Agenda reports pack
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
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 1 September 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2025 at 9:00 AM, 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 SOUTH EAST OF ELDERSLIE, OBAN, ARGYLL, PA34 4SB (REF: 25/0008/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 22) (b) Comments from Interested Parties • Planning (Pages 23 – 48) • SEPA (Pages 49 – 62) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Fiona Howard 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 100165505-007 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 Graham MacEachen Pulpit Hill Aros Ard PA34 4LX United Kingdom Oban Point Five Building Design 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. Renewal of permission in principle for 2 dwellings Argyll and Bute Council 728334 185811 Land South East of Elderslie, Oban, Argyll, Pa34 4SB 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 planning officer's handling of this renewal is unreasonably poor and the decision made contradicts planning legislation and common sense. Review statement. 24/01069/PPP 29/04/2025 10/06/2024 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 Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may select more than one option if you wish the review to be a combination of procedures. Please select a further procedure * Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) 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 Graham MacEachen Declaration Date: 28/07/2025 By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates SEPA submitted a holding objection because they did not have adequate understanding of the topography of the site. The planning officer has failed to apply her local knowledge of this site and or relevant legislation, it is therefor appropriate for the councillors to see and understand the nature of the site. Should the councillors agree that this permission should be renewed without the need for a site visit then the visit can be forgone. Page 6
Page 7
Request for review for the renewal of planning in principle for two dwellings granted by the DPEA on 5th August 2021 and subsequently refused renewal by the Argyll and Bute planning officer on 29th April 2025. The site is on a hill with a fall of approximately 6m across a site which is approximately 30m across. The site and the neighbouring land is steep and the falls are clear to see. One boundary of the site is marked by a tributary which is just around 30cm in full flow but o+en runs dry. This burn is shown on maps. The site has no history of flooding, or near flooding and the steep gradient of the site and surrounding area probably precludes the possibility of the site flooding. JBA Consulng were appointed to carry out the “Flood Risk Management- Observa3ons on Planning Applica3on”. They raised no objec3on to the original planning applica3on and for the renewal they provided a more detailed response. This response said that “The site lies out with the indica3ve limits of coastal and surface water flooding as per the SEPA Future Flood Maps. The fluvial flood extent overlies with a small sec3on of the access road,”. The report goes on to say that the culvert under the access road “is understood to have capacity for the 1 in 200-year with climate change flood event” which is the acceptable standard. Naonal Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) States that: “For planning purposes, at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area means land or built form with an annual probability of being flooded of greater than 0.5% which must include an appropriate allowance for future climate change…Where the risk of flooding is less than this threshold, areas will not be considered ‘at risk of flooding “. As indicated by the flood risk maps and further supported by the JBA Consul3ng’s report, any risk on this site is below this threshold and this site should be not be considered as ‘at risk of flooding’. SEPA guidance indicates that planning authori3es should only consult SEPA where developments reach the threshold in their “Triage Framework”. As this site is not considered a flood risk according to NPF4, it does not meet the threshold for SEPA consulta3on. Furthermore, included in this Triage Framework is specific guidance: “For developments where the only poten3al source of flood risk is from a small watercourse (which may not be shown in SEPA’s flood maps)” SEPA request that the flood risk should be assessed by the local authority. In this instance the local authority have outsourced this assessment to JBA Consul3ng who have not indicated that a further assessment by SEPA is required. The planning officer Fiona ScoD, In spite of all the informa3on above has created the statement “the site being within an area at risk of fluvial flooding”, and included this statement within the report of handling, which indicates a clear disregard for the legisla3on. When asked by the applicant to jus3fy the decision to request a SEPA consulta3on, Fiona ScoD responded that “since permission was first granted for the site, the flooding maps have been updated which necessitated the consulta3ons with SEPA”. This doesn’t seem to make any sense, given that the flood maps show the site not to be at risk. The Problem with the SEPA consulta3on is that they are not a local body, they have no local knowledge and can’t simply visit the site to get a quick look at the general topography. So now that they have been asked to consult, they have requested a package of drawings to help them understand from their office what can be clearly appreciated on site. This will require a full topographical survey and an associated drawing package which will incur bills for professional fees running into the thousands. This is a price which the applicant should not have to pay, especially when SEPA have included the caveat that this may not sa3sfy their needs and they may request a full flood risk assessment which will cost even more. Applicants should not be put in the posi3on of having to spend thousands of pounds on professional fees or reports only to sa3sfy the whim of Page 7
Page 8
planning officers. This prac3ce has gone on in this area too much and building is now restricted to only those people wealthy enough to spend thousands of pounds on this type of nonsense. Furthermore, it is completely contradictory to the planning legisla3on which states “Any requirements for addi3onal informa3on … should be propor3onate and clearly scoped to avoid unnecessary costs to applicants and public bodies.” The previous applicaon (granted by the DPEA), had a similar issue. The same planning officer recommended that the applica3on be refused because she would not acknowledge that a survey of a bridge accessing the site could be done a+er planning in principle was granted. In the planning hearing she even advised that the mo3on to include this survey as a suspensive condi3on was not a competent mo3on and this denied the elected councillors the chance to vote on this mo3on. Subsequently, the DPEA concluded that her advice was wrong and they included this condi3on within their gran3ng of permission. (Contrary to Fiona ScoD’s report of handling, this survey was conducted and submiDed to the council.) A neighbouring site was also refused permission by Fiona ScoD, only to be overturned by the elected councillors at review. It is unclear if Fiona ScoD holds some special interest in this area or if there is some reason why she has aDempted to obstruct these developments, but it has been proven in two cases already that her advice does not stand up to the scru3ny of a review or of an appeal. In this case she states that: -SEPA are a statutory consultee who must be consulted, but the evidence above indicates that she is not correct. -SEPA’s requirements must be addressed. The holding objec3on by SEPA should be considered alongside any other objec3on. Any points raised should be considered but they do not prevent the gran3ng of planning permission. In this instance, SEPA have a lack of knowledge on the site and JBA Consul3ng have provided a detailed assessment. This site is not a flood risk so Fiona ScoD’s decision should be overturned and this planning permission should be renewed. Page 8
Page 9
Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR www.gov.scot/policies/planning-environmental-appeals/ abcdefghij abcde abc a Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Appeal Decision Notice T: 0300 244 6668 E: dpea@gov.scot Decision I allow the appeal and grant planning permission in principle subject to the nine conditions listed at the end of the decision notice. Attention is drawn to the two advisory notes at the end of the notice. The appellant has made a claim for expenses. I have issued a separate decision on this claim. Reasoning 1. I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Having regard to the provisions of the development plan the main issues in this appeal are the principle of development, access arrangements, design/layout and effect on the natural and built environment. 2. As there is a listed building adjacent to the appeal site section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 applies and states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, special regard should be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 3. Parties make reference to the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (2015) and related supplementary guidance. My attention has also been brought to the guidance in Transport Scotland’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), the Decision by Gordon S Reid, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers Planning appeal reference: PPA-130-2077 Site address: land south east of Elderslie, Oban, PA34 4SA Appeal by G MacEachen against the decision by Argyll and Bute Council Application for planning permission in principle 19/02562/PPP dated 9 December 2019 refused by notice dated 24 August 2020 The development proposed: site for the erection of two dwellinghouses Application drawings: Location Plan (PR003a-L01b), Site Plan (PR003a-L02b) and Proposed Footpath (PR003a-L03) Date of site visit by Reporter: 7 May 2021 Date of appeal decision: 05 August 2021 Page 9
Page 10
PPA-130-2077 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR www.gov.scot/policies/planning-environmental-appeals/ abcdefghij abcde abc a 2 council’s non-statutory Sustainable Design Guidance (2006) and Small Housing Developments (2008) and, the appellant’s Road Assessment document. 4. The appeal site is located to the south-west of the A816 (Soroba Road) and is accessed from a private road which serves Soroba House Hotel and Mews, Elderslie B&B and several residential properties. The private road to the appeal site also forms part of the core path network and is a link pedestrian/cycle path to the local primary school campus. The appeal site is a sloping area of overgrown ground with some shrubs and a single mature tree. A layout drawing is submitted for illustrative purposes demonstrating that the appeal site could accommodate two houses. A further illustrative drawing sets out the location of the proposed footway adjacent to the existing bridge/culvert. Principle of development 5. Local development plan policy LDP DM 1 (Development within the Development Management Zones) sets out the acceptable scale of new development within seven defined development management zones. I note that the appeal site is located within the Oban management zone where encouragement is given to various scales of development on appropriate sites subject to compliance with other relevant policies and related supplementary guidance. 6. In terms of proposals for new housing local development plan policy LDP 8 (Supporting the Strength of Our Communities) recognises the need to ensure that existing communities are strengthened through the delivery of new sustainable development opportunities. In support of this policy, supplementary guidance LDP HOU 1 (General Housing Development including Affordable Housing) sets out a general presumption in favour of housing development of the appropriate scale within the defined management zones unless there is an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact. I note that the council, in its report of handling, concluded that, given the location of the appeal site (within the Oban management zone), it had the potential to accommodate two suitably sited and designed houses. 7. As the appeal proposal is small scale (less than 5) and is within the Oban management zone I am satisfied that it would, in principle, gain support from the presumption in favour of new housing development subject to meeting the requirements of LDP HOU 1 in relation to the environment and access. No issues in terms of servicing the appeal site were raised by the council. Parking and Access 8. The main issue of concern raised by the council relates to whether a satisfactory means of access can be achieved for the appeal proposal. Local development plan policy LDP 11 (Improving Our Connectivity and Infrastructure) seeks to ensure that in supporting development proposals, best use is made of existing infrastructure and an appropriate standard of access is delivered to serve new developments including an appropriate level of car parking. Further detail for the delivery of these requirements is set out in supplementary guidance LDP TRAN 4 (New and Existing, Public Roads and Private access Regimes) and LDP TRAN 6 (Vehicle Parking Provision). Page 10
Page 11
PPA-130-2077 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR www.gov.scot/policies/planning-environmental-appeals/ abcdefghij abcde abc a 3 9. I note from the illustrative layout that provision for car parking and turning is to be accommodated within each site. I am satisfied, given the size of each plot that there would be sufficient space available to provide the required level of car parking which can be secured through the imposition of a condition. Therefore, I find that the appeal proposal, subject to a condition, would accord with the provisions of supplementary guidance LDP TRAN 6. 10. The appeal site is to be accessed from the existing private road, which joins Soroba Road (A816) to the north east of the appeal site. Supplementary guidance LDP TRAN 4 advises in Criterion (A) that in the first instance new developments should be served by a public road. However, where it is proposed to utilise an existing private road criterion 2(i) advises that the access should be capable of commensurate improvements considered by the council to be appropriate to the scale and nature of the new development taking into account any current access issues. 11. The appeal proposal would result in the increased use of an existing private road which also performs the function as a primary school link path/cycle path and, is part of the core path network. Therefore, the council in line with criterion 2(i) requested that a safety audit, risk assessment and traffic management plan be submitted to assess the potential impact (including during the construction phase) of the appeal proposal and to identify any necessary mitigation measures. The appellant submitted a Road Assessment Report covering each of the areas specified by the council. I note that the council in its report of handling advises that it found the appellant’s assessment and mitigation measures to be acceptable. I would agree with this conclusion and find that subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures there would be no adverse impact on pedestrian or vehicle safety. 12. Notwithstanding the acceptance of the appellant’s road assessment the council, in line with criterion (A) of LDP TRAN 4, requires that a short section of the private road at the existing bridge/culvert (which serves all of the existing properties) be brought up to an adoptable standard. The appellant advises that this matter was raised by the council prior to the submission of the appeal proposal for planning permission in principle and resulted in the inclusion of the proposed footway and the site boundary being amended to include this part of the private road. In addition, the council also requires a turning head to be provided in the area to the south of the bridge/culvert. I note that despite including the requirements recommended by the council the appellant questions the need for the road to be adopted. However, no objection has been raised by the appellant to the provision of a turning head subject to agreeing its exact location. 13. I note that supplementary guidance LDP TRAN 4 advises that new private roads should only be used for up to five dwellings. However, as highlighted by the appellant it is evident that the current number of properties served by the private road already significantly exceeds this level (17 properties). No evidence has been provided by the council to explain why the existing private road has not been brought up to an adoptable standard in the course of determining past developments in the area. Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied that given the number of properties that this section of the road now serves, and that it is also a primary school link/cycle path it is not unreasonable for the council to seek to bring this section of the road up to an adoptable standard. I find that this would be in accordance with criteria (A) of LDP TRAN 4. Page 11
Page 12
PPA-130-2077 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR www.gov.scot/policies/planning-environmental-appeals/ abcdefghij abcde abc a 4 14. In order to bring the private road up to a standard suitable for adoption the council contends that a structural survey of the bridge/culvert in accordance with the requirements of DMRB is required. I note that the appellant disputes the need for a structural survey and contends that the bridge/culvert is to an appropriate standard to accommodate the likely traffic generated by the appeal proposal. Although I note that the council carried out a visual inspection of the bridge/culvert I have no substantive technical evidence before me to demonstrate that the bridge could accommodate the likely additional vehicle movements. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the council’s requirement for a structural survey is in accordance with the recognised national guidance (DMRB) for the adoption of a road that includes a bridge/culvert and that it is required in support of the appeal proposal to allow the adoption of the private road. 15. The council contends that as the structural integrity of the bridge/culvert is fundamental in demonstrating that a satisfactory access can be achieved and to the standard that allows it to be considered for adoption the use of a suspensive condition is not appropriate. The appellant argues that as this is technical information which is similar to other matters associated with the appeal proposal that require the submission of further details, it is appropriate to address this through the imposition of a suspensive condition. 16. Whilst I agree with the council’s position regarding the requirement to bring the road up to an adoptable standard I am not convinced that the use of a suspensive condition is inappropriate in this particular case. The council has already accepted that there would be no pedestrian or vehicular issues with the access as a result of the proposed development. In addition, the appellant on the advice of the council, amended the site boundary to include this section of the road within the appeal site and the area for the provision of a new footway, and I note that the appellant has control of the land (through an ownership interest) at this section of road and the adjacent land immediately to the east. Therefore, any potential improvement identified by the survey could be implemented within the appeal site or on land in control of the appellant. Finally, as this appeal proposal is for planning permission in principle there are other detailed and technical matters that would be required to be covered by suspensive conditions. 17. Therefore, given the bridge/culvert is within the appeal site I am satisfied that the use of a suspensive condition requiring the carrying out of a structural survey is appropriate in this instance. Furthermore, if further physical works outwith the appeal site are required the appellant has control over adjacent land that would allow these to be undertaken. 18. Therefore, I find that subject to the imposition of appropriately worded conditions the appeal proposal would accord with the requirements of supplementary guidance LDP policy TRAN 4, policy LDP 11 and supplementary guidance LDP HOU 1. Design/layout 19. From the illustrative layout provided by the appellant I am satisfied that the appeal site could accommodate two houses. I note that the council also came to this conclusion in its report of handling. However, to ensure that the appeal proposal would accord with the provisions of policy LDP 9 (Development Setting, Layout and Design) and SG2 (Sustainable Siting and Design Principles) the details of design and layout would require to be subject to future applications for the approval of matters specified in conditions. As I am minded to uphold this appeal I have attached conditions covering these matters. Page 12
Page 13
PPA-130-2077 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR www.gov.scot/policies/planning-environmental-appeals/ abcdefghij abcde abc a 5 Natural and Built Environment 20. The appeal site is located approximately 25 metres to the south west of Soroba House Hotel which is a category C listed building. In addition, there is an area of ancient woodland further to the south-east. Local development plan policy LDP 3 (Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment) seeks to ensure that new developments do not adversely impact on the natural, human and built form. I noted at my site inspection that the appeal site is located to the south-west of the principle elevation of Soroba House Hotel and given the topography of the area sits at a much lower level with mature landscaping along the adjoining boundary. Furthermore, I noted that new residential development (Soroba Mews) has been developed immediately to the east of the hotel. Given the location of the appeal site relative to Soroba House I am satisfied that subject to appropriate siting, design, finishing materials and landscaping the appeal proposal would not adversely affect the setting of the listed building. In addition, I note that Historic Environment Scotland and the council raised no concerns in relation to the impact on the setting of the listed building. 21. In terms of the effect on existing woodland I established at my site inspection that there was only one mature tree within the appeal site which is located at the south-west boundary. Given its position this tree could be accommodated within the site without adversely affecting the layout of the appeal proposal. I am satisfied that no other mature trees or woodland would be adversely affected by the appeal proposal. However, I agree with the council that given there are mature trees in the surrounding area a condition be attached requiring a detailed landscaping plan including boundary treatments to ensure that the appeal proposal is appropriately accommodated within the wider landscape setting. 22. Accordingly, subject to conditions I find that the appeal proposal accords with the provisions of policy LDP 3, supplementary guidance LDP ENV 16(a) (Development Impact on Listed Buildings), Section 59 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) (Scotland) Act 1997, supplementary guidance LDP ENV 6 (Development Impact on Trees/Woodland), supplementary guidance LDP ENV 14 (Landscape) and supplementary guidance LDP HOU 1. 23. Overall, I am satisfied that subject to conditions the principle of residential development for two houses at the appeal site would accord with the relevant policies of the local development plan and the related supplementary guidance. Other matters 24. Apart from the matters raised by the council’s roads service no objections were raised by any of the consultees subject to the imposition of conditions relating to flood risk, drainage and finished floor levels. The council has provided me with conditions to address each of these matters. I note that the appellant raises concerns that the proposed conditions in relation to design are overly restrictive and contends that these would be more appropriately addressed at the detailed design stage. In light of these concerns I have made some minor amendments to the council’s proposed conditions to allow for the further consideration of these matters by parties. The revised conditions are attached at the end of the decision notice. Page 13
Page 14
PPA-130-2077 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR www.gov.scot/policies/planning-environmental-appeals/ abcdefghij abcde abc a 6 25. The appeal proposal attracted 18 letters of representation raising concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development in terms of over development of the area, traffic and pedestrian safety, parking, drainage, flooding and the condition and structural integrity of the existing bridge. I have taken full account of these concerns in my considerations as set out above. Reference was also made in the representations to previous applications at the appeal site, but I note that these applications were withdrawn prior to determination by the council and, therefore, I find that they are not relevant to the current appeal case. 26. The appellant makes reference to other planning applications approved by the council within the council area that have included the use of private roads. Whilst I note these matters I am unaware of the circumstances of these particular planning applications and in any case I must determine the appeal case before me on its own merits. Conclusion 27. I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the appeal proposal, subject to conditions, accords overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which would justify refusing to grant planning permission. I have considered all the other matters raised, but there are none which would lead me to alter my conclusions. Gordon S Reid Reporter Conditions 1. Plans and particulars of the matters specified in conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 below shall be submitted by way of application(s) for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions in accordance with the timescales and other limitations in Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended. Thereafter, the development shall be completed wholly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In accordance with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). 2. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form for planning permission in principle reference 19/02562/PPP dated 15/05/19 and the approved drawing reference numbers as follows: Location Plan PR003a-L01b, Site Plan PR003a-L02b and Proposed Footpath PR003a-L03. Reason: To accord with Regulation 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. 3. Pursuant to Condition 1. – No development shall commence until details of the required improvements to the service road and connection with the existing public road have been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. Such details shall incorporate: i) A vehicular access layout providing a road from the junction with the U128, Soroba Hill Road, extending for 33 metres or thereabouts (including bridge/culvert) in a southerly Page 14
Page 15
PPA-130-2077 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR www.gov.scot/policies/planning-environmental-appeals/ abcdefghij abcde abc a 7 direction, to the Soroba House Hotel/Soroba Lodge junction on the private track, over which the public has a right of access in terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. ii) The junction with the existing public road improved to provide visibility splays of 2.4 metres to point X by 42 metres to point Y formed from the centre line of the junction. iii) A turning head for the public service vehicle to be located to the south of the bridge, opposite the Soroba House Hotel/Soroba Lodge junction. Prior to work starting on site, the junction with the existing public road shall be fully formed and surfaced and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the junction at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. All access roads and footways granted consent shall be constructed to at least base course level prior to any work starting on the erection of the buildings which they are intended to serve and the final wearing surface of the roads and footways shall be applied concurrently with the construction of the final building. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to ensure the timely provision of a service road commensurate to the scale of the overall development and having regard to the status of the proposed access as a residential service road. 4. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until plans and particulars of the parking/turning arrangements to serve the development have been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. Such details shall incorporate: i) The provision of parking and turning in accordance with the requirements of Policy SG LDP TRAN 6 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015. The approved parking and turning layout shall be implemented in full prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 5. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until a detailed structural survey of the existing bridge/culvert has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority in consultation with the Council’s structures team. The required survey shall be prepared by a qualified structural engineer and shall be sufficient to certify that the existing bridge/culvert is able to safely accommodate up to 44 gross metric tonnes multi axle heavy goods vehicles. Or, should such certification not be demonstrated provide a detailed written schedule and specification of the works necessary to improve or replace the existing bridge/culvert in order that it will accommodate vehicles of the type and weight specified in above. Any improvement/rebuilding/replacement works agreed by virtue of the above requirements must be fully completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority in consultation with the Council’s structures team before any other part of the development commences. Page 15
Page 16
PPA-130-2077 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR www.gov.scot/policies/planning-environmental-appeals/ abcdefghij abcde abc a 8 Reason: In the interests of road safety. 6. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until details of the proposed means of private foul drainage to serve the development have been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full concurrently with the development that it is intended to serve and shall be operational prior to the occupation of the development. Reason: To ensure that an adequate means of foul drainage is available to serve the development. 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 2, the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. 8. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until plans and particulars of the site layout, design and external finishes of the development have been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. These details shall incorporate: i) A statement addressing the action checklist for developing design contained within the Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guide 2006; ii) A local vernacular design; iii) External walls finished in natural stone, wet dash render, timber cladding or a mixture of these materials; iv) Details of finished ground floor levels relative to an identifiable fixed datum located out with the application site; and v) Details of existing and proposed site levels shown in the form of sectional drawings/contour plans/site level survey, or a combination of these. Reason: To accord with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended, and in order to integrate the proposed dwellinghouse with its surrounds. 9. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. The scheme shall comprise a planting plan and schedule which shall include details of: i) Existing and proposed ground levels in relation to an identified fixed datum; ii) Existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; iii) The location, design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; iv) Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted; and v) A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on- going maintenance. Page 16
Page 17
PPA-130-2077 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR www.gov.scot/policies/planning-environmental-appeals/ abcdefghij abcde abc a 9 All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the planning authority. Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity. Advisory notes 1. Notice of the start of development: The person carrying out the development must give advance notice in writing to the planning authority of the date when it is intended to start. Failure to do so is a breach of planning control. It could result in the planning authority taking enforcement action. (See sections 27A and 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).) 2. Notice of the completion of the development: As soon as possible after it is finished, the person who completed the development must write to the planning authority to confirm the position. (See section 27B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).) Page 17
Page 18
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 19
Page 19
Page 20
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 21
Page 21
Page 22
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 23
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 23 Agenda Item 3b
Page 24
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 24
Page 25
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 25
Page 26
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 26
Page 27
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 27
Page 28
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 28
Page 29
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 29
Page 30
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 30
Page 31
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 31
Page 32
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 32
Page 33
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 33
Page 34
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 34
Page 35
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 35
Page 36
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 36
Page 37
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 37
Page 38
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 38
Page 39
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 39
Page 40
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 40
Page 41
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 41
Page 42
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 42
Page 43
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 43
Page 44
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 44
Page 45
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. Page 45
Page 46
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 47
" " © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/0008/LRB O 1:2,500 0 20 4010 Meters Application Site Page 47
Page 48
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 49
Classification: OFFICIAL To Whom It May Concern, Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts 25/0008/LRB 24/01069/PPP - Renewal of planning permission in principal reference 19/02562/PPP (approved at appeal) (Site for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses) Land South East Of Elderslie, Oban, Argyll, PA34 4SB Thank you for your email of 30 July relating to the above. We previously responded to planning application 24/01069/PPP in our letters referenced PCS-20002026, PCS-20003215 and PCS-20005081. We can confirm that our position (holding objection) remains as set out in our previous comments which also include details of the information that would be required to enable us to comment further on the planning application. I trust these comments are of assistance - please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information. Kind regards, Jessica Fraser Planning Officer Disclaimer The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipients. Access, copying or re-use of the information in it by any other is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by return email to postmaster@sepa.org.uk. Registered office: SEPA, Angus Smith Building, 6 Parklands Avenue, Eurocentral, Holytown, North Lanarkshire, ML1 4WQ. Communications with SEPA may be monitored or recorded or released in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. Dh’fhaodadh gum bi am fiosrachadh sa phost-d seo agus ceanglachan sam bith a tha na chois dìomhair, agus cha bu chòir am fiosrachadh a bhith air a chleachdadh le neach sam bith ach an luchd-faighinn a bha còir am fiosrachadh fhaighinn. Chan fhaod neach sam bith eile cothrom fhaighinn air an fhiosrachadh a tha sa phost-d no a tha an cois a’ phuist-d, chan fhaod iad lethbhreac a dhèanamh dheth no a chleachdadh arithist. Mura h-ann dhuibhse a tha am post-d seo, feuch gun inns sibh dhuinn sa bhad le bhith cur post-d gu postmaster@sepa.org.uk. Togalach Aonghais Mhic a' Ghobhainn, 6 Craobhraid Parklands, Eurocentral, Baile a' Chuilinn, Siorrachd Lannraig a Tuath, ML1 4WQ. Faodar conaltradh còmhla ri SEPA a sgrùdadh no a chlàradh no a sgaoileadh gus obrachadh èifeachdach an t-siostaim a ghlèidheadh agus airson adhbharan laghail eile. Page 49
Page 50
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 51
OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Our Ref: PCS-20002026 Planning Department Your Ref: 24/01069/PPP Argyll and Bute Council SEPA Email Contact: By email only to: planning.olandi@argyll- bute.gov.uk planning.north@sepa.org.uk 11 July 2024 Dear Fiona Scott Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts Renewal of planning permission in principal reference 19/02562/PPP (approved at appeal) (Site for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses) Land South East Of Elderslie, Oban, Argyll And Bute Thank you for your consultation which was received by SEPA on 19 June 2024 in relation to the above application. We understand the reason for consultation is Flooding. Thank you also for your further email of 19 June confirming that the proposal does not fall within any of the exceptions set out in NPF4 Policy 22(a). Unfortunately, the information supplied with this planning application is insufficient to allow us to determine the potential impacts in terms of flood risk. We therefore submit a holding objection and request that determination be deferred until the information outlined below has been provided for our assessment. If the planning authority proposes to grant planning permission contrary to this advice on flood risk, the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009 provides criteria for the referral to the Scottish Ministers of such cases. You may therefore wish to consider if this proposal falls within the scope of this Direction. Page 51
Page 52
OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 1. Flood risk 1.1 In line with National Planning Framework 4 (Policy 22), a precautionary approach to flood risk should be taken by avoiding development within areas at risk of flooding (land or built form with an annual probability of being flooded of greater than 0.5% which must include an appropriate allowance for future climate change). 1.2 The site is not shown to be at risk of flooding based on the SEPA Future Flood Maps. However, a small unnamed watercourse (with a catchment of less than 3km2) is located at the east perimeter of the proposed development. The SEPA Flood Maps don’t cover small watercourses, but they can still cause serious flooding. You can view the SEPA Flood Maps and find out more about them at Flood Maps | SEPA - Flood Maps | SEPA. 1.3 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. We would expect a site-specific assessment to consider a range of blockage scenarios to investigate these potential flooding mechanisms. 1.4 We therefore submit a holding objection to the proposed development as it is potentially at risk of fluvial flooding. To enable us to review our position, we ask that a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is provided which has been completed by a suitably qualified professional. This should consider the risk from the unnamed watercourse. For more information on SEPA’s requirements for detailed flood risk assessments, please see our Technical flood risk guidance for stakeholders (sepa.org.uk), section 3.3. Please note this document is currently being updated to reflect changes due to NPF4, so some information may be out-of-date. Advisories 1.5 We advise that you contact your Flood Risk Management Officer who may be able to Page 52
Page 53
OFFICIAL OFFICIAL provide further information regarding flood history and flooding issues in the area. 1.6 Safe access/egress by emergency vehicles and surface water risks are matters under the remit of the local Flood Risk Management Authority at Argyll and Bute Council. It is therefore for the Council to consider theses issues. 1.7 We recommend that an appropriate buffer zone is considered. We recommend that for channel widths of less than 2 meters, a riparian corridor with of 10 meters remains undeveloped on each channel bank. 2. Other planning matters 2.1 For all other planning matters, please see our triage framework and standing advice which are available on our website: www.sepa.org.uk/environment/land/planning/ 3. Regulatory advice for the applicant 3.1 Details of regulatory requirements can be found on the regulations section of our website or by contacting our local compliance team at ahsh@sepa.org.uk. If you have queries relating to this letter, please contact us at planning.north@sepa.org.uk. Your sincerely Jessica Fraser, Planning Officer, Planning Service Ecopy to: fiona.scott@argyll-bute.gov.uk Disclaimer: This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, as such a decision may take into account factors not considered at this time. We prefer all the technical information required for any SEPA consents to be submitted at the same time as the planning or similar application. However, we consider it to be at the applicant's commercial risk if any significant changes required during the regulatory stage necessitate a further planning application or similar application and/or neighbour notification or advertising. We have relied on the accuracy and completeness of the information supplied to us in providing the above advice and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation, or omissions, in such information. If we have not referred to a particular issue in our response, it should not be assumed that there is no impact associated with that issue. For planning applications, if you did not specifically request advice on flood risk, then advice will not have been provided on this issue. Further information on our consultation arrangements generally can be found on our website planning pages - www.sepa.org.uk/environment/land/planning/ Page 53
Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Fiona Scott Our Ref: PCS-20003215 Planning Department Your Ref: 24/01069/PPP Argyll and Bute Council SEPA Email Contact: By email only to: planning.olandi@argyll- bute.gov.uk planning.north@sepa.org.uk 16 October 2024 Dear Fiona Scott Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts Renewal of planning permission in principal reference 19/02562/PPP (approved at appeal) (Site for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses) Land South East Of Elderslie, Oban, Argyll And Bute Thank you for your re-consultation on the above planning application which was received by SEPA on 1 October 2024 in relation to the above application. We note this follows our previous response referenced PCS-20002028 and dated 11 July 2024. Following review of the information provided, we currently maintain our holding objection to this application on the basis of flood risk and request that determination is deferred until the information outlined below has been provided for our assessment. 1. Flood risk 1.1 In line with National Planning Framework 4 (Policy 22), a precautionary approach to flood risk should be taken by avoiding development within areas at risk of flooding (land or built form with an annual probability of being flooded of greater than 0.5% Page 55
Page 56
OFFICIAL OFFICIAL which must include an appropriate allowance for future climate change). 1.2 There is a potential fluvial flood risk from a small unnamed burn to the east of the site. The SEPA Future Flood Maps don’t cover small watercourses (catchments <3km2), but they can still cause serious flooding. You can view the SEPA Flood Maps and find out more about them at Flood Maps | SEPA - Flood Maps | SEPA. The development is potentially within the flow path of the unnamed burn in the event of out-of-bank flooding. 1.3 A flood risk/drainage impact assessment was carried out in September 2024 by JBA Consulting on behalf of the Planning Authority. This report provided calculations on the culvert capacity at the northeast corner of the site. The culvert was calculated to be able to convey flows from a 1 in 200 plus climate change flood event. 1.4 To verify the calculations and to determine that the development is not at risk of flooding, in the first instance, we would request the following information. a. Topographic ground level information relating to the pre- and post-development ground and if available minimum finished floor levels relative to Ordnance Datum. Topographic level information should include at least one site sections and extended cross sections across the watercourse (including the channel bed levels and bank levels of both the nearside and opposite bank), upstream, downstream and adjacent to the site. b. Information on the culvert which should include the material the culvert is made from and levels of the inlet and outlet of the culvert relative to Ordnance Datum along with culvert length. The approximate flood relief level at the culvert is also required. In addition to this, photographs of the culvert at the northeast corner of the site are required. 1.5 If the above information demonstrates that the development is well elevated above the banks of the watercourse, we may be able to remove our objection in relation to flood risk. However, the applicant should be aware that if this information is insufficient to provide a robust assessment of the risk of flooding to the proposed development, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment may need to be carried out by a Page 56
Page 57
OFFICIAL OFFICIAL suitably qualified professional. 1.6 In addition to the above, in our previous response we highlighted the requirement for a buffer strip adjacent to the watercourse. We note that this application is for renewal of planning permission in principle and therefore a detailed site layout will be submitted at a later stage. However, the current site layout plan shows an area of paving over a small section of the watercourse. SEPA are generally opposed to culverting for land gain and would expect that the watercourse is left free of development, including an appropriate buffer area. We are likely to request this by condition. The buffer strip should be inline with Highland Councils Riparian buffer strip guidance in their Flood Risk and Drainage Impact Assessment Supplementary Guidance. Although please note we may comment further on an appropriate buffer distance following submission of the above requested flood risk information. If you have queries relating to this letter, please contact us at planning.north@sepa.org.uk. Your sincerely Jessica Fraser Planning Officer Planning Service Ecopy to: Fiona.Scott@argyll-bute.gov.uk Disclaimer: This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, as such a decision may take into account factors not considered at this time. We prefer all the technical information required for any SEPA consents to be submitted at the same time as the planning or similar application. However, we consider it to be at the applicant's commercial risk if any significant changes required during the regulatory stage necessitate a further planning application or similar application and/or neighbour notification or advertising. We have relied on the accuracy and completeness of the information supplied to us in providing the above advice and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation, or omissions, in such information. If we have not referred to a particular issue in our response, it should not be assumed that there is no impact associated with that issue. For planning applications, if you did not specifically request advice on flood risk, then advice will not have been provided on this issue. Further information on our consultation arrangements generally can be found on our website planning pages - www.sepa.org.uk/environment/land/planning/ Page 57
Page 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 59
OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Graham MacEachen Our Ref: PCS-20005081 Your Ref: 24/01069/PPP SEPA Email Contact: By email only to: gm@pointfivebd.com planning.north@sepa.org.uk 22 April 2025 Dear Graham MacEachen Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts 24/01069/PPP Renewal of planning permission in principal reference 19/02562/PPP (approved at appeal) (Site for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses) Land South East Of Elderslie, Oban, Argyll And Bute Thank you for your email relating to the above planning application which was received by SEPA on 30 March 2025. We note this follows our previous response referenced PCS- 20003215 (16 October 2025). As this relates to a live planning application, we have also copied in the case officer at Argyll and Bute Council for information. We have considered the two photographs attached to your email. However, unfortunately these are not sufficient to demonstrate that the site is not at risk from flooding. We therefore currently maintain our holding objection to this application on the basis of flood risk. We confirm that our previous comments (PCS-20003215) still apply. Please therefore refer to our previous letter. We have also provided some further explanation below which we hope will assist. Page 59
Page 60
OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 1. Flood risk 1.1 In our previous response (PCS-20003215) we requested that a topographic ground level survey relative to Ordnance Datum is undertaken to assess the fluvial risk to the site from the small unnamed burn at the site. Small watercourses can cause serious flooding, especially during summer convective storms, which have been observed to generate the highest peak flows in small catchments such as this one. It therefore needs to be ensured that the site is not at flood risk from this small watercourse pre- and post-development, which is why minimum finished floor levels are also requested, if available. As the Planning Authority has confirmed that this site does not fall into any of the exceptions of National Planning Framework 4 (Policy 22a), the development site must sit outwith the flood risk area. 1.2 We also asked that topographic ground level information include at least one site sections and extended cross sections across the watercourse (including the channel bed levels and bank levels of both the nearside and opposite bank), upstream, downstream and adjacent to the site. This is to determine whether the channel can convey flows of a 1 in 200 year flood event, with an allowance for climate change, without flooding the site. We appreciate the submission of photographs of the channel however we cannot determine cross sectional levels from these photographs. 1.3 As previously highlighted, we acknowledge the assessment carried out in relation to the culvert in the northeast corner of the site in September 2024 by JBA Consulting. However, to enable verification, and to ensure the culvert can convey flows from a 1 in 200 plus climate change flood event without affecting the development site, we asked that information be submitted on: the material the culvert is made from, levels of the inlet and outlet of the culvert relative to Ordnance Datum, culvert length, the approximate flood relief level at the culvert and photographs of the culvert at the northeast corner of the site. It is particularly important that full consideration is given to the culverts as the development is situated within a wooded area, and therefore blockage from wood debris can affect the conveyance of flows. Page 60
Page 61
OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 1.4 For our full advice, please see our previous response, which also included advice on buffer strips. We will be happy to review our comments following submission of the above requested information. However, we wish to highlight that if that information is insufficient to provide a robust assessment of the risk of flooding to the proposed development, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment may need to be carried out by a suitably qualified professional. If you have queries relating to this letter, please contact us at planning.north@sepa.org.uk including our reference number in the email subject. Your sincerely, Jessica Fraser Planning Officer Planning Service Ecopy to: Fiona.Scott@argyll-bute.gov.uk Disclaimer: This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, as such a decision may take into account factors not considered at this time. We prefer all the technical information required for any SEPA consents to be submitted at the same time as the planning or similar application. However, we consider it to be at the applicant's commercial risk if any significant changes required during the regulatory stage necessitate a further planning application or similar application and/or neighbour notification or advertising. We have relied on the accuracy and completeness of the information supplied to us in providing the above advice and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation, or omissions, in such information. If we have not referred to a particular issue in our response, it should not be assumed that there is no impact associated with that issue. For planning applications, if you did not specifically request advice on flood risk, then advice will not have been provided on this issue. Further information on our consultation arrangements generally can be found on our website planning pages - www.sepa.org.uk/environment/land/planning/ Page 61
Page 62
This page is intentionally left blank