Agenda reports pack
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
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 1 December 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2025 at 2:30 PM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: LAND WEST OF HELENSLEA, TIGHNABRUAICH (REF: 25.0009/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 54) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 55 - 94) (c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 95 - 100) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Graham Hardie Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Page 1 of 4 Central Validation Team at Argyll and Bute Council 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD Tel: 01546 605518 Email: planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100725439-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Mr Mark Brunjes Clouston Street 72 07813188762 G208QY Scotland Glasgow brunjes.mark@gmail.com Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Page 2 of 4 Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. HELENSLEA I am seeking a review of refusal of the application dated 13th February 2024 for Planning Permission in Principle REFERENCE NUMBER: 24/00271/PPP in respect of the following development: Demolition of existing workshop, erection of dwelling house and associated drainage arrangements at Land West Of Helenslea Tighnabruaich, Argyll And Bute Argyll and Bute Council TIGHNABRUAICH PA21 2DS 672954 197915 Page 4
Page 5
Page 3 of 4 What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * The statement setting all matters to be taken into account in determining the review are contained in a separate document in the 'Supporting Documents' section and attachments. The supporting statement, documents, reports, materials and evidence I wish to submit with my notice of review are in the 'Supporting Documents' section and attachments. 24/00271/PPP 28/07/2025 13/02/2024 Page 5
Page 6
Page 4 of 4 Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Mark Brunjes Declaration Date: 26/10/2025 Payment Details Online payment: ZZPL00002535 Payment date: 26/10/2025 21:19:00 Created: 26/10/2025 21:19 Page 6
Page 7
STATEMENT OF APPEAL 26.10.2025 APPEAL TO THE LOCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPAL FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WORKSHOP, AND ERECTION OF DWELLING HOUSE AT LAND WEST OF HELENSLEA, TIGHNABRUAICH PA21 2DS APPLICATION NUMBER 24/00271/PPP 01 BACKGROUND The proposed development was Planning Permission in Principal for the change of use of vacant land and building to form a single dwelling house. The building erected in 1918 and land were used for around 80 years to operate a commercial Building and Joinery business by three generations of the McKellar family who originally built and lived in Helenslea since1896. Following demolition of the existing workshop building, the proposal was to build a single dwelling house on the vacant land. Designed by Technique Architecture who were responsible for ‘The Den’ Tighnabruaich. The Den was featured in Channel 4’s Grand Designs programme and nominated in the 2021 Scottish Design Awards. The sensitive eco-friendly design intended to use locally sourced larch timber cladding and black corrugated roof intended to have an agricultural look and and be a natural fit into the woodland setting. On 12 February 2024 an application for Planning in Principal for change of use were lodged for change of use for demolition of existing building and erection of single dwelling. The application made by Technique Architecture and included a 29 page report with existing photographs, design proposals, plans and 3D images. It took the planning officer 16 months to determine the application, despite all the numerous information requests being answered promptly. It is also noted that the roads department objections were not received until December 2024, 8 months after the application was validated. On 28 July 2025, the application was refused! 02 DETERMINATION PROCESS In determining an application the local authority are required to produce a Report Of Handling(ROH) which essentially explains the methodology and thinking behind the decision and should relate such decision to the relevant policies/guidance. In refusing the application the Decision Notice cites the following reasons: Reason 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. Page 7
Page 8
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. Response I have listed below some important points and observations which provide useful context, in response to the points raised by the roads department. 1) There are only three buildings served by the unadopted road. Helenslea (Private off road parking), The Cuillins and Lorne Place (7 flats). My understanding is that only one flat in Lorne Place and The Cuillins are permanent residents, and the rest are holiday properties. 2) The unadopted road continues into the proposed site and still remains although currently the grass has grown on top of it. See attached title 1898 title plan. 3) 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 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. 4) Since I bought Helenslea in 2000, I own the land on which the workshop sits. This land and access road has been regular use by me since then, as the workshop is used for storage and as a workshop, and I store my yacht and trailer on the land. 5) I withdrew a previous Planning application in 2009 as there was some dispute over access and the use of the road and ground in the lands adjacent to Helenslea.The plot of land Title ARG 18046 was bought by me in 2011. The land incudes includes the unadopted road on the ground in the lands adjacent to Helenslea. 6) Title ARG 18046 also clearly demonstrates through title that I have a servitude right of pedestrian and vehicular access over the roadway tinted brown on the title plan. You can also see the continuation of the unadopted road into my land, tinted red.. Page 8
Page 9
Roads Department objections – Received December 2024 Reason The upper section of the adopted U035 Village Brae is a single-track road measuring less than 5.5 metres in width, 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 intensification of 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 meters. 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 to the proposed development site.” Response The 14 properties referred to are served by the adopted road U035. There are only three buildings served by the unadopted road which are: Helenslea (Private off-road parking), The Cuillins and Lorne Place (7 flats). Only one flat in Lorne Place and The Cuillins are permanent residents, and the rest are holiday flats. The history of this site, it’s use and legal rights of vehicular access do not appear to have been taken into consideration, and it’s important to note that the established use and access over the unadopted road onto the site has existed for over 100 years. I am not sure if the roads department visited the site during the period of determination? The first issue raised is that the upper section of the adopted U035 Village Brae is a single-track road lacking passing places and it does not present an opportunity for improvement to support an intensification of usage. The first point I would make is regarding the assumption of an intensification of usage. 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. The second issue raised is regarding the private unadopted road between the ‘U035 Village Brae’ and the development site. It is noted that this road is used for parking and access to 8 properties, this is also highly seasonal as 6 of the properties are holiday accommodation I have a vehicular and pedestrian legal right of way to access the development site which is clearly described in Title ARG 18046 and marked up on the title plans. The use by the neighbouring properties for parking has been with my consent and is not a legal right. I wrote individually before the application and confirmed that I was happy for them to continue to park alongside Lorne Place.I am of the view both on street parking and use of the site for a house can operated successfully simultaneously, as the image attached shows in a road with of 5.5meters it is possible for two cars to pass on this road. However, if this is an impediment to the applicant gaining consent for the site it would be possible to redact the informal agreement and not agree to parking on the road. However, this is likely to exacerbate congestion in the area. 03 SUMMARY Page 9
Page 10
In February 2024 the application was lodged to demolish the existing building and erect a single dwelling. 16 Months after the application was refused, principally on the objection from the roads department. Councillor Gordon Blair was approached during the application and made the suggestion that parking on the development site could be conditioned to allow one or two vehicles. I would be more than happy to accept such a condition. I would be happy to meet with representatives from Planning and The Roads Department on site, which I believe would help reach a pragmatic solution and outcome. The reasons cited in the refusal cannot be justified or explained and are indeed lacking in any defensible or substantive comment. It does nothing to dispel the feeling that the proposal was not fully assessed or understood and the historic use of the site, and the legal rights of access have been completely overlooked and not considered in the decision making. In short the decision to refuse this application was based on a series of untruths and unsupported opinions, which has produced a Decision Notice which is unsafe and flawed. While opinions may carry some persuasion, facts carry authority, and the facts clearly establish that the application was competent, contained all the relevant material and should have been capable of being determined within the statutory period and approved. That it was not and on such a questionable basis is a cause for concern. In the circumstance I would ask that the original decision be rescinded and the application approved. Page 10
Page 11
Page 11
Page 12
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 13
Page 13
Page 14
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 15
06/05/2024, 13:19 ScotLIS - Title Information - ARG18046 1 of 6 Title Information: ARG18046 Search summary Date/Time of search 06-05-2024 12:19:44 Transaction number SCO-18032141 User reference 374563 Page 15
Page 16
06/05/2024, 13:19 ScotLIS - Title Information - ARG18046 2 of 6 Section A Property Date of first registration 19-04-2011 Date title sheet updated to 19-04-2011 Hectarage Code 0 Interest PROPRIETOR Map Reference NR9772 Title Number ARG18046 Cadastral Unit ARG18046 Sasine Search 661 Property address LORNE PLACE, TIGHNABRUAICH Description Subjects lying on the west and south west of LORNE PLACE, TIGHNABRUAICH edged red on the Title Plan. Together with the servitude set out in Part 1 of the Schedule to the Disposition in Entry 1 of the Burdens Section. Notes 1. The boundary between the points lettered A - B in blue on the Title Plan is the River Allt Tighnabruaich. Indemnity is excluded in terms of Section 12(2) of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 in respect of any loss arising as a result of the said boundary being declared or found to follow a different line from that shown on the Title Plan at any time. This is a Copy which reflects the position at the date the Title Sheet was last updated. © Crown copyright 2024 ARG18046 Page 16
Page 17
06/05/2024, 13:19 ScotLIS - Title Information - ARG18046 3 of 6 Section B Proprietorship MARK STEPHEN BRUNJES 22 Athole Gardens, Glasgow, G12 9BB. Entry number 1 Date of registration 19-04-2011 Date of Entry 08-04-2011 Consideration £8000 Notes 1. There are in respect of the subjects in this Title no subsisting occupancy rights, in terms of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, of spouses of persons who were formerly entitled to the said subjects. 2. There are in respect of the subjects in this Title no subsisting occupancy rights, in terms of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, of partners of persons who were formerly entitled to the said subjects. This is a Copy which reflects the position at the date the Title Sheet was last updated. © Crown copyright 2024 ARG18046 Page 17
Page 18
06/05/2024, 13:19 ScotLIS - Title Information - ARG18046 4 of 6 Section C Securities There are no entries. This is a Copy which reflects the position at the date the Title Sheet was last updated. © Crown copyright 2024 ARG18046 Page 18
Page 19
06/05/2024, 13:19 ScotLIS - Title Information - ARG18046 5 of 6 Section D Burdens Number of Burdens: 2 Burden 1 Disposition by Executors-Nominate of May Hamilton Gorrie to Mark Stephen Brunjes and his executors and assignees, registered 19 Apr. 2011, of are of ground lying to the West and South-West of Lorne Place, Tighnabruaich being the subjects in this Title (hereinafter referred to as "the Conveyed Property"), contains the following servitude and real burdens: SCHEDULE PART 1 INTERPRETATION In this Schedule; "Burdened Property" means that area of roadway tinted brown on the Title Plan part and portion of the subjects described in Disposition to May Hamilton Gorrie, recorded G.R.S. (Argyll) 6 Sept. 1971. PART 2 SERVITUDE AFFECTING THE BURDENED PROPERTY The following servitude is imposed on the Burdened Property in favour of the Conveyed Property; A servitude right of pedestrian and vehicular access over the roadway tinted brown on the Title Plan. PART 3 REAL BURDEN AFFECTING THE CONVEYED PROPERTY The following real burden is imposed on the Conveyed Property in favour of the Burdened Property; The owner of the Conveyed Property shall be liable to pay a share of the cost of the maintenance and repair of the said roadway tinted brown on the said Plan with the other parties having a right to use the same according to user. PART 4 ARG18046 Page 19
Page 20
06/05/2024, 13:19 ScotLIS - Title Information - ARG18046 6 of 6 NO APPLICATIONS TO THE LANDS TRIBUNAL No Application may be made to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland under Section 90(1)(a)(i) of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 in respect of the servitude set out in Part 2 of the Schedule and the real burden set out in Part 3 of the Schedule for a period of 5 years after the registration of this Disposition in the Land Register of Scotland. Burden 2 Explanatory Note: The descriptions of the burdened and benefited properties in any deed registered in terms of sections 4 and 75 of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 in this Title Sheet are correct as at the stated date of registration of such deed. This is a Copy which reflects the position at the date the Title Sheet was last updated. © Crown copyright 2024 Page 20
Page 21
LAND REGISTER OF SCOTLAND Officer’s ID / Date N ORDNANCE SURVEY NATIONAL GRID REFERENCE Survey Scale C ARG18046 140m 1/2500 NR9772 NR9773 NR9873 NR97SE 3405 TITLE NUMBER 9/12/2011 Page 21
Page 22
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 23
Page 23
Page 24
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 25
Page 25
Page 26
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 27
Page 27
Page 28
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 29
Page 29
Page 30
Page 30
Page 31
Page 31
Page 32
Page 32
Page 33
Page 33
Page 34
Page 34
Page 35
Page 35
Page 36
Page 36
Page 37
Page 37
Page 38
Page 38
Page 39
Page 39
Page 40
Page 40
Page 41
Page 41
Page 42
Page 42
Page 43
Page 43
Page 44
Page 44
Page 45
Page 45
Page 46
Page 46
Page 47
Page 47
Page 48
Page 48
Page 49
Page 49
Page 50
Page 50
Page 51
Page 51
Page 52
Page 52
Page 53
Page 53
Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
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 55 Agenda Item 3b
Page 56
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 56
Page 57
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 57
Page 58
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 58
Page 59
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 59
Page 60
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 60
Page 61
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 61
Page 62
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 62
Page 63
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 63
Page 64
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 64
Page 65
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 65
Page 66
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 66
Page 67
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 67
Page 68
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 68
Page 69
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 69
Page 70
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 70
Page 71
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 71
Page 72
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 72
Page 73
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 73
Page 74
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 Page 74
Page 75
Page 75
Page 76
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
!
"#$Page 81
No embedded text on this page.
Page 82
Page 83
%
Page 84
& '( ###
Page 85
) *+ ,$
Page 86
+$- .%/
Page 87
01/-
2%3$$
4566 7 2 8
69:;<=>
?@A<BC
D?@A<BCE9:@<=F@BG=HI<EGJEK
L
M<
NOPQRPQOQS
NQTUV
W9
. :@B<JX<YZB:<[[
D:@B<JX<YZB:<[[F@BG=HI<EGJEK
N
@@:\A<C
]^N
_`a
QUOOQVNWWW
b<AXXC
c
<dX[XCG
YB[\Z>
<B<:XC
c
eY<XCG\[<
@Ce
@[[:X@<eEe:df
ghijjklminopq
rsstgtuv
wxyzz{|{}y~{€
‚ƒƒ„w„…†
‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŒŽ
‰‘Œ’
“‹Š
‰
”••
‰
‰‘–
—Š‹
”Œ•
”˜—Š
™‹
‘Œ‘‰‘”š
‹Š–›Œ–Š
‘Œ
œœž
Ÿ”‰‰” Š•¡¢
£Š’”‹•–Ž
¤¥¦§¨©ª
«¬
®¯§°
¤±²³´µ
«¶³´·¸
³ª¹º¨©ª¦§ª»¥¯
´§¥¯»±
µ¼¼º¬§¨
½
¤©¾¥¯
¿§¹§¯©À¦§ª»
¥ªÁ
³¬©ª©¦º¬
¨©¾»±
¨Ã°¯¯
¥ªÁ
Ä®»§
¤©®ª¬º¯
ȁ
ÆÇÈÉÊ
ËÆÌÍÈÉ
§Å
ÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÕÐÎÏÖ×ÑØÙÏÒÚØ××ÛÜÖÝÑÕÚÓÞÕÖß
Page 77Page 88
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghàidheal agus Bhòid Memo Development and Infrastructure Services Acting Executive Director: Kirsty Flannigan 91 Alexandra Parade, DUNOON PA23 8AJ Development and Economic Growth Date: 25th March 2024 To: Planning Services Milton House, Dunoon Your Ref: 24/00271/PPP From: Cameron Mc Auley Alexandra Parade, Dunoon Extension: 8536 Reference Number: 24/00271/PPP Proposal: Demolition of existing workshop, erection of dwellinghouse and associated drainage arrangements Location: Land West Of Helenslea Tighnabruaich Argyll And Bute DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: - as above COMMENT: - I refer to the above application for planning permission. Having considered the proposal I would now make the following comments. It is understood that the proposal is to connect to public water and private sewage. I would offer no objections to the granting of planning subject to the following conditions and notes to applicant being attached to any consent: Condition 1: Food and Health No comments Condition 2: Air Quality No Comments Condition 3: Amenity - Lighting All external lighting on the application site should comply with the Scottish Government Guidance Note “Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Lighting Energy Consumption”. Reason: To protect the amenity of the immediate area, the creation of nuisance due to light pollution and to support the reduction of energy consumption. Condition 4: Amenity – Demolition and Construction Phase Identification and assessment of all potential sources of nuisance at the demolition and construction phase, including noise/ vibration, dust, surface runoff and any temporary lighting provided, which may cause disturbance Page 78
Page 89
Classification: OFFICIAL to nearby residents during the demolition and 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 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. A copy of this assessment should be submitted to the planning authority for review. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. Condition 5: Condition 2: Amenity – Noise During Demolition and 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 operation on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. Condition 6: Micro-renewable Energy The applicant should submit to the planning authority details of any micro-renewable equipment proposals inclusive of their location, size, operating noise output and an assessment of the impact on local residential housing for assessment. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. Condition 7: Waste Receptacles The applicant shall submit to the Planning Authority a detailed specification of the containers to be used to store waste materials and recyclable materials produced on the premises as well as specific details of the areas where such containers are to be located. The use of the development shall not commence until the above details are approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the equipment and any structural changes are in place. Reason: To protect the amenity of the immediate area, prevent the creation of nuisance due to odours, insects, rodents or birds. Notes It is strongly recommended that the undernoted Advisory Notes be placed on any consent the Council may grant: i. 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. ii. The applicant should be fully aware of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) and it's implications on client duties etc. Page 79
Page 90
Classification: OFFICIAL iii. 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 intended to reduce nuisance to, and intimidation of, persons living, working and visiting the development. iv. Management of Asbestos: Prior to starting work on site the applicant must ensure that appropriate steps have been taken to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, namely the duty to check if asbestos is present in any of the existing buildings proposed to be demolished or disturbed in anyway and to remove before commencing work. v. On site sewage treatment: It is the intention of the applicant to effect a drainage system at the proposed development by means of connection to a new septic tank with discharge to a watercourse. 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. Discharge of effluent from the septic tank into “controlled waters” (all inland watercourses, coastal and ground waters) will require a discharge consent to be put in place by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). If this agency is satisfied with the proposed provision for drainage I can offer no objection to this arrangement. CAMERON MC AULEY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH Page 80
Page 91
Classification: OFFICIAL With reference to: LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFERENCE: 25/0009/LRB PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE: 24/00271/PPP LAND WEST OF HELENSLEA, TIGHNABRUAICH, ARGYLL Dear Sirs, Please note, that our previous objections to this development still stand in their entirety. The road at Lorne Place and The Village Brae is an extremely narrow single track road and is, at times, extremely congested and parking at Lorne Place, The Cullins and Helenslea, is extremely limited. In addition, the Village Brae-Lorne Place junction, is used as a turning point by postal and delivery vehicles, on a daily basis. In the summer months, many tourists make the mistake of thinking that Village Brae is a proper carriageway, as it is wider at the bottom, only to discover that it dwindles to a single carriageway and they have to turn at Lorne Place in order to get back to the Main Street. On the grounds of public and road safety, as well as, residents’ amenity, it is therefore essential that no further development is allowed in this area. As well as the permanent residents at Village Brae, Lorne Place and the Cullins, the flats at Lorne place which are holiday homes, are regularly and highly used, all year round. It should also be noted that when any of the flats which are used as holiday homes come up for sale, since the event of double council tax and second home tax and in line with council policies, it is highly likely that these properties will be purchased as main residences in the future, creating further congestion at Lorne Place. It is, therefore, essential that no further development be allowed in this vicinity. Helenslea, itself, is up for sale at present, which, when occupied as a permanent residence, will also further add to the road congestion at Village Brae and Lorne Place. It should also be noted that a planning application at the garage at the bottom of Village Brae was also previously refused, on the grounds of road safety and that the current applicant was also one of the objectors to that planning application, on the grounds of road safety at Village Brae. The majority of the residents at Lorne Place and the Cullins are elderly with health conditions and disabilities and require ease of vehicular access to their properties. The proposed development would considerably compromise access and amenity for those residents. Page 81
Page 92
Classification: OFFICIAL In view of all previous public objections lodged and the previous planning refusal for this development, we strongly request that this review and planning proposal be refused. NB: This planning application was refused for very good reasons. We strongly object to Mr Brunjes assertion that the decision to refuse the planning application was based on unfounded opinion and untruths this is malicious and totally incorrect. Rather Mr Brunjes completely misses the point for the planning refusal in his submission. Village Brae serves 14 properties at present of which the associated road at Lorne Place serves 9 properties. As stated above the overall traffic congestion at Village Brae and Lorne Place would make any additional development unsafe for road users and pedestrians as well as having a considerable negative effect on the amenity of the residents of Village Brae, Lorne Place and the Cullins. We dispute the statement made by Mr Brunjes that he has made regular use of the road at Lorne Place. We also dispute the timeframes as to when the old workshop was used as a commercial building. The family and one of the residents at Lorne place has owned the property for in excess of 65 years and can attest that the workshop fell into disuse many years before Mr Brunjes states. We have owned our flat for 37 years during which time the said workshop has not been in use. The workshop is falling down and has been in that condition for many years. It should also be noted that vehicle traffic on Village Brae has increased very considerably over the last 50 years and todays vehicular usage makes any further development totally unsafe. Mr Brunjes statement, regarding him having the right to allow or disallow parking on the road at the front of Lorne Place is factious and has no foundation whatsoever in Scottish Law. Rather the residents at Lorne Place and the Cullins have a historic established right of usage and access over said road which has been established for 130 years. Yours Sincerely, Colin Wood Flat 2 Lorne Place Tighnabruaich 28.10.2025 Page 82
Page 93
Classification: OFFICIAL Dear Sirs, Further to our previous submission, we omitted to mention that our children and grandchildren aged 2, 4, 6 and 8 years, use our flat periodically. The amenity of the flat is challenged at present, due to the limited parking and road situation and if this development is allowed to go ahead, that amenity will be further eroded and the childrens’ safety compromised. As highlighted previously, the road situation and parking at Village Brae- Lorne Place is very precarious as it is, and it is difficult enough to get the children in and out safely, as it is. Any further development at this site would make this much worse and would pose a considerable additional danger to the children, as well as, the other residents, road users and the public. Yours Sincerely, Colin Wood Flat 2 Lorne Place Tighnabruaich 28.10.2025 Page 83
Page 94
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 95
Page 85
Page 96
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 97
Page 87
Page 98
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 99
Page 89
Page 100
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 101
Page 91
Page 102
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 103
Page 93
Page 104
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 105
Classification: OFFICIAL Dear Sirs, My general comment is that many of the main points contained in my statement have been largely overlooked? My specific comments on the individual representations received are as follows: Planning I strongly disagree that the proposal would result in an intensification of use. Although the commercial use of the land and buildings had cease when I bought the land and property in 2000, I have continues to use since 2000. I have aceed the land to use the building as a workshop and for storage Images attached). The land has also been used to store my yacht ‘Papajay’ which was stored on a trailer during winter months (image attached with Lorne Place in the background). I have also built a number of temporary structures which were enjoyed by me children when growing up. Title ARG 18046 also clearly demonstrates through title that I have a servitude right of pedestrian and vehicular access over the roadway tinted brown on the title plan. You can also see the continuation of the unadopted road into my land, tinted red.. Summary I have the sole legal right of vehicular and pedestrian access over the unadopted road which I have used since 2000, and will continue to use to deliver and uplift materials and goods to and from the building and land. The single vehicular access I CURRNETLY ENJOY will continue, and it was my intention to build a small single dwelling for my own use, As previously stated I am happy to condition any planning approval to limit access and parking to one vehicle which will add NO ADDITIONAL VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE LAND and NO INTENSIFICATION OF USE Roads Department My comments to planning apply also to the roads department. I have already previously written to the owners to confirm that I was happy for them to continue to park outside Lorne Place, and the road is of sufficient with to all me vehicular access as I currently enjoy. A planning condition allowing only one vehicleto park on the land would mean there is no change to the current arrangement and NO INTENSIFICATION OF USE. The comments that access and parking will be impacted by my proposal are flawed and unsafe. Page 95 Agenda Item 3c
Page 106
Classification: OFFICIAL EHO No comment I would be grateful if you would pass my comments to the committee, and as stated before I am happy to have a meeting on site with all interested parties if required. I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this email. Regards Mark Brunjes 26 November 2025 Page 96
Page 107
Page 97
Page 108
Page 98
Page 109
Page 99
Page 110
Page 100