Planning
Argyll and Bute Council · 8 December 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 8 December 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY Ref: 25/0009/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE LAND WEST OF HELENSLEA, TIGHNABRUAICH, ARGYLL Statement of Case The planning authority is Argyll and Bute Council (“the Council”). The appellant is Mr Mark Brunjes(“the appellant”). There is no agent employed to act upon Mr Brunjes’s behalf in this case. Planning application 24/00271/PPP, which proposed the erection of a dwelling house, was refused under delegated powers on the 28th July 2025. The planning decision has been challenged and is subject of review by the Local Review Body. This is the response by the Council to the application for a review. Background 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 and determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Subsequent to the decision please note that Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) has been adopted on the 28th February 2024. Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issue in relation to the case are as follows: • Access to the application site to accommodate the proposed house. The Report of Handling (please refer to Appendix 1) sets out Planning and Regulatory Services assessment of the planning application in terms of policy within the current adopted Argyll and Bute Development Plan and all other material planning considerations. REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING The proposal constitutes a Local Development in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, has no complex or challenging issues and has not been the subject of significant third party representations. It is not considered that a Hearing is required. COMMENTS ON APPELLANT’S STATEMENT The Village Brae is narrow, steep access with limited passing places which is the main access to the site. The Village Brae by the nature of the constraints on either side of the road and the topography mean that is cannot be improved i.e. passing places can’t be provided and widths cannot be increased. The key issue is therefore whether the proposal is an intensification of use. The appellant states that “The current building on the land was erected on 1918 and was used continuously by three generations of the McKellar family as a commercial joiner’s
Page 2
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL workshop until 1996, and the road access adjacent to Helenslea title plan was in regular use until the previous owner passed away. During this time the commercial traffic for the business would have been considerably more than now.” The appellant then states “The application site has been used as a commercial premises for many years and could continue to be used to this effect should I wish to do so. I am of the view that replacing the workshop with a home would not constitute an intensification of usage from the commercial use. If anything, I would consider a single dwelling to have less usage and be an improvement and more in keeping with the pattern of development of the village and an opportunity to regenerate the vacant site.” Officer Response: The issue in relation to traffic is whether or not the previous commercial use was capable of being resumed without a requirement for planning permission. We are of the opinion that the use has been discontinued (it closed in 1996, which is 29 years ago) and subsequently the evidence as provided with the application suggests the commercial use to be abandoned. In this instance the planning officers did not afford any significant weight to the commercial use and therefore viewed it as an intensification of use. Members should note that abandonment of a use is not defied in law but there is established case law. The leading case is Trustees of Castell-y-Mynach Estate v Taff-Ely BC [1985] and confirmed in Hughes v SSETR [2000]. This case set out key criteria – the physical condition of the property, the period of non-use, and intervening uses. In this instance the building was considered to be severely dilapidated and not capable of accommodating its former use and the period of non-use is 29 years which is considered significant. If Members concluded that there was a legitimate argument that the use could resume then it would be of relevance as a material consideration in determining whether the proposal would lead to an intensification or deintensification over existing permitted/lawful activities utilising the access regime. CONCLUSION Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that all decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Page 3
Classification: OFFICIAL Appendix 1 Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 24/00271/PPP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mr Mark Brunjes Proposal: Demolition of Existing Workshop, Erection of Dwellinghouse and Detached Annex and Associated Drainage Arrangements Site Address: Land West of Helenslea, Tighnabruaich 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 a dwelling house and detached annex • Installation of private foul drainage system • Creation of private water supply • Formation of parking and turning for two vehicles (ii) Other specified operations • Demolition of existing workshop • Use of existing site access (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that Planning Permission in Principle be refused for the reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Environmental Health Officer (memo dated 25.03.2024)
Page 4
Classification: OFFICIAL No objections subject to conditions and informative notes regarding lighting, noise during demolition and construction works, micro-renewable energy, waste arrangements, etc. Scottish Water (letter dated 02.04.2024) There is currently sufficient capacity in the Tighnabruaich Water Treatment Works to service the development. The proposal would be serviced by Tighnabruaich Waste Water Treatment Works although Scottish Water is unable to confirm current capacity. In order to allow them to fully appraise the proposals, Scottish Water suggest that the applicant completes a Pre-Development Enquiry (PDE) Form and submits it directly to them via their Customer Portal or contacts Development Operations. For reasons of sustainability, and to protect their customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will not accept any surface water connections into their combined sewer system. Contaminated Land Officer (memo dated 15.04.2024) The application involves the redevelopment of land where there is an indication of previous uses which may be contaminative. Further information could be provided by the applicant to clarify this although if this is not available or forthcoming or it indicates potential land contamination issues then it is recommended that Planning Permission should be granted with a condition requiring the carrying out of a phased site investigation and risk assessment and, if necessary, the implementation of a remediation strategy and verification plan. Area Roads Engineer (report dated 20.11.2024) An objection is raised to the proposal on the following grounds: • The upper section of the adopted U035 Village Brae is a single-track road measuring less than 5.5 metres in width and lacking any passing places. This road currently serves 14 residential properties and, due to geographical limitations, there is insufficient capacity to implement the necessary road improvements to accommodate the intensification in usage • The private access road connecting the adopted road U035 Village Brae to the proposed development site has a width of less than 5.5 metres. It currently provides access to 8 properties with a large amount of on-street parking and, due to existing constraints, it cannot be improved to ensure safe access and egress at the proposed development site (D) HISTORY: An application for Planning Permission (ref: 08/01593/DET) for the demolition of the existing workshop and the erection of a dwellinghouse at the site that is the subject of the current application was withdrawn on 17th February 2009. (E) PUBLICITY:
Page 5
Classification: OFFICIAL Neighbour notification in accordance with the requirements of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (expiry date: 15th April 2024) and advertised under Regulation 20 (expiry date. 26th April 2024). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Objections have been received from the following eight sources: Colin Wood, Flat 2, Lorne Place, Tighnabruaich (received on 01.04.2024, 08.04.2024, 10.04.2024 and 11.04.2024) Elizabeth Gairns, Flat 7, Lorne Place, Tighnabruaich (received on 05.04.2024) Sheena Currie, Crarae Cottage, Bobby’s Brae, Tighnabruaich (received on 06.04.2024) David McCreadie, Flat 6, Lorne Place, Tighnabruaich (received on 07.04.2024) Lorna Weir, Flat 3, Lorne Place, Tighnabruaich (received on 08.04.2024) Roderick Roberts, The Cuillins, Tighnabruaich (received on 10.04.2024) George Houston, Flat 1, Lorne Place, Tighnabruaich (received on 10.04.2024) Agnes Cook, Flat 4, Lorne Place, Tighnabruaich (received on Tighnabruaich 11.04.2024) (ii) Summary of issues raised: • Constrained access – various comments from all of those above on access stating that, if the development is granted, it would be dangerous and detrimental to the access and amenity of the properties on Lorne Place which is narrow and a dead end. Congestion is currently experienced on Lorne Place as there is no off-street parking (photographs submitted of parked cars – up to 6 cars can be parked blocking the route between Village Brae and the application site) and concern is expressed that any service (refuse) and emergency vehicles would be impeded. The existing parking cars would be displaced and make the situation worse. Some residents have mobility issues and need to park close to their house. • Drainage and Sewage – will require investigation. • Contamination – there is a risk of contamination to the burn from building and drainage works. The burn is host to brown trout and there is a deep pool just below the site. Materials dumped on the land are visible on the side of the burn and there could be more dumping of material. It ranges from old bikes, sanitary ware and building supplies.
Page 6
Classification: OFFICIAL • Residential Amenity – The house will result in a reduction in the amenity of residents of Lorne Place, The Cuillins and Helenslea. Officer comment: all of the above matters will be is addressed in the assessment below. • Ownership - the boundary plans are incorrect. The Title Deeds show that the westerly boundary of Lorne Place extends from the south-easterly corner of Lorne Place along the line of the southerly wall. Therefore, the westerly boundary for Lorne Place is approx.4.5m/other states 6.5m further to the west than is shown on the applicant’s plan. The proposed parking and annex are therefore encroaching on land owned by Lorne place. Officer comment: The application plans have been amended to remove the land in question (approx. 111 sqm) from the application site and this is considered an acceptable variation. Section 34A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) makes provision for an application for Planning Permission in Principle to be varied with the agreement of the Planning Authority after it has been registered but prior to its determination. It also mentions that, when an application is varied under this section, the Planning Authority may give notice of the variation to neighbouring parties “as they consider appropriate”. (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: (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact, etc. ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 obligation required: ☐Yes ☒No
Page 7
Classification: OFFICIAL (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings 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 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 01 – 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 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes
Page 8
Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation 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 Homes for People Policy 66 – New Residential Development on Non-Allocated Housing Sites within Settlement Areas High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Area (LLA) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 82 – Contaminated Land (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Responses • Planning History • 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 • ABC Design Guides (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
Page 9
Classification: OFFICIAL (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: Bute and South Cowal Local Landscape Area Potential Contaminated Land SEPA Waste Water Drainage Consultation Area (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☐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 Planning Permission in Principle is sought for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land west of Helenslea, Tighnabruaich
Page 10
Classification: OFFICIAL The key issues for consideration are: • Principle of Development • Local Living and Sustainable Transport • Sense of Place and Quality of Design • Natural Environment • Access and Parking • Infrastructure and Services (Including Waste Storage and Collection) • Flood and Water Management • Contaminated Land Site and surroundings The application site has an area of approximately 1,435m2 and contains an old dilapidated workshop. The land is currently vacant and considered brownfield. It sits off the Village Brae in the village of Tighnabruaich off a private access that serves properties at Lorne Place and a detached dwelling at Helenslea. The site is close to the village centre where there are a few shops, restaurants and a hotel. The area has a number of historic buildings but none are listed and it is not a Conservation Area. The site and workshop have been vacant since 1996 and previous to this it was used as a commercial site. As set out in the planning history an application was made in 2008 for a house but the roads comments at the time were raising concern about the substandard condition of the road, the ownership/right of access and parking/turning requirements. The application was then withdrawn. There was no details on this application file of the previous commercial use. Proposed Development The application proposes the demolition of the dilapidated workshop and the erection of a dwellinghouse and a small detached annex (for use as a home office) plus new foul drainage treatment works with a soakaway. The indicative footprint of the house is approximately 72m2. The existing private access will be extended into the site and a turning area and parking for two cars provided. The application is made in principle and therefore does not include any detailed design for the house or annex. Settlement and Spatial Strategy The site is located within the village of Tighnabruaich which, along with neighbouring Kames, is identified as a Key Rural Settlement Area in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 2024 (LDP2) wherein the provisions of Policy 01 serve to give encouragement in principle for up to and including small scale housing development on appropriate sites. Policy 01 states that proposals within settlements will be acceptable if they are compatible with the surrounding uses including but not exclusively, providing access, service areas, infrastructure for existing, proposed or potential future development and are of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which they are proposed. NPF4 Policy 9 (a) supports development on brownfield sites and the site in this case is brownfield and redevelopment in principle is supported by this part of the policy. Part (c) relating to contaminated land is examined below and, if permission was to
Page 11
Classification: OFFICIAL have been approved, a condition would have been attached requiring an appropriate assessment to be prepared and, if necessary, suitable remediation measures to be agreed and implemented. The proposal is supported in principle because it is a small-scale residential infill development within a settlement but there is an issue with the access which means it is contrary to the Settlement Strategy as indicated above – LDP2 Policy 01 and, in turn, NPF4 Policy 9. Housing Policy NPF4 Policy 16 and LDP2 Policy 66 operate a general presumption in favour of housing development provided that the location and scale accords with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 01 unless there is an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact. NPF4 Policy 16 supports development for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP where the proposal is consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods (Policy 15) and must meet one of the criteria under Part (iii). It is considered that the proposal meets the third point which gives support for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary. It is also close to the facilities and amenities of the village so meets Policy 15. However, the policies all state that the proposal must accord with all other relevant policies. In this case, it is not considered that the site has capacity to accommodate a dwellinghouse without resulting in a materially detrimental impact upon road safety. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal is not consistent with LDP2 Policies 01 and 66 given the significant access issues, which are examined in detail later in this report. Design and layout NPF4 Policy 14 and LDP2 Policies 05, 08, 09 and 10 serve to ensure that new development, by reason of density and layout, effectively integrate with the urban setting and they resist developments with poor quality or inappropriate layouts or densities including over-development. In addition, LDP2 Policy 71 relates to Local Landscape Areas (LLAs) and it seeks to resist development where its scale, location or design would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. The application includes an indicative layout and it is considered that a dwellinghouse with a modest footprint would not represent an overdevelopment of the site and would have a ‘neutral’ effect thereby preserving the character and appearance of the LLA within which the site is located. As the current application seeks to establish the principle of a dwellinghouse, no specific design has been submitted for assessment by the Planning Authority. If permission was to have been granted, it would be at the ‘approval of matters specified in condition’ stage where the details of the proposed development would have been assessed in the context of the various criteria set out in the ‘place principle’ referred to in NPF4 Policy 14. Residential Amenity of Neighbours
Page 12
Classification: OFFICIAL There is concern from some of the contributors with regard to overlooking but this cannot be considered given there are no detailed designs. The indicative layout that is shown in the submitted plans identifies that there would be sufficient distance between the new house and neighbouring properties. If permission was to have been granted, it would have been at the ‘approval of matters specified in condition’ stage where issues such as overlooking of garden areas, window to window distances, etc. would have been considered in detail. Access and Parking NPF4 Policy 13 supports development that provide easy access by sustainable transport modes and also provide charging points for vehicles and cycles and safe, secure cycle parking. Argyll and Bute LDP2 Policy 35 (Design of New and Existing Public Roads and Private Access), Policy 37 (Development Utilising an Existing Private Access), Policy 39 (Construction Standards for Private Access) and Policy 40 (Vehicle Parking Provision) are all relevant in the assessment of the proposal. In addition, Policy 66 (e) states that new residential development must have “an appropriate standard of access to and parking for vehicles associated with the development is provided, it does not result in the loss of any existing parking spaces, and that traffic generated as a result of the development is capable of being accommodated within the capacity of the existing road network surrounding the development.” A material consideration is the Roads Development Technical Guidance. As explained above in the description of the proposed development, vehicular access to the site is obtained from the U035 Village Brae via a private road. Village Brae, whilst unclassified, is a publicly adopted road that presently serves 14 residential properties. The road is narrow and has a steep gradient at parts with no passing places. LDP2 Policy 35 states that “acceptance of development utilising new and existing public roads, private roads and private access regimes is subject to road safety and street design issues being addressed to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority and the Planning Authority.” The Council’s published Roads Development Technical Guidance does not specifically deal with situations such as the current application where there are issues with the capacity of the adopted road network to accommodate further development. However, the document does provide advice on those cases where a proposed development would be served by an existing private access and this is considered to be sufficiently analogous to the existing application for a similar approach to be considered. In such cases, the Technical Guidance advocates that each application should be considered on its own merits with the assessment principally being based on environment, local context and predicted access requirements (for example, deliveries and refuse collection). In the case of the current application, the Roads Department have carried out an assessment and their conclusion is that Village Brae does not have the capacity to accommodate any further development and that, due to geographical constraints, this public road cannot be improved. This is the basis of one of the reasons for refusal recommended by the Roads Department.
Page 13
Classification: OFFICIAL At the time of the officer site visit in June 2024, the easternmost boundary of the land on which the dwellinghouse is to be erected was enclosed with Heras fencing and it is this land over which vehicular access would be taken into the curtilage of the proposed property. Two signs were attached to the fencing with the wording ‘Do not enter – Caution Unsafe building’ and ‘No parking – Keep clear’. The site itself is considerably overgrown and, in addition to the dilapidated workshop, various items were being stored, including building materials, a bicycle and a boat. On the basis of the above observations, it is reasonable to conclude that no vehicles have been using the access into the site for a considerable period of time. As highlighted by the neighbours, there are constraints on the section of private road between the public road and the development site, which is approximately 22.5 metres in length. At present, this is a relatively narrow access that is in front of a terraced row of 8 houses known as Lorne Place. The properties do not have off-street parking and residents park their vehicles along the access thus causing a significant level of congestion. The parking of vehicles on this access would prevent the safe access and egress of cars in association with the occupation of the proposed dwellinghouse. Although it could be used as a means of addressing the issue referred to in the preceding paragraph, the displacement of the existing parking area in order to keep the access clear for vehicles associated with the occupation of the proposed dwellinghouse is likely to have an adverse effect on the usage of Village Brae on the basis that there would be the potential for cars to be parked in alternative locations that would compromise road safety. The applicant was approached regarding the access and provided a written response on 21st November 2024: - Prior to purchasing the site in 2000, the workshop was used as a commercial builder/joiners work business until 1996, and has been in continuous use by me since 2000. - The road to the site is typical of those in the town. There is adequate passing space for vehicles with a row of parked cars on the other side of the road. - The proposed development includes on-site parking, using a legal right of way by means of access into the development site. It would not cause the residents to need to park elsewhere. - The premise of this objection is the development will cause parking congestion, as noted this is not the case. The site has an established access point and parking provision, which under its current use could be legally operated commercially and which would arguably cause more disruption to the residents of Lorne Place. The proposal will rejuvenate the site, remove dilapidated buildings and build a small home with no increase to on street parking. In a more recent communication, the agent (e-mail dated 1st July 2025) has enquired if a condition restricting the number of cars at the proposed dwellinghouse to one would be a mechanism that could be used to manage traffic. The above points have been taken into account but they are not considered to be of sufficient strength to overcome the significant adverse effects on road safety and the local road network that are identified in this report.
Page 14
Classification: OFFICIAL In this evidential context, given that the Council’s Roads Department has advised that the existing public road does not have the capacity for the development of any additional dwellinghouse without essential improvement works being carried out but that, due to geographical constraints, such improvement works would be unachievable, the proposal fails to comply with LDP2 Policies 35 and 37 and with criterion (e) of LDP2 Policy 66 in respect of matters of road safety. In terms of parking and turning provision within the site, LDP2 Policy 40 specifies that a dwellinghouse with 2-3 bedrooms should include two in-curtilage parking spaces whilst three spaces are stipulated in association with a 4 or more bedroom unit. The current proposal indicates the erection of a three-bedroomed dwellinghouse and a detached annexe (which is to be used as a home office) and two parking spaces would require being included within the curtilage of this type of property. This provision is met in the indicative site layout that has been submitted with the application. In terms of the vehicle charging points referred to in LDP2 Policy 34, the applicant has confirmed that dedicated cable ducting could be installed to support the provision of a charging point. The proposal, therefore, complies with LDP2 Policies 34 and 40. Servicing and Infrastructure NPF4 Policy 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. NPF4 Policy 22(c) supports proposed developments if they can be connected to the public water mains. The above NPF4 Policies are underpinned in LDP2 Policy 60 (Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems). Scottish Water has confirmed that there is currently sufficient capacity in the public water supply and public sewerage system to accommodate the proposal. However, it is proposed that the dwellinghouse would be served by a private foul drainage system and a private water supply. Policy 60 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 states that if a connection to the public sewer connection is not feasible, then the applicant must demonstrate this either for technical or economic reasons. The applicant submitted a document from Building Cost Consultants (a RICS Quantity Surveyor) that contained comparative costings for the two drainage options – connection to the mains sewer or treatment on the site and discharge to the adjacent watercourse. The submitted information indicates that connection to the public system would be more expensive than providing private arrangements, with the final figure being dependent on the cost of obtaining a wayleave. The applicant also confirmed it was a similar issue with the private water supply. Based on this information, it is considered that there is sufficient justification for an exception to be made in this case and, if permission was to have been granted, further details could have been secured via conditions. In addition, NPF4 Policy 12(c) expects that developments (including residential proposals) should incorporate measures to allow the appropriate segregation and storage of waste together with convenient access for the collection of waste. The
Page 15
Classification: OFFICIAL NPF4 Policy is underpinned in LDP2 Policy 63 (Waste Related Development and Waste Management). It is considered that the application has sufficient land to provide storage bins and, if permission was to have been granted, further details could have been secured via a condition. Flood and Water Management NPF4 Policy 22(c) supports proposed developments that would not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk; that would manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems; and that would minimise the area of impermeable surface. The above NPF4 Policy is underpinned in LDP2 Policy 55 (Flooding) and Policy 61 (Sustainable Drainage Systems). The site is not within a flood risk zone. The applicant does not include any details of the surface water drainage but there is sufficient land and a nearby burn to discharge into so it is likely to be achievable to provide a suitable system. If permission was to have been granted, further details could have been secured via a condition and, therefore, the proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant Policies. Contaminated Land NPF4 Policy 9 (c) states that where land is known or suspected to be unstable or contaminated, development proposals will demonstrate that the land is, or can be made safe and suitable for the proposed new use. Policy 82 of LDP2 also states the requirement for the applicant to undertake a contaminated land assessment and implement suitable remediation measures before the commencement of any new use. The applicant completed the contaminated land questionnaire and stated that some dumping had occurred on the land, including garden waste, grass cuttings and discarded household items. This was removed when the applicant arranged for the site to be fenced to stop this issue. The contaminated land officer has commented that there is still potential for contaminants to be present so, if permission was to have been granted, appropriate further assessment could have been secured via a condition Conclusion Notwithstanding that the application proposal is acceptable in principle and also in respect of siting and design, noise and impacts on neighbouring properties, biodiversity and infrastructure and services including waste, it fails to provide a safe means of vehicular access into the development site and would result in the loss of existing on-street parking. As such, Planning Permission in Principle should be refused for the proposal. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted:
Page 16
Classification: OFFICIAL 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: Kirsty Sweeney Date: Reviewing Officer: Date: Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 17
Classification: OFFICIAL REASON FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/00271/PPP 1. The existing public road U035 (Village Brae) in this part of Tighnabruaich currently serves 14 properties and is a single track road measuring less than 5.5 metres in width that has a lack of passing places. On the basis of these limitations, it is considered that the road in its current form does not have the capacity to accommodate the increase in vehicular movements associated with the development of an additional dwellinghouse. Due to the inherent geographical constraints associated with the road, the implementation of commensurate improvements such as increases in width and the provision of additional passing places is unachievable. In addition, the private access that connects the application site and the public road has a width of less than 5.5 metres and provides on-street parking for 8 properties. The parking of vehicles on this access would prevent the safe access and egress of cars in association with the occupation of the proposed dwellinghouse. Although it could be used as a means of addressing the issue referred to in the preceding paragraph, the displacement of the existing parking area in order to keep the access clear for vehicles associated with the occupation of the proposed dwellinghouse is likely to have an adverse effect on the usage of Village Brae on the basis that there would be the potential for cars to be parked in alternative locations that would compromise road safety. Having regard to all of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policy 9 of National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 01, 35, 37 and 66(e) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2.
Page 18
Classification: OFFICIAL List of Plans and Documents relevant to the refusal Title Drawing No. Version/Issue Date Filed Location and Site Plan PL-001 A 19/08/2024
Page 19
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 24/00271/PPP (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. The extent of the red line delineating the boundary of the application site was reduced in order to correspond with the land ownership of the applicant. ☒Yes ☐No (B) The reason why planning permission has been refused: The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy 9 of National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 01, 35, 37 and 66(e) 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 Principle in this instance as a departure to the Development Plan having regard to s25 of the Act.
Page 20
197826 197876 197926 197968672876 672926 672976 673018 A8003 Crarae Oakburn Hotel Helenslea Lorne Place Appin Cottages 197826 197876 197926 197968672876 672926 672976 673018 A8003 Crarae Oakburn Hotel Helenslea Lorne Place Appin Cottages Parking and turning for 2no. vehicles. Surface water and treated foul to soakaway, discharging to adjacent burn to engineer's design. Domestic foul treatment works with sampling chamber, discharging to soakaway to engineer's design. Footprint of proposed dwelling. Existing access to site. Existing vegetation cut pack as required. Annex adjecent to house Existing dilapidated workshop building to be demolished SCALE (@ A1) TITLE PROJECT NUMBER CLIENT PROJECT DRAWING NUMBER REV DRAWN BY DATE ISSUE STATUS Do not scale from this drawing. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architecture, civil / structural and service engineers drawings and specifications. All dimensions are shown in metric. This drawings remains the copyright of. TECHNIQUE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN LTD. Technique Architecture & Design +44(0)141-266-0265 info@techniquestudio.com www.techniquestudio.com As indicated A 04/03/2024 Location and Site Plans 160 Land adjecent to Helenslea, Tighnabruaich M. Brunjes PL-001 JR PLANNING Rev Description Date - First Issue 16/01/24 A Red Line Boundary Amended 04/03/2024 1 : 500 Proposed Site Plan3 1 : 500 Existing Site Plan2 1 : 2500 Location Plan1 50m 250m 50m10m 50m10m Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 24/00271/PPP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 28 July 2025