Consider Notice of Review Request: Land South East of Elderslie, Oban, Argyll, Pa34 4Sb (Ref: 25/0008/Lrb)
Argyll and Bute Council · 8 September 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 8 September 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Classification: OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 25/0008/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR RENEWAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPAL REFERENCE 19/02562/PPP (APPROVED AT APPEAL) (SITE FOR THE ERECTION OF 2 DWELLINGHOUSES) – PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE 24/01069/PPP LAND SOUTH EAST OF ELDERSLIE OBAN ARGYLL AND BUTE
Page 2
Classification: OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF CASE The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr Graham MacEachen (“the appellant”). Planning permission 24/01069/PPP for the Renewal of planning permission in principal reference 19/02562/PPP (approved at appeal) (Site for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses) at Land South East Of Elderslie Oban Argyll And Bute (“the appeal site”) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on the 29th April 2025. This decision is the subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site the subject of this Review is on the periphery of Oban town centre comprising a gently sloping area of ground situated adjacent to a private access track which spurs from the A816 public road. To the north is the long established bed and breakfast establishment of Elderslie with Soroba House Hotel, a Category C Listed Building, and the Soroba House Mews development to the east but at a much higher level than the application site. SEPA advise that whilst the site is not shown to be at risk of flooding based on the SEPA Future Flood Maps, a small unnamed watercourse (with a catchment of less than 3km2) is located at the east perimeter of the proposed development. SEPA advise that whilst the Flood Maps don’t cover small watercourses, they advise that they can still cause serious flooding. SEPA further advise that there are small culverts situated approximately 8m upstream of the site on the access track to the south and downstream of the site adjacent to Elderslie Guest House. The path of the watercourse runs through a wooded area which could cause a blockage to the culvert structures. If the upstream culvert was to become blocked, it may result in an overland flow path which could inundate the site, similarly blockage of the downstream culvert could cause water to back up and inundate the site and other local receptors. SEPA advise that they would expect a site-specific assessment to consider a range of blockage scenarios to investigate these potential flooding mechanisms. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard is to be had to the development plan, and all other material planning considerations and the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is the test for this application.
Page 3
Classification: OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF CASE Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issues in relation to the case are as follows: • Whether sufficient evidence has been submitted to fully understand and address flood risk associated with the site and surrounding area to the satisfaction of SEPA. • If not, whether the proposal would conflict with the provisions NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55 which adopt a precautionary approach regarding the calculated probability of flooding as a best estimate, and therefore, in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, it would lead to a greater risk of flooding than currently exists for future occupants of the proposed development, and for others in the area. Specifically, whether the applicant has failed to provide topographic ground level information and culvert details to allow further consideration of these matters as required by SEPA. • Given that SEPA, a statutory consultee on flooding, has objected, and the applicant has not provided any substantive evidence in response to demonstrate that the development will not be subject to flood risk nor exacerbate flood risk elsewhere, then the development can only be considered to conflict with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55 as they relate to flood risk. The Report of Handing (Appendix A) sets out the Council’s full assessment of the application in terms of these key determining issues. Officers ultimately had no choice but to refuse planning permission due to the robustly maintained objection by SEPA. Members are respectfully reminded that SEPA are a statutory consultee of national significance and their advice cannot be set aside by the Local Planning Authority. Any recommendation contrary to the advice of SEPA must be notified to Scottish Ministers. REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING In accordance with the national legislative framework, Members cannot determine to grant this Review ‘in house’. Should they be minded to do so, the matter must first be referred to Ministers. Whilst it is open to Members to request the submission by the Applicant of the additional site information required by SEPA, Members are reminded that officers have already spent considerable time and effort trying to secure this information on behalf of SEPA. Should Members be more successful in this regard, they are respectfully reminded that any additional information received will need to be the subject of further consultation with SEPA. Notwithstanding the above, it is not considered that any additional information is required in light of the appellant’s submission. The issues raised were assessed in the Report of Handling which is contained in Appendix A. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. Given the above and that the proposal has no complex or challenging issues, and has not been the subject of any significant public representation, it is not considered that a Hearing is required. COMMENT ON APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION The Appellant has submitted a supporting statement which is highly critical of Officers. The following brief comments are made in relation to his submission:
Page 4
Classification: OFFICIAL • The Appellant appears to be suggesting that the decision to consult SEPA was a deliberate one made by the Case Officer and, further, that this decision was motivated by malicious intent. Comment Any such suggestion is robustly denied. The decision to consult SEPA in respect of the development the subject of this Review was made by the Council’s Validation Team and based solely upon the site constraints information available to them. This decision was made and actioned before the planning application had even been allocated to a Case Officer. The Appellant is aware of this. • The Appellant complains that the site survey information required by SEPA will incur substantial professional fees and with no certain outcome. He states that, “Applicants should not be put in the position of having to spend thousands of pounds on professional fees or reports only to satisfy the whim of planning officers”. Comment Whilst officers have every sympathy with the Appellant regarding the cost of such works, the requirement for this is categorically not the ‘whim of Planning Officers’. Site development can be a very expensive process and officers fully understand that. The Appellant’s ‘fight’ here is with SEPA and not with Officers. He is very well aware of this. Through an examination of the relevant case files, it is clear to me that the current situation is, on the contrary, largely of the Appellant’s own making. – He was granted planning permission in principle for the development of two dwellinghouses on the 5th August 2021 (Application reference 19/02562/PPP / DPEA reference PPA-130-2077). This permission was subject to several planning conditions, none of which have been progressed through a valid application (or applications) for the Approval of Matters Subject to (Planning) Conditions (AMSC). As a direct consequence of this inaction by the Appellant, the previous permission expired. Furthermore, in the interim period, a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPF4) has been introduced with a materially greater emphasis on flood risk. It is this change in National Planning Policy and an attendant change in the approach to flood risk by SEPA that has led directly to the current position. This could all have been avoided had the Appellant progressed his previous permission. Whilst it is accepted that the previous planning permission was granted on Appeal, the Appellant’s allegations that the Case Officer was (and is) somehow at fault is robustly refuted. – What the Appellant doesn’t mention in his current Statement is the fact that he applied for an award of costs at the time of the earlier appeal, siting many of the same allegations as currently. The Government appointed Reporter dismissed this claim for costs determining that, “the Council has not acted in an unreasonable manner resulting in liability for expenses” and that, “despite my separate decision to allow the related planning appeal, I do not consider that the Council has acted in an unreasonable manner in refusing planning permission or that any unnecessary costs have been incurred by the appellant. Consequently, I find that an award of costs is not justified.” In respect of the application the subject of the current Review, and contrary to the Appellant’s statement, Officers spent considerable time trying to secure a positive outcome. This included sustained negotiation over a nine month period including at least a dozen separate emails from the Case Officer to SEPA, JBA Consulting and the Appellant in regard to the flood risk issues. This elicited four separate consultation responses from SEPA and culminated in a final email to the Appellant dated 26th March 2025 stating:
Page 5
Classification: OFFICIAL “Good morning Graham Thank you for your e-mail. As part of our performance recovery efforts, Planning Officers have been instructed to be proactive in their management of planning cases to avoid undue delay and to minimise the number of cases awaiting determination. Where applicants have been asked to provide supplementary information and failed to do this within a reasonable timescale, Officers are empowered to seek withdrawal or issue refusals. Accordingly, it is our intention to proceed to determine the application within the coming weeks as a technical refusal due to the lack of submission of the requested information. However, you may wish to consider withdrawing the application, address the outstanding issues and then arrange to resubmit the application. Any resubmission within a year of withdrawal of the original application would benefit from a ‘free go’ with regards to the planning fee. Considering the above, please advise whether you wish the application to be determined or whether you wish to have it withdrawn. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Fiona Scott” No response to this email was received and, accordingly having exhausted all other options, the Case Officer sought a final response from SEPA and planning permission was refused on the 29th April 2025. A summary of the interaction with SEPA is contained within Part P, NPF4 Policy 22 of the Report of Handling attached as Appendix A. CONCLUSION Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 (as amended) requires that all decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, as detailed in the Report of Handling appended to this submission, Insufficient evidence has been submitted to fully understand and address flood risk associated with the site and surrounding area. As such, the proposal would conflict with the provisions NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55 which adopt a precautionary approach regarding the calculated probability of flooding as a best estimate, and therefore, in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, it would lead to a greater risk of flooding than currently exists for future occupants of the proposed development, and for others in the area. Specifically, the appellant has failed to provide topographic ground level information and culvert details to allow further consideration of these matters.
Page 6
Classification: OFFICIAL Given that SEPA, a statutory consultee on flooding, has objected, and the applicant has not provided any substantive evidence in response to demonstrate that the development will not be subject to flood risk nor exacerbate flood risk elsewhere, then the development can only be considered to conflict with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55 as they relate to flood risk. Taking account of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the application for Review be dismissed.
Page 7
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX A – REPORT OF HANDLING 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: 24/01069/PPP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Graham MacEachen Proposal: Renewal of Planning Permission in Principle Reference 19/02562/PPP – Site for the Erection of Two Dwellinghouses Site Address: Land South East of Elderslie, Oban 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 • Site for the erection of two dwellinghouses • Upgrade of existing vehicular access (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to public water main • Connection to public drainage network (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: Argyll and Bute Council – Roads Authority No response at time of report. Argyll and Bute Council – Access Officer No response at time of report.
Page 8
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council – Oban Airport No response at time of report. Scottish Water Letter dated 25/06/24 advising no objection to the proposed development which would be serviced from the Tullich Water Treatment Works and the Oban Waste Water Treatment Works where there is currently sufficient capacity. Scottish Water do however advise that further investigations may be required once applications for connection to their infrastructure are submitted to them for consideration. Rights of Way Society No response at time of report. Historic Environment Scotland Letter dated 05/07/25 advising no objection to the proposed development regarding the impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments SM4302 and SM4161, Ariogan Cairns. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Finalised response dated 22/04/25 submitting a holding objection due to the lack of information submitted with the application to address their flood risk concerns. JBA Consulting Ltd (JBA) Finalised response dated 10/09/24 advising no objection to the proposed development but providing advisory comments regarding the design of the proposed surface water scheme for the proposed development. Consultation responses are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (D) HISTORY: PPA-130-2077 Appeal against refusal of 19/02562/PPP – Appeal Upheld & PPP granted: 05/08/21 19/02562/PPP Site for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses – Refused: 20/08/20 (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 18/07/24. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: No representations have been received regarding the proposed development. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of:
Page 9
Classification: OFFICIAL (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist The relevant Sustainability Checklists has been submitted and examined. It is the assessment of the Case Officer that the applicant has understood and given adequate consideration to the sustainability aspects of the proposed development, sufficient to accord with the core sustainability requirements of both national and local planning policy, specifically the relevant details of the ‘Sustainable Places’ group of policies within NPF4 and LDP2 policies 04, 08 and 09. ☒Yes ☐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 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption
Page 10
Classification: OFFICIAL NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 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 Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Connected Places Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding 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 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees
Page 11
Classification: OFFICIAL (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. • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN21 VII and LVIA Light Technical Note (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • ABC Housing Needs and Demand Assessment • ABC Housing Emergency Statement • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) (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 (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • SAMs, (4161 and 4302) Ariogan Cairns • Category C Listed Building (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 (O)(iii) Woodland
Page 12
Classification: OFFICIAL Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☒No details to be secured by condition ☐N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application (tick all relevant boxes) ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Introduction and Background The site the subject of this application is on the periphery of Oban town centre comprising a gently sloping area of ground situated adjacent to a private access track which spurs from the A816 public road. To the north is the long established bed and breakfast establishment of Elderslie with Soroba House Hotel, a Category C Listed Building, and the Soroba House Mews development to the east but at a much higher level than the application site. The principle of the development of this site with two dwellinghouses has been established by the granting of planning permission in principle (PPP) at appeal by the DPEA on 5 August 2021 following the refusal of permission by the Planning Authority on 24 August 2020. The permission granted by the DPEA established the principle of the proposed development of the site with 2 dwellinghouses with the matters of layout and design to be addressed by way of future application(s) for approval of matters specified in conditions. The current application was submitted and validated within the lifetime of the previous permission granted by the DPEA thereby representing a timeous renewal with the previous PPP representing a significant material planning consideration in the current application to renew the previous permission. During the processing of the previous application, Officers were satisfied that the application site had the potential to successfully accommodate two suitably sited and designed dwellinghouses within the defined Settlement of Oban which would relate to the settlement pattern of the surrounding area.
Page 13
Classification: OFFICIAL However, Officers considered that the application failed to demonstrate that a safe vehicular access regime could be achieved to serve the proposed development due to the structural integrity of the bridge within the vehicular access regime not having been fully and satisfactorily addressed. Officers deemed that the structural integrity of the bridge was fundamental in demonstrating that a satisfactory access regime could be achieved to serve the proposed development and considered that the use of a suspensive condition to secure further details not to be appropriate. Accordingly, PPP was refused by Members at the meeting of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee in August 2020. However, upon review at appeal the DPEA was satisfied that the use of a suspensive condition requiring a structural survey of the bridge to be undertaken in order to demonstrate that it was capable of accommodating further development was appropriate and they upheld the appeal granting PPP subject to a number of conditions including the requirement for the submission of a structural survey of the bridge. To date, none of the conditions have been addressed and the permission appears to have lain idle to the extent that it has now expired. The above represents a brief summary of the DPEA decision with the full decision published on the previous planning application file, reference 19/02562/PPP, available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. Since the DPEA issued their decision granting PPP for the proposed development, there has been a material change in national planning policy and in the Local Development Plan. Argyll and Bute ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) was adopted on 28 February 2024 which, together with NPF4 which was adopted on 13 February 2023, represent the Development Plan providing the policy background against which proposed developments are assessed. The proposal is assessed against the relevant NPF4 Policies below which include details of the associated LDP2 policies. Compliance with National and Local Development Plan 2 Policy Argyll and Bute ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) was adopted on 28 February 2024 which, together with NPF4 which was adopted on 13 February 2023, represent the Development Plan providing the policy background against which proposed developments are assessed. The proposal is assessed against the relevant NPF4 Policies below which include details of the associated LDP2 policies. NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises seek to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises.
Page 14
Classification: OFFICIAL NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate, Mitigation and Adaption seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. In the case of the development proposed by this application, it is not considered that there are any issues of compliance with Policy 3. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority and whilst no specific proposals for biodiversity improvements have been submitted it is considered that adequate and proportionate measures for biodiversity enhancement and protection could be secured via planning condition in the event that permission was to be granted. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 3 and LDP2 Policy 73 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 1 and Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. The development proposed by the current planning application is considered appropriate in terms of its type, location and scale such that it will have no unacceptable impact on the natural environment. The proposed development is not within any designated European site of natural environment conservation or protection, it is not located within a National Park, a National Scenic Area a SSSI or RAMSAR site, or a National Nature Reserve. Neither is it located within a site designated as a Local Nature Conservation Site or Landscape Area or within an area identified as Wild Land. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 4 and does not conflict with the provisions of LDP2. NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees seeks to protect and expand forests, woodlands and trees. The woodland surrounding the site has been designated as Ancient Woodland by NatureScot, these being classified as areas of ancient and semi-natural woodland which are important and irreplaceable national resources which should be protected and enhanced. Whilst there is no significant tree cover on the application site that would be lost as a result of the proposed development, there are areas of woodland surrounding the site and therefore in the event that permission was to be granted, it
Page 15
Classification: OFFICIAL would be appropriate to impose a planning condition requiring any future detailed application to be accompanied by a detailed Woodland Management Plan which should identify the trees to be retained, tree works proposed, together with details of landscaping to further integrate the proposed development into its landscape setting. In the event that permission was to be granted, with the aforementioned planning condition, the proposal would not conflict with the broad aim of NPF4 Policy 6 or LDP2 Policy 77, Forestry, Woodland and Trees which seek to retain trees within proposed developments. NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets seeks to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Part (a) of Policy 7 seeks to ensure that any proposals which are likely to have a significant impact on historic assets or places are accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and/or place with Part (h) seeking to protect the integrity and setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM). In this case, it is not considered that the proposed development will have a significant impact on historic assets, places or SAMs as described below. Whilst the site is situated adjacent to Soroba House Hotel, a Category C Listed Building, due to the surrounding landform, the application site sits much lower in the landscape than Soroba House Hotel and therefore the proposed development will not be readily visible within the same visual envelope. Subject to appropriate siting, design and finishing materials, it is not considered that the proposed development, which is within an area of defined settlement, and which is adjacent to existing building development, would be materially harmful to the current setting of Soroba House Hotel or its setting within the wider landscape. Whilst there are two SAMs, (4161 and 4302) situated to the south of the application site, these are a significant distance from the site which, due to the distance involved and the intervening landscape, will ensure that they are not viewed within the same visual envelope thereby not resulting in any adverse impact on their setting. In this instance, in the event that permission was to be granted, the proposal would not conflict with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 7 or LDP2 Policies 15, Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment, Policy 16, Listed Buildings and Policy 19, Scheduled Monuments. NPF4 Policy 9 - Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. Whilst the development proposed by this planning application is on a greenfield site, in terms of our adopted settlement strategy, the site of the proposed development is within the defined Settlement of Oban where Policy 01 of LDP2 gives a general presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is compatible with surrounding uses; provides suitable access and infrastructure; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and it complies with all other relevant LDP2 policies.
Page 16
Classification: OFFICIAL As detailed above, Officers are satisfied that the application site has the potential to successfully accommodate two suitably sited and designed dwellinghouses within the defined Settlement of Oban which would relate to the settlement pattern of the surrounding area. In the event the permission was to be granted, the proposed development would be consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 9 and the spatial and settlement strategy set out in LDP2 Policy 01. NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy as defined within the policy document. The development the subject of this planning application seeks to establish the principle of two dwellinghouses. Whilst this is a development likely to generate waste when operational, it will benefit from regular waste uplifts by the Council and will be expected to comply with our adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. In this regard, in the event that permission was to be granted, the proposed development would not conflict with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 12 or LDP2 Policy 63, Waste Related Development and Waste Management which seek to ensure that effective provision for waste/recycling is provided within developments. NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The application is seeking to establish the principle of two dwellinghouses which is not considered to be a significant travel generating use or a proposal where it is considered important to monitor travel patterns resulting from the development. Part (b) of Policy 13 requires consideration of the sustainable travel hierarchies including provision for vehicles and cycle charging points. In the event that permission was to be granted a condition could be imposed to secure the provision of electrical vehicle charging points (EVC) within the site. The application proposes to utilise an existing private access track spurring from the A816 public road. During the processing of the previous application, the Roads Authority deferred their decision until such time as the applicant submitted further information to allow a definitive decision on the proposal to be made. The consultation response was in two-parts: The first part required the submission of a Safety Audit/Risk Assessment/Traffic Management Plan to ascertain and mitigate any implications caused by the proposed development both during the construction phase and on completion of the development due to the fact that the proposed access is situated on a primary school/link path/cycle path which forms part of the Core Path Network. The second part of the consultation response required a full structural survey of the bridge accessing the site from the A816 public road to demonstrate that the bridge can safely support a 44 tonne vehicle, being the minimum weight necessary to service any construction site relying on this proposed route of access.
Page 17
Classification: OFFICIAL The applicant addressed the first part by submitting a Traffic Assessment which was accepted by the Roads Authority, the Access Officer and Scotways, however, the structural report was not submitted. Officers were of the view that access to the site formed a critical part of the application and that the structural survey should be sought in advance of permission being granted to demonstrate that the bridge structure could safely and structurally cope with the increased weight and volume of traffic both during and post construction for the proposed development. Officers did not deem it appropriate to deal with the structural report by way of a suspensive condition. However, as detailed above, the DPEA was satisfied that the use of a suspensive condition on the grant of permission, requiring the submission of a structural survey of the bridge, was appropriate and on this basis, they upheld the appeal granting permission subject to such a condition. In light of the above, in the event that permission was to be granted for the proposed development, the same conditions could be imposed to secure the requirements previously sought by the Roads Authority, including the structural survey of the bridge, plus a new condition to address the additional requirement of EVC charging points within the site, rendering the proposal consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 13 and LDP2 Policies 34, EVC Charging Points, Policy 35, Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes, Policy 37, Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road and Policy 40, Vehicle Parking Provision which collectively seek to ensure that proposed developments are served by a suitable and safe access regime and provide appropriate parking provision commensurate with the scale of the development proposed. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. As detailed above the application is seeking to secure PPP to establish the principle of two dwellinghouse. The necessary future application(s) for the approval of the details of the proposed development would be expected to comply with the ‘place principle’ as set out in NPF4 Policy 14 and should permission be granted, planning conditions would ensure that the development was designed to an appropriate standard. In the event that permission was to be granted, with conditions, the development the subject of this planning application would be considered to accord with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 and the sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2 namely Policy 5, Design and Placemaking, Policy 08, Sustainable Siting, Policy 09, Sustainable Design and Policy 10, Design: All Development which, in summary, collectively seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, are sited sensitively within the landscape making use of existing infrastructure, are of an appropriate scale, sustainable design and finishes for their site; and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise. NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the ‘Place Principle’ and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options.
Page 18
Classification: OFFICIAL In terms of our adopted settlement strategy, the site of the proposed dwellinghouse is in an area identified as being within a defined ‘Settlement Area’ where LDP2 Policy 01 gives a general presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is compatible with surrounding uses; provides suitable access and infrastructure; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and that it complies with all other relevant LDP2 policies. In this instance, it is considered that the small scale of the proposed development, and its rural location, would reasonably comply with Policy 15 of NPF4 given the existing dispersed geographical scale of the environment within which the development is to be located, and given its compliance with the existing settlement pattern and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area where people can reasonably meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. The proposed development aligns with NPF4 and there is no conflict with LDP2 Policy 01. NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes in the right locations and providing choice of tenure to meet diverse housing needs. Policy 16(c) supports development proposals for new homes that improve affordability and choice by being adaptable to changing and diverse needs, and which address identified gaps in provision, including ‘self-provided homes’ of which the proposed development represents. With regards to Part (f) of Policy 16(i) an agreed timescale for build-out will be covered through the use of a planning condition; 16(ii), whilst the development proposed by this planning application is not on land actively allocated for housing in the LDP2, it would wholly accord with the adopted settlement strategy and would accord with the principles of ‘local living’ and ’20 minute neighbourhoods’; 16(iii) the proposal is for a smaller scale opportunity within an existing settlement boundary. The proposed development is deemed to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 16 and there is no conflict with LDP 2 Policy 01, ‘Settlement Area’ due to the proposed development being an appropriate development within the defined settlement. NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. The application proposes connection to the public water and waste water infrastructure within the control of Scottish Water. In their response to the application Scottish Water advise that the proposed development would be serviced from the Tullich Water Treatment Works and the Oban Waste Water Treatment Works where there is currently sufficient capacity. Scottish Water do however advise that further investigations may be required once formal application(s) for connection to their infrastructure is submitted to them for consideration. In this regard, in the event that permission was to be granted, suitable infrastructure could be provided rendering the proposed development consistent with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 18 and LDP2 Policy 04, Sustainable Development
Page 19
Classification: OFFICIAL which seek to ensure that suitable infrastructure is available to serve proposed developments. NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. Water Supply As detailed at NPF4 Policy 18 above, the development the subject of this planning application proposes connection to the public water main to which Scottish Water has raised no objection. Sustainable Drainage System With regards to the management of rain and surface water at the site, in the event that permission was to be granted, this could be controlled through a planning condition to secure a suitable sustainable drainage system for the site. Flooding Due to the site being within an area at risk of fluvial flooding, consultation was undertaken with SEPA and the Council’s flooding advisors, JBA. Whilst JBA raised no objection to the proposed development upon the submission of further information from the applicant, which comprised photographs of the watercourse in question and culvert dimensions, SEPA submitted a holding objection due to the lack of information submitted with regards to flood risk and having proper regard to national planning policy on flood risk, something that JBA appear to have discounted. SEPA advise that whilst the site is not shown to be at risk of flooding based on the SEPA Future Flood Maps, a small unnamed watercourse (with a catchment of less than 3km2) is located at the east perimeter of the proposed development. SEPA advise that whilst the Flood Maps don’t cover small watercourses, they advise that they can still cause serious flooding. SEPA further advise that there are small culverts situated approximately 8m upstream of the site on the access track to the south and downstream of the site adjacent to Elderslie Guest House. The path of the watercourse runs through a wooded area which could cause a blockage to the culvert structures. If the upstream culvert was to become blocked, it may result in an overland flow path which could inundate the site, similarly blockage of the downstream culvert could cause water to back up and inundate the site and other local receptors. SEPA advise that they would expect a site-specific assessment to consider a range of blockage scenarios to investigate these potential flooding mechanisms. In light of these comments SEPA submitted a holding objection until such time as further topographic information and details on the culverts were submitted to them for consideration which they advised may allow them to remove their holding objection. SEPA further advised that should additional information be submitted and be insufficient to provide a robust assessment of the risk of flooding to the proposed development, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) may require to be prepared for the site. SEPA’s comments were provided to the applicant for action, however the applicant was reluctant to submit the details requested by SEPA. Due
Page 20
Classification: OFFICIAL to this reluctance, Officers agreed to forward the information to SEPA which the applicant had previously submitted to JBA for review. However, upon reviewing the additional information, SEPA maintained their holding objection until such time as the previously requested topographic and culvert information was submitted. In light of the ongoing holding objection from SEPA, Officers contacted the applicant to advise that the application was going to be progressed as a technical refusal due to the lack of additional information requested by SEPA to allow them to assess flood risk having been submitted. The applicant responded by submitting two additional photographs direct to SEPA indicating that it was his view that this would be sufficient to allow SEPA to understand the site gradients and surrounding land without the requirement to submit the full details requested in their previous responses. SEPA’s final response acknowledged the additional photographs submitted by the applicant but SEPA advised that the details were not sufficient to demonstrate that the application site is not at risk of flooding and consequently maintained their holding objection. SEPA reiterated their previous comments that the submission of topographic ground level information and details of the culverts would be required to allow them to consider removing their holding objection. SEPA also acknowledged the assessment carried out by JBA, however, to enable verification, SEPA require the further detail on the culverts previously requested. Considering the above, in the absence of the topographical and culvert details required by SEPA in relation to potential flood risk posed by an identified minor water course, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that the development will not exacerbate flood risk associated with the site, the proposal is deemed contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55 which adopt a precautionary approach regarding the calculated probability of flooding within proposed developments. Given that the above policy requirements seek to establish whether the principle of development is acceptable insofar as it is related to flood risk, it is not considered that a planning condition could be used to address the above policy conflict. Conclusion Notwithstanding the above assessment that the site could, potentially, successfully accommodate two suitably sited and designed dwellinghouses, and that appropriate infrastructure could be achieved, insufficient evidence has been submitted to fully understand and address flood risk associated with the site and surrounding area and therefore the proposal would conflict with the provisions NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55 on the grounds that, in the absence of substantive evidence, it would lead to a greater risk of flooding than currently exists for future occupants of the proposed development, and for others in the area. The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons set out below. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission Should be Refused: See reasons for refusal below.
Page 21
Classification: OFFICIAL (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: Fiona Scott Date: 28/04/25 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 29/04/25 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 22
Classification: OFFICIAL REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/01069/PPP 1. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to fully understand and address flood risk associated with the site and surrounding area. As such, the proposal would conflict with the provisions NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55 which adopt a precautionary approach regarding the calculated probability of flooding as a best estimate, and therefore, in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, it would lead to a greater risk of flooding than currently exists for future occupants of the proposed development, and for others in the area. Specifically, the applicant has failed to provide topographic ground level information and culvert details to allow further consideration of these matters. Given that SEPA, a statutory consultee on flooding, has objected, and the applicant has not provided any substantive evidence in response to demonstrate that the development will not be subject to flood risk nor exacerbate flood risk elsewhere, then the development can only be considered to conflict with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55 as they relate to flood risk.
Page 23
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 24/01069/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. ☐Yes ☒No (B) The reason why planning permission has been refused: See reasons for refusal above.