was approved under planning permission ref: 13/02739/PP on the basis that it is was considered to be rounding off the grouping at Glengair. The report of handling for that application provides further detail stating that the development of a house on that site would “sit reasonably comfortably in terms of the settlement pattern with the small group of dwellings to the south” and that the “existing access track forms a clear and defined physical limit to rounding off.” However, the current application site is part of a larger field, located
Page 18
Classification: OFFICIAL to the north of this track, and is not enclosed or contained on its northern boundary by any natural or established built feature. It is therefore not considered to be rounding off and if approved, would begin to establish a pattern of ribbon development along the road, out of keeping with the established pattern of built development, rather than consolidating an existing grouping. On this basis it is considered that the development of this site would not ‘fit’ the landscape character and would be out of place. It is therefore contrary to NPF4 Policy 14 and 17 and LDP2 Policies 04, 05, 08. The proposal therefore does not meet NPF4 Policies 5, 14 and 17 and LDP2 Policies 02, 04, 05, 08, and 79 and is recommended for refusal. Natural Environment There is no woodland or tree loss from the proposal. There is an opportunity to enhance biodiversity on the site via a suitably worded condition that secures the Biodiversity Statement which has been submitted. It states that there will be new native hedgerows, trees and wildflower meadow and a pond to encourage amphibians and aquatic plants. New bat and bird boxes would be put up in the mature trees. The proposal would therefore comply with NPF4 Policy 3 and also LDP Policy 73 in relation to biodiversity impacts and enhancements. The site is shown to be in an area that is Class 3 peat which is peaty soil with some/mostly peat forming vegetation. Developments on peat will always require a recent peat and vegetation survey to confirm the quality and distribution of peatland across the whole development area. The applicant has been made aware that this survey is required but given the recommendation is for refusal then no further information has been provided. As such, insufficient supporting information has been submitted to allow a full and professional assessment relating to potential for adverse impact upon peat resources on the site. This means that the applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of officers that the proposed development accords with NPF4 policy 5 and LDP2 Policy 79. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters NPF4 Policy 13 and LDP2 policies 35 and 39 collectively seek to ensure appropriate infrastructure and that developments are served by a safe means of vehicular access and have an appropriate parking and turning area within the site. Council Area Roads have not objected to the proposal but the access would require upgrading including being graded to a suitable gradient, surfaced with a bound surface and also visibility splays maintained of 75m for a 40mph. There are no details of the visibility splays on the plans but the gradient of the widths of the driveway are shown and they are satisfactory. If the application were to be supported, then further details would need to be sought to ensure the visibility splays can be achieved. There is enough space on site to accommodate parking and turning for the host property and the new property as shown on the site plan. The proposal is likely to meet all the relevant policies in relation to access and parking. Service Infrastructure Policy 18 of NPF4 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure-first approach to land use planning. Policy 60 supports new private sewage treatment plants where connection is not feasible for technical reasons.
Page 19
Classification: OFFICIAL The proposal includes a private waste water treatment system as there is no known public sewer at this location. Flood advisors provided comments and the private waste water solution proposed is within the flood zone and is recommended to be moved. It is acknowledged that were the application to be supported by the planning authority with regard to all other relevant planning considerations, then this technical issue could be satisfactorily resolved and as such it does not form part of the reasons for refusal. In addition there would be a requirement for surface water drainage treatment. The applicant states that there will be rainwater harvesting system and a new retention pond on site. This is considered the most sustainable drainage system available and is strongly encouraged and supported. It is understood that there is a public water connection in the vicinity and therefore there would be no issues in that regard. The proposal is therefore compliant with relevant policies above subject to a revised private waste water treatment system location. Flooding The proposal has been assessed against NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 61 in relation to flooding and sustainable drainage systems. With reference to the topographical data provided within the application in “Proposed Site Plan and Site Sections”, it is evident that elevations at the site range from 3.79 metres Above Ordnance Datum (mAOD) at the eastern site boundary to 11.50mAOD at the northwestern site corner. The site lies outwith the indicative limits of fluvial and surface water flooding as per the SEPA Future Flood Maps. The coastal flood extent overlaps the eastern site boundary. However, it is evident from the application that the proposed dwellinghouse lies outwith the flood extent, on ground above 7.50mAOD (as shown by site topographic data in the site plans). It is noted that the applicant has not submitted any information with regard to surface water drainage, as such this information could be secured via condition if approved. The proposal will therefore align with the above noted policies. Conclusion As detailed above, it is considered the proposed development would be out of keeping with and detrimental to visual landscape character contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policies 14 and 17 and Policies 02, 04, 05, 08 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. Having regard to the information that has been submitted, the applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of officers that potential for adverse impact upon peat resources on the site has been fully assessed and if appropriate, satisfactory mitigation measures provided. As such the development proposal, in its present form, does not accord with the provisions of NPF4 policy 5 and LDP2 Policy 79. It is therefore recommended that this application for planning permission be refused. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No
Page 20
Classification: OFFICIAL (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: n/a (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: Norman Shewan Date: 19.03.2026 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 19.03.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 21
Classification: OFFICIAL REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/00378/PP 1. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policies 14 and 17 and Policies 02, 04, 05, 08 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan as the proposal does not integrate with its surroundings and would be out of keeping with, and detrimental to, the local landscape character. The site is to the north of the agricultural farm access to Little Rahane Farm, wherein this provides a built feature that divides the site from the grouping to the south. To the north of the proposed house site there is no natural or built feature that would serve to ‘contain’ the proposed new development, and therefore it is not considered rounding off in terms of meeting Policy 02 of LDP2. The narrow coastal margin at this point where the new house is proposed is an established open, un-developed gap comprising relatively large field enclosures between the existing grouping south of the farm track and the small settlement of Rahane further north along the road. This gap of open farmland between consolidated clusters of built development is an important feature of the local landscape character. It is considered that further expansion of these existing small and consolidated groups of houses will materially alter the development pattern and raise the pressure for further development alongside the road in the form of ribbon development. Even though it is adjacent to the existing grouping, with new tree planting proposed, it is considered that it will adversely affect the integrity of this open gap and create ribbon development. 2. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 5 and Policy 79 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan that relates to protection of soils in terms of insufficient information to assess disturbance, degradation or erosion of potential peat as the site is identified as Class 3 peat on the Carbon and Peatland 2016 map.
Page 22
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 25/00378/PP (A) Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. ☐Yes ☒No (B) The reason why planning permission has been refused: The proposal is considered to be contrary to policies 5, 14 and 17 of National Planning Framework 4, and policies 02, 04, 05, 08 and 79 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission in this instance as a departure to the Development Plan having regard to s25 of the Act.
Page 23
Classification: OFFICIAL Tigh-na-Clachan viewed from the B833 Rosneath Road The appeal site viewed from the B833 Rosneath Road from a point to the South East
Page 24
Classification: OFFICIAL Appeal site viewed from the SE illustrating the absence of any existing ground or natural feature to the north to justify ‘rounding-off development.’
Page 25
Classification: OFFICIAL Tigh-na-Clachan viewed from the South West illustrating that existing built development is visually contained by the existing farm track that ‘wraps around’ Tigh-na-Clachan to the North and West.
Page 26
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghàidheal agus Bhòid Memo Development and Economic Growth Date: 21/08/25 To: Development Management Your Ref: 25/00378/PP Our Ref: From: Kim de Buiteléir Senior Planning and Strategies Officer Extension: 4126 A Development Policy consultation response was written on 16th April 2025, however following publication of a letter by the Chief Planner on 30th April 2025 clarifying the intent of NPF4 Policy 17, a revised response is required, superseding our previous advice. The proposed development is for the erection of a dwellinghouse and garage, and installation of sewage treatment plan and soakaway at land north of Tigh-Na-Clachan, Clynder. The Development Plan comprises the NPF4 and LDP2. An application for a dwellinghouse in the countryside is considered primarily through the following policies: • NPF4 Policy 16 Quality Homes • NPF4 Policy 17 Rural Homes • NPF4 Policy 15 Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods • LDP2 Policy 2 Outwith Settlement Areas (supported by Technical Notes TN06 and TN21) NPF4 Policy 16 requires that proposals on land not allocated for housing in the LDP must be “supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; be consistent with Local Living policy” (NPF4 Policy 15); and (given this site is not within a settlement boundary or part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan) that either: • “Delivery of sites is happening earlier than identified in the deliverable housing land pipeline, or • The proposal is consistent with policy on rural homes” (Policy 17) In terms of the first point, within the Garelochhead and Rosneath peninsula areas, LDP2 has the following housing allocations which remain undeveloped: H2009, H2010, H2011, H2012. Therefore this criterion would not be applicable and the proposal needs to be assessed under Policy 17. Policy 17 of NPF4 refers to the Scottish Government’s 6 fold Urban Rural Classification 2020. The majority of Argyll and Bute is covered by the Remote Rural Classification which, under part (c) of Policy 17, provides support for housing in the countryside. Proposals that support the resettlement of previously inhabited areas are supported under part (d). However this proposal sits within an area classified as Accessible Rural so neither (c) nor (d) apply. We had previously concluded that parts (a) and (b) of the policy would both need to be met as they both refer to “new homes in rural areas”, assessing the language of part (a) of this policy of “will be supported”
Page 27
to mean that in the absence of meeting any of the criteria within part (a), a proposal should NOT be supported. However when re-assessing the policy alongside the Chief Planner’s letter which states that “policies 17 and 29 on rural homes and rural development are supportive policies that encourage sustainable development in rural areas. This positive position is embedded across NPF4, with ‘rural revitalisation’ being one of six spatial principles, spatial strategies identifying a wide range of opportunities across rural areas, and several national developments expected to be located in rural areas. We want to be clear that NPF4 is not intended to reduce flexibility of supportive local rural policies”, it is now clear that the wording of 17(a) was not intended to be interpreted in such a restrictive manner. Instead, it appears to be only one consideration for supporting a proposal, and that if part (b) applies, (circling back to Policy 15) then Policy 17 (and therefore Policy 16) can be considered to be met. It is recognised that in many parts of Argyll and Bute 20 Minute Neighbourhoods are not viable, and in order to support fragile communities in remote rural areas, a more flexible approach of Local Living can be considered. However in an Accessible Rural area there is likely to be higher development pressure, and so careful consideration needs to be given as to whether a house in this location would comply with Local Living policy. LDP2 Policy 2 requires a proposal in the countryside to “demonstrate that there will be no adverse effects (either individually or cumulatively) on natural heritage resources, built and/or cultural heritage resources, and landscape and visual amenity”. This is assessed through the Sustainability Checklist, which I note has been submitted. Should it be considered that this demonstrates preliminary evidence of any particular sensitivities (resulting from the scale of the development, its perceived prominence in the landscape, sensitivity of receptors such as historic assets, or siting impacting on landscape transition from one character to another) then a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) or Visual Impact Illustrations (VII) should be requested, as per TN21.
Page 28
SNH National Landscape Character Assessment LCT 38 OPEN RIDGES 1 Location and Context The Open Ridges Landscape Character Type occurs in four locations in Argyll and Bute, located on the Rosneath Peninsula, the band of hills behind Helensburgh and Cardross below the ridge which forms the boundary to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, and two areas on Bute. Key Characteristics Broad, even slopes form rounded ridges and occasional steep summits. Upper slopes are predominantly open moorland with blocks forestry, patches of birch woodland and scrub. Marginal farmland confined to broader glens and loch fringes, with fields enclosed by stone walls and occasional shelter belts. Narrow ships of broadleaf woodland along burns and within steep, rocky gullies. Substantial, dark grey retaining walls and beech hedgerows emphasise contours and help to integrate settlements on lower slopes. Built development concentrated along very narrow shoreline strip. Landscape Character Description Landform The Open Ridges Landscape Character Type lies on Dalradian metamorphic rocks of the Southern Highland Group, extending into the hills around Helensburgh, to the west of Gare Loch and on the island of Bute, to the north of the Highland Boundary Fault. They are also found on the igneous rocks of the Kilpatrick Hills, to the north-west of the Glasgow conurbation. The broad, rounded ridges are considerably lower than the Steep Ridges and Mountains to the north and the profile of the slopes is relatively smooth. These elevated areas are larger in scale than lower areas. Rocky outcrops are limited to the upper moorland summits, where the landform becomes craggier in places. The glens cut deep into the landform, creating SNH National Landscape Character Assessment Landscape Character Type 38 OPEN RIDGES
Page 29
SNH National Landscape Character Assessment LCT 38 OPEN RIDGES 2 wooded rocky gullies and some wider valleys such as Glen Fruin. The steep slopes generally become undulating at the edges of the lochs. Landcover There are extensive conifer forests on the sides of the broad ridges, with rounded, open moorland tops. Smaller broadleaf woodlands are confined to the glens. Many of the trees on exposed slopes are stunted. Rough grazing predominates and fields are usually enclosed by post and rail fencing. Gorse is characteristic of the upland areas, as are stands of Scots pine. Despite the wooded character, there are many long, framed views and the landscape has an open, well-structured character. While the meandering rivers and burns form soft, organic shapes in the landscape, rows of hedgerow trees and shelter belts stand out as strong geometric features. Field boundaries on the lower slopes of the moorland ridges are characterised by broken stone walls, post and wire fencing and sparse hedgerows. On the loch edges, there is a gradual change to a smaller scale landscape, with wooded gills and a narrow, intermittent band of built development. Settlement Settlement is largely confined to the loch edges. The houses are typically at an acute angle to the road and are stepped up the slope on terraces. Beech hedges contrast with local stone walls, natural rock outcrops and mixed woodlands to create a richly varied local landscape. The strip of land by the loch side is particularly is prominent in views from the opposite side of the loch. Reflection increases the visual effect of built development on this shoreline landscape. The area has transmission masts and pylons and substantial oil depots and developments which are of larger scale than the surrounding landscape. MOD developments are dominant in some loch heads. This is one of 389 Landscape Character Types identified at a scale of 1:50 000 as part of a national programme of Landscape Character Assessment republished in 2019. The area covered by this Landscape Character Type was originally included in the Argyll and the Firth of Clyde (Environmental Resources Management), published 1996.
Page 30
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX PLANNING CONDITIONS AND ADVISORY NOTES Land North of Tigh-Na-Clachan, Rahane, Argyll and Bute Planning Application Reference Number 25/00378/PP Local Review Board Reference Number 26/0004/LRB 25th June 2026
Page 31
Classification: OFFICIAL Without prejudice to the Statement of Case submitted by the planning authority, were members of the Local review Body minded to support this appeal against refusal of planning permission, then it is recommended that this be subject to the following planning conditions and advisory notes: Standard Time Limit Condition: The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Standard Soils Management Condition: Where the development involves ground breaking works, soil management should be undertaken in compliance with the established best practice set out in the DEFRA publication “Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites 2009”, unless an alternative methodology for sustainable management of soil is submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that sustainable management of soils and compliance with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 5A. Additional Conditions 1. Approved Details & Standard Notes: The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 10th March 2025, 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 @ 1:2500 P1-835-00 Rev. A 11.03.2025 Existing Location & Site Plans, Site Elevation and Site Section PL-835-01 Rev. A 11.03.2025 Proposed Site Plan and Site Sections PL-835-02 Rev. A 11.03.2025 Proposed Floor Plans & Roof Plan P1-835-03 Rev. A 17.03.2025 Proposed Elevations and Section PL-835-04 Rev. A 17.03.2025 Proposed Garage Plan and Elevations PL-835-05 Rev. A 27.03.2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Junction with Public Road: Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the access junction of the existing track with the adopted B833 Rosneath Road shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD08/002
Page 32
Classification: OFFICIAL Rev. B and visibility splays of 2.40 metres to point X by 75 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access shall be achieved. In accordance with the stated standard detail drawing the junction shall comply with the following design requirements: i. from its connection with the B833, the shared private drive shall be constructed to a minimum width of 5.5m for the first 10.0m, reducing to no less than 3.7m thereafter; ii. the first 5.0m of the shared private access drive to the proposed development must be surfaced with a bound material, such as bitumen macadam or concrete, unless otherwise agreed in writing; iii. the shared private access from its junction with the B833 to the proposed new private driveway to serve the development proposal shall achieve a gradient no greater than 5% (1 in 20) over the first 5.0m be and thereafter no greater than 12% (1 in 8); and, iv. Any access gates shall be sited at least 6.0 metres from the edge of the B833 adopted road carriageway and shall be hung to be inward opening only. Prior to work starting on site the shared private access junction with the adopted B833 Rosneath Road shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Note to Applicant: • A Road Opening Permit under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 must be obtained from the Council’s Roads Engineers prior to the formation/alteration of a junction with the public road. • The access shall be constructed and drained to ensure that no surface water is discharged onto the public road. • Drainage must be achieved within the curtilage of the site, with no water permitted to discharge onto the adopted carriageway of the B833. 3. Junction of the Proposed New Private Driveway with the Existing Shared Private Driveway / Track: Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the proposed new access junction of the private driveway onto the existing shared private track shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD08/002 Rev. B and visibility splays in both directions of 2.40 metres to point X by 25 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access shall be achieved. In accordance with the stated standard detail drawing the junction shall comply with the following design requirements: i. from its connection with the shared private drive, the proposed new private driveway to serve the development proposal shall be constructed to a minimum width of 5.5m for the first 10.0m, reducing to no less than 3.7m thereafter;
Page 33
Classification: OFFICIAL ii. the first 5.0m of the shared private access drive to the proposed development must be surfaced with a bound material, such as bitumen macadam or concrete, unless otherwise agreed in writing; and, iii. any access gates shall be sited at least 6.0 metres from the edge of the shared private track carriageway and shall be hung to be inward opening only. Prior to work starting on site the private driveway junction onto the existing shared private track / driveway shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 4. Parking and Turning as Shown: The parking and turning area shall be laid out and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved proposed site plan drawing no. PL-835-02 Revision A prior to the development first being occupied unless alternative vehicle parking provision and turning space is agreed in writing by the planning authority in consultation with the Council’s area roads engineer. The approved parking provision and turning area shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 5. Landscape/Surface/Boundary Treatment: No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of: i. position and species of all existing trees within the application site indicating which, if any trees, are proposed to be removed; ii. location, design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; iii. surface treatment of proposed means of access and hardstanding areas; iv. any proposed re-contouring of the site by means of existing and proposed ground levels; v. proposed landscape planting including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted; and, vi. a programme for the timing, method of implementation and completion of landscape planting. The development shall not be occupied until such time as the boundary treatment / planting has been completed in accordance with the approved scheme unless an alternative timescale is approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Page 34
Classification: OFFICIAL Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity, and to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. 6. Biodiversity Enhancement: Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until a biodiversity statement, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The statement shall demonstrate how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be implemented and maintained for the lifetime of the development. The physical biodiversity enhancement measures (bird nesting boxes, 'swift bricks', wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes etc) 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. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. 7. Submission of Details of Stone Work: Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until a sample of the natural stone to be used in the development and written details of the size and coursing and, means of pointing of all stone work have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed using the approved specifications or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings. 8. Removal of PD Rights - Dwellinghouse: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended), (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order(s) with or without modifications), nothing in Article 2(4) of or the Schedule to that Order, shall operate so as to permit, within the area subject of this permission, any development referred to in Part 1 and Classes 1A, 1B, 1D, 3A, 3AA, 3B, 3C, 3E and Part 2 and Class 7 of the aforementioned Schedule, as summarised below: PART 1: DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF A DWELLINGHOUSE Class 1A: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a single storey ground floor extension, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement. Class 1B: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a ground floor extension consisting of more than one storey, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement. Class 1D: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of an addition or alteration to its roof. Class 3A: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a building for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the alteration, maintenance or improvement of such a building.
Page 35
Classification: OFFICIAL Class 3AA: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a building for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse. Class 3B: The carrying out of any building, engineering, installation or other operation within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Class 3C: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the replacement in whole or in part of such a surface. Class 3E: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure any part of which would be within or would bound the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. PART 2: SUNDRY MINOR OPERATIONS Class 7: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure No such development shall be carried out at any time within this Part and these Classes without the express grant of planning permission. Reason: Having regard to the elevated and prominent siting of the proposed building and its large residential curtilage within the wider landscape in order to protect the sensitive area and the setting of the proposed dwellinghouse, in the interest of visual amenity, from unsympathetic siting and design of developments normally carried out without planning permission; these normally being permitted under Article 2(4) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended). 9. Surface Water Drainage - No further detail required: Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA's SuDS Manual C753. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. Note to Applicant: Further advice on SuDS can be found in SEPA's Standing Advice for Small Scale Development - www.sepa.org.uk 10. External Lighting: All external lights for the premises (including security lights/access lighting) should comply with the Scottish Government Guidance Note "Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Lighting Energy Consumption" and should:
Page 36
Classification: OFFICIAL i. be fitted with light cowl/hood to ensure that the light is controlled and does not shine onto neighbouring properties; ii. each external light should be fitted with a timer so that it only turns on when needed and will not be required to be left on for long periods of time; and, iii. not be excessively bright and affect neighbouring properties Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the area in terms of potential light nuisance. 11. Amenity – Construction Phase: No development shall commence until a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority in consultation with the Council’s Environmental Health Service. The CEMP shall identify and assess all potential sources of nuisance during the construction phase, including noise/ vibration, dust, surface runoff and any temporary lighting provided, which may cause disturbance to nearby residents during the construction of the development to be undertaken by the applicant. This must include all aspects of the proposal (e.g. ground works/access road improvements, construction of house and associated facilities). This should include consideration of intended hours of operation, movement of vehicles, use of plant and storage of equipment and materials on site. For all potential sources of nuisance, the applicant will be required to provide a management plan with details of suitable control / mitigation measures to be put in place so as to ensure that construction does not cause loss of amenity to local residents and/or statutory nuisance. Thereafter, the construction phase of the proposed development shall be carried out fully in accordance with the approved management plan. Reason: In order to address the matters raised by the Councils Environmental Service and in order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. 12. Amenity – Noise During Construction Phase: In order to minimise, as far as necessary, the level of noise and/or vibration to which nearby existing residents will be exposed during the construction process the hours of operation of the site should be restricted to 08.00 to 18:30 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. There should be no construction operations carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Any ground engineering works (e.g. excavation, rock-pecking, piling etc) will require to be undertaken to best practicable means for noise and vibration control. Any such activities should be discussed with the planning authority and a noise/vibration management plan developed and approved prior to operations commencing. Any fuel driven generators to be used on the site must be enclosed within suitable acoustic barriers. Reason: In order to address the matters raised by the Councils Environmental Service and in order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity.
Page 37
Classification: OFFICIAL Standard Advisory Notes 1. Any further details that are required by condition to be submitted for approval of the planning authority must be submitted on the ‘Discharge of Conditions Form’ and be accompanied by the relevant fee (where applicable). https://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-applications/discharge-conditions. 2. In order to comply with Sections 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, prior to works commencing on site it is the responsibility of the developer to complete and submit the following ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ form to the Planning Authority specifying the date on which the development will start. Failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a breach of planning control under Section 123(1) of the Act. 3. In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the following ‘Notice of Completion’ form to the Planning Authority specifying the date upon which the development was completed. Additional Advisory Notes 4. Site Drainage: Suitable and sufficient measures for the effective collection and disposal of surface water should be implemented during construction phase of the project as well as within the completed development to prevent flooding within this and nearby property. 5. Surface Water Drainage: Any SUDS appraisal must to give appropriate weight to not only any potential risk of pollution to watercourses but to suitable and sufficient measures for the effective collection and disposal of surface water to prevent flooding. Measures should be implemented during the construction phase of the project as well as the within the completed development to prevent flooding within the application site and in property / land nearby. It is also recommended that a long-term maintenance plan should be developed prior to the commencement of the proposed development. 6. Private Sewage Treatment System: It is the intention of the applicant to effect a drainage system at the proposed development by means of connection to a new treatment plant with discharge to a soakaway. The system of drainage provided will require to be in accordance with the relevant Building (Scotland) Acts, and this will be a matter for consideration by the Senior Building Control Officer. 7. CDM Regulations 2015: The applicant should be fully aware of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) and its implications on client duties etc. 8. Radon Gas: It should be noted that the location of the dwellinghouse is in an area that has been shown to have higher levels of Radon Gas. This can be seen on the Environmental Health Mapping Portal, Radon Gas V3. This should be highlighted and considered for the future works. 9. Design and Construction of Buildings – Gulls: It is very strongly recommended that appropriate measures be taken in the design of all buildings and their construction, to inhibit the roosting and nesting of gulls. Such measures are
Page 38
Classification: OFFICIAL intended to reduce nuisance to, and intimidation of, persons living, working and visiting the development.