Consider Notice of Review Request: Land South East High Tor Cottage, Isle of Colonsay (Ref: Pa61 7Yw)
Argyll and Bute Council · 6 August 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 6 August 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 1 of 20 LTR-4865-2025.06.23 The Local Review Body, Committee Services, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT 23rd June 2025 REF: 24/00770/PPP Site for the erection of dwellinghouse Land South East Of High Tor Cottage, Scalasaig, Isle of Colonsay, Argyll and Bute In response to the Statement of Case issued by the local authority planning department we wish to respond to the points raised as follows. Comments on Appellants’ Submission 1. The decision took nearly 11 months in total. “The case officer communicated landscape related concerns to the applicant on 04.07.24 by email (appendix 2.)” The email supplied by the case officer does not provide a full picture of this interaction. Bracewell Stirling submitted an initial correspondence on the 18th of June, to which there was no response from the case officer. Another email requesting an extension to the determination period was sent by Bracewell Stirling to the case officer on the 21st of June, this also received no response from the case officer. An extension of time to determine the application was issued on the 25th of June by the Local Authority. The extended determination period suggested by the case officer proposed to move the determination date from the 30th June to the 12th July. Bracewell Stirling submitted another email requesting information on the reason for the delay and whether any further information could be supplied to aid the determination on the 26th of June, this received no response from the case officer. The first correspondence supplied by the case officer was on the 4th of July as appended, highlighting the case officers’ concerns whilst also noting ‘Please note that I am out of office now until July 22nd’. Effectively the case officer highlighted concerns after the end of the initial determination period and then failed to request a sufficient extension to the determination period to cover their absence, disregarding both the initial and then the revised determination deadlines.
Page 2
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 2 of 20 2. The pre-application advice stated an LVIA may be required and that on balance the advice encouraged a formal submission Within the statement of case, it is maintained that the pre-application advice does not encourage a formal submission. “…but neither does it go as far as to encourage submission of a formal application”. To quote directly from 23/01310/PREAPP Pre Application Advice Report. “The application site may be considered appropriate to accommodate the development of a single detached dwellinghouse of relatively modest scale, and of similar orientation and design to the dwellinghouses fronting the main access road”. Within the context of a Pre Planning Application Enquiry for a new dwelling house, if this statement from the Local Authority is not an encouragement to submit a formal application, what is it? A Planning application is the only means available by which to determine whether a site offers and appropriate development opportunity. 3. The information submitted within the LVA illustrates there will be no adverse visual impact. Within the statement of case, it is stated that: “…the planning authority has notable concerns about the effect the proposal would have in landscape character and appearance terms, and the resultant harm would be noticeable from the surrounding area”. The LVA was created from footage taken by an aerial drone. The LVA provides a 180-degree view of the development site from the primary approach aspects. Bracewell Stirling maintains the supplied LVA illustrates the impact of the proposal, on the landscape character or appearance of the area, is negligible. The site offers a sustainable development opportunity as well as a net biodiversity gain via establishment of native planting. 4. The local authority refused to work with the applicant on the suitable design and siting of any proposals. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was submitted in good faith at expense, despite the proposal’s ability to be regarded as either infill or rounding off. Within the statement of case the statement regarding the refusal to work with the applicant on a suitable design is as follows: “This assertion is respectfully rejected, noting that the case officer was open with the applicant regarding landscape related concerns and the inability to guarantee that such concerns could be overcome”. Within correspondence between October and November 2024, appended below, the case officer was asked: “Can you please confirm that you do not believe there is a suitable design and landscaping solution that will overcome these concerns?” to which the response was “I am not convinced a detailed design could overcome the concerns.” A further query asked “Is there any design solution that will resolve the concerns you have raised?”
Page 3
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 3 of 20 to which the response was “I am not convinced there is a design solution to resolve the concerns raised.” We respectfully suggest the approach taken by the case officer in this instance is contrary to the aims of Scotland’s Chief Planning Officer and the ambitions of National Planning Framework 4. “We are seeking to develop a more positive dialogue on planning for housing, recognising the benefits quality homes and places can bring. We need to find constructive solutions to challenges, and to work collectively on the issues” Dr Fiona Simpson, Chief Planner Scotland, letter to Scottish Planning Officers 26/04/24. Although we respect the case officer’s views, the nature of the responses from the case officer suggests a closed mindset and a reluctance to consider any other views or perspectives that differed from their own subjective opinion. The repeated rebuttal to open a dialogue was taken as a refusal to work with the applicant in establishing a suitable design solution to the benefit of all stakeholders. The Hebrides and West coast offer many examples of how new dwellings have been successfully integrated into the surrounding landscape via a low impact approach, some examples are provided below. As this is a subjective matter, we urge members to review the LVA and come to their own conclusions on whether a dwelling or a suitably designed low impact dwelling could be accommodated on the site without negatively impacting the surrounding landscape. The local authority acknowledged resourcing was a factor in the delay in determining the application, “Resourcing issues at the time of the application are in part accountable for the delays in determining the application”, consequently we can only infer that a lack of suitable resourcing was also an issue in terms of hindering the adoption of a collective working approach towards a constructive solution to overcome the perceived site challenges.
Page 4
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 4 of 20 Other Matters Within the statement of case, it is stated that: “Members should note that the quote from LDP Policy 02 provided by the appellant is factually incorrect and appears to be from a version of LDP2 that was not adopted.” We wish to highlight that there is some change to the wording of this policy, which has been revised within our statement appended below, however the intent of the policy and the point raised remains. Further to this an LVA was provided regardless of the quotation. The Renewable Generation Site Plan (drawing reference 4865-02-308) was from a previous iteration of proposals not put forward by the applicant, accidentally appended to the local review body submission and not being sought within this application. Approved applications It is stated that: “Moreover, the sites indicated are located some distance away from the appeal site and therefore are materially different to the site circumstances involved with the present case.” The principal of the decision of two approved applications within the Countryside Development Management Zone are both relevant regardless of the short distance from the site; in that the applications were not adjacent to any settlement boundary had similar landscaping impacts and were approved despite significant challenges regarding sustainability, impact on the historical environment and access issues. Weighing of Policies National Planning Framework 4 was adopted on 13th February 2023 and replaces the previous National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy. Where there are conflicts between the local development plans and NPF4, the policies of NPF4 will be afforded greater weight in the decision-making process. The purpose of NPF4 is to guide spatial development in Scotland by setting out national planning policies, designating national developments and highlight regional spatial priorities. The case officer places a significant emphasis on a single and subjective Local Plan Policy as the primary reason to refuse the application. Within the statement of case, it is noted that: “The planning authority considers the determining issue in relation to the case to be the effect of proposal on the landscape character and appearance of the surrounding area.” The case officer also intimates the application has been assessed as a whole, however there does not appear to be an assessment of the site against the 33 policies of the National Planning Framework 4. “…it is considered that none of the points raised by the appellant (including reference to the housing emergency) outweigh the conflict with the development plan when assessed a whole.” When a qualitative assessment of the site is undertaken against NPF4, the proposal objectively complies with every policy of NPF4 that is applicable to development of this nature.
Page 5
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 5 of 20 National Planning Framework Policy Not applicable Complies Does Not Comply Sustainable Places 1. Tackling Climate Change 2. Climate Mitigation and Adaption 3. Biodiversity 4. Natural Places 5. Soils 6. Forestry, Woodland and Trees 7. Historic Assets and Places 8. Green Belts 9. Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land 10. Coastal Development 11. Energy 12. Zero Waste 13. Sustainable Transport Liveable Places 14. Design, Quality and Place 15. Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods 16. Quality Homes 17. Rural Homes 18. Infrastructure First 19. Heat and Cooling 20. Blue and Green Infrastructure 21. Play, Recreation and Sport 22. Flood Risk and Water Management 23. Health and Safety 24. Digital Infrastructure Productive Places 25. Community Wealth Building 26. Business and Industry 27. City, Town, Local and Commercial Centres 28. Retail 29. Rural Development 30. Tourism 31. Culture and Creativity 32. Aquaculture 33. Minerals ABDC Local Development Plan 2 – Policy 02 Subjectively determined by the case officer When assessed against National Planning Framework 4 as a whole, the site clearly offers a sustainable development opportunity. Despite earlier rebuttals the appellant aims to work with the local authority to overcome any perceived landscaping challenges. We respectfully request members support this application for the creation of a new home on the island which, will in turn free up another existing island property. The creation of a new sustainable and energy efficient home will contribute to supporting a fragile and diminishing island community.
Page 6
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 6 of 20 LTR-4865-2025.06.17 The Local Review Body, Committee Services, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT 17th June 2025 REF: 24/00770/PPP Site for the erection of dwellinghouse Land South East Of High Tor Cottage, Scalasaig, Isle of Colonsay, Argyll and Bute Introduction We wish to appeal against the decision of the Argyll and Bute Council Planning Department to refuse planning Application 24/00770/PPP, site for the erection of a dwellinghouse. There have been no concerns raised by consultees and no substantive neighbour concerns regarding the application. Delayed Decision The ePlanning website which all applications must be submitted through states: “In most cases, planning applications are decided within 2 months. For unusually large or complex applications the time limit is 4 months. For these types of applications, Planning Authorities should offer to enter into a processing agreement with developers which provides certainty and a project managed approach to decision making. If the decision takes longer, you can appeal.” The above referenced application was accepted on the 26th of April 2024, a decision was not forthcoming until 21st of March 2025, a wait of nearly eleven months in total and therefore a delay of almost nine months. Application History As the application site borders the local settlement boundary a request for a Pre-Application Advice Report was submitted to the Local Authority. The local authority report concluded that: “The application site may be considered appropriate to accommodate the development of a single detached dwellinghouse of relatively modest scale, and of similar orientation and design to the dwellinghouses fronting the main access road.”
Page 7
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 7 of 20 And that: “A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment may be required to assess what the proposed development would look like integrated within this site”. Whilst stating that an LVIA may be required, when read in context, the language did not suggest the LVIA would be a fundamental or determining factor. On balance the terminology within the Pre-Application Advice Report encouraged a formal submission which required a meaningful investment from the applicant, in the preparation of the initial Planning documents and further subsequent information submissions, including topographical surveys, Planning Fees, and subsequent Landscape Visual Impact Assessment initially thought to only be a possible requirement. Similarly, Local Authority sustainability checklists TN06 & TN07 were submitted alongside the Planning application. Their acceptance by the Planning Department indicated there was no recognisable sustainability issues with the site. No access, services or sustainability issues were raised during the determination process by any consultees, consulted by the Local Authority during the determination period. Landscape Visual Impact Assessment The information submitted within the LVIA illustrated that there will be no adverse visual impact from a single new dwelling located within the application site. Further to this, the LVIA illustrated that is possible to mitigate the loss of the non-native fir trees, by replicating the landscape feature, on the opposite side of the site and achieve a net biodiversity gain through the provision of native trees and shrubs.
Page 8
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 8 of 20 The LVIA also illustrated that the characterisation of the area by the Planning Department was not as precise and ordered as suggested - access to the existing dwellings at Glassard varies from above and below the road and development northwest of the site at Clachan Calltuin, Ferry View and An Taigh Geal is two plots deep. The pattern is also replicated to the east of the development at 7, 8 and 8a Glassard. However, this is a moot point, as the location of any new dwelling can be aligned with the existing settlement pattern and building line, established by Fasgadh Nan Chraobhan, retaining the single plot deep pattern typical of Glassard.
Page 9
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 9 of 20 Reasons for Refusal The following reason for refusal was given within the Refusal Notice issued by the Planning Department. “The visually prominent application site currently makes a positive contribution to the landscape character and appearance of the surrounding area. Residential development of the site would undermine this positive contribution, resulting in a pattern of development that is out of keeping with that in the surrounding area. As a consequence, the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the landscape character and appearance of the surrounding area, and therefore would be contrary to LDP2 policy 02, 04h), 05, 08, NPF4 Policy 4a, 14 and 17 which are of most relevance to this matter.” LDP2 Policy 05 relates to Design and Placemaking, and Policy 08 to Sustainable Siting. As an application for planning permission in principle no detailed design has been put forward at this stage. Although good quality design can not only mitigate any concerns but enhance a site this view was not shared by the planning department in their statement that. “I acknowledge that it is planning permission in principle that is sought at this stage. However, I am not convinced a detailed design could overcome the concerns.” and their refusal to work with the applicant on the suitable design and siting of any proposals. LDP2 Policy 02 states that: “Outwith the Settlement Areas shown on the proposals map, development will only be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that it accords with: • An allocation of this plan. • parts A, B or C as set out below, and • all other relevant policies of the LDP2 A – Countryside Areas Within the Countryside Areas there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant subject policies. In particular, the following types of development will be supported by the council, generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments, although such may still be required where there is evidence of any environmental risk: Infill; or Rounding off; or” As the application site is within a designated countryside area, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was submitted in good faith, at the applicant’s expense, despite the proposals ability to be generally regarded as either infill or rounding off.
Page 10
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 10 of 20 LDP2 Policy 04h states that: In preparing new development proposals, developers should seek to demonstrate the following sustainable development principles, which the planning authority will also use in deciding whether or not to grant planning permission: h) Conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and built heritage resources. and has been cited as a primary justification for the refusal. However, the site forms a raised area of rocky ground that is not suitable for agricultural, has no recognised biodiversity resources and does not affect any existing natural or built heritage resources. Yet the Planning Department overweighs the conservation of non-native fir trees, the main landscape feature within the site against first objective of Policy 04: a) Maximise the opportunity for local community benefit. by missing another opportunity to help sustain a dwindling community and enable a resident who, whilst living in rented accommodation, runs businesses on the Island and has, for many years, been a cornerstone of a community where the need for new housing is clear. Planning Precedents It should be noted that the LPD2 Plan of Glassard does not align with comments of the Planning Department. It does not include the neighbouring dwelling of Fasgadh Nan Chraobhan within the settlement boundary, with this property located in designated countryside area. Extract from LPD2 illustrating the land designation of Fasgadh Nan Chraobhan Likewise, the LPD2 plan extends the settlement pattern to the south of the road opposite Glebe Cottage and further southwest at The Surgery, Scalasaig. It is assumed that a proposal South of the road located in the settlement boundary within these areas would be supported by the Planning Department. Extract from LPD2 illustrating the land designation South of the site
Page 11
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 11 of 20 LPD2 Policy 02 has also been cited as a primary justification for refusal of the application despite Policy 02 supporting sustainable development. The red square, below, indicates the approximate location of the Application, 24/00770/PPP, which has been refused due to the statement that: “The visually prominent application site currently makes a positive contribution to the landscape character and appearance of the surrounding area”. Extract from LPD2 illustrating the land designation and approximate locations of the recently approved sites in blue and the application refused in red. However, since 2021 at least two planning applications for new dwelling houses have been approved, highlighted in blue in the above extract, by the Planning Department within the “Countryside Development Management Zone” on similarly prominent sites on the Island, which are adjacent to and will impact historic and ancient monuments. Reference 21/01035/PPP – Application Approved Address Land Northeast of Milbuie North Isle of Colonsay Argyll and Bute Description Site for the erection of dwellinghouse Reference 22/00307/PPP – Application Approved Address Land Northeast of Milbuie North (Plot 4) Isle of Colonsay Argyll and Bute Description Site for the erection of dwellinghouse The Local Authority Planning website highlights the four approved applications are located south of Cnoc na Faire Mor.
Page 12
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 12 of 20 Extract from the Local Authority planning website. The following extract from the Canmore website illustrates that there are no ancient or historical sites adjacent to refused application site, 24/00770/PPP. However, the aforementioned applications were approved despite their impact on heritage resources. Extract from Canmore website. In their stakeholder letter of June 2024 the Chief Planning Officer stated that: “The Scottish Ministers have continued to reinforce that policies in NPF4 should be read and applied as a whole and that conflicts between policies are normal and to be expected. The planning system requires decision makers to weigh up all relevant policies, for example, quality homes, brownfield development and town centre living, as well as relevant material considerations in applying balanced planning judgement (section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1997, as amended). The introduction of NPF4 has not changed this.” The refusal of application 24/00770/PPP does not show a balanced planning judgement and appears to give more weight to LDP2 Policy 02 than other policies within the local development plan whilst not allowing the applicant the opportunity to show how the minimal impacts may be mitigated against.
Page 13
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 13 of 20 Determination Process Due to staff shortages, the Area Team Leader was responsible for undertaking the determination of this application. We believe this is not a suitable or practicable arrangement for the determination of applications through ‘delegated powers’, as it removes the management structure that permits the output of the Area Planning Department to be viewed and checked by a ‘second pair of eyes’ on what is clearly a subjective judgement call. Differences of opinion can occur, especially in discretionary decisions, as evidenced by the significant change of position of the Planning Department from the Pre-Application Advice Report to the Application Determination in this instance. Ultimately, the Area Team Leader is responsible for all output of the Area Planning Department, and it is only reasonable to expect that significant changes in opinion, of this nature, should not occur in what should be a linear and easily determinable process. Summary The application has been refused on the subjective concerns of the Planning Department, regarding landscaping. Previous applications, arguably more controversial, have been approved that show a more balanced planning judgement in weighing up all relevant policies, in accordance with the Chief Planners guidance. However, the Planning Department has refused to work with the applicant to come to a solution that would mitigate any concerns whilst strengthening a fragile local community during a ‘Housing Emergency’ announced by the Local Authority in June 2023. It is hoped that the Local Review Body will take these points onboard and support an opportunity to help sustain a dwindling community and enable a local resident to make a permanent home on the island.
Page 14
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 14 of 20 From: Bowker, Bryn To: Dante Lopez; Alan MacDonald Cc: Martin WINLOW; Alan MacDonald Subject: RE: 4865 <24/00770/PPP> - Extension of Time Letter [OFFICIAL] Date: 08 November 2024 13:52:07 Classification: OFFICIAL Afternoon Dante, Thank you for the email. As I mentioned, I am not convinced a detailed design could overcome the concerns. So no, I am not convinced there is a design solution to resolve the concerns raised. Kind regards, Bryn From: Dante Lopez < Sent: 06 November 2024 15:18 To: Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Alan MacDonald < Cc: Martin WINLOW ; Alan MacDonald Subject: RE: 4865 <24/00770/PPP> - Extension of Time Letter [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Good afternoon Bryn, Thank you for your response, however for the avoidance of doubt, my query did not relate to the category of Planning application. I wish to know - is there any design solution that will resolve the concerns you have raised? Thank you, Dante Lopez, Partner Bracewell Stirling Consulting CHARTERED ARCHITECTS 15 Lochside Street, Oban, PA34 4HP | Also at: 38 Walker Terrace, Tillicoultry, FK13 6EF and 5 Ness Bank, Inverness, IV2 4SF RIAS Chartered Practice | ISO 9001, 14001 & 45001 Registered Firm | Building Standards Section 6 Certifier of Design | Passive House Designer
Page 15
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 15 of 20 From: Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: 06 November 2024 14:09 To: Dante Lopez ; Alan MacDonald > Cc: Martin WINLOW ; Alan MacDonald > Subject: RE: 4865 <24/00770/PPP> - Extension of Time Letter [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Afternoon Dante, I acknowledge that it is planning permission in principle that is sought at this stage. However, I am not convinced a detailed design could overcome the concerns. Many thanks, Bryn From: Dante Lopez < Sent: 29 October 2024 08:53 To: Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Alan MacDonald Cc: Martin WINLOW < ; Alan MacDonald uk> Subject: RE: 4865 <24/00770/PPP> - Extension of Time Letter [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Good morning Bryn, Thank you for your email and for considering the additional infromation. Can you please confirm that you do not believe there is a suitable design and landscaping solution that will overcome these concerns ? Regards, Dante Lopez, Partner Bracewell Stirling Consulting CHARTERED ARCHITECTS 15 Lochside Street, Oban, PA34 4HP | Also at: 38 Walker Terrace, Tillicoultry, FK13 6EF and 5 Ness Bank, Inverness, IV2 4SF RIAS Chartered Practice | ISO 9001, 14001 & 45001 Registered Firm | Building Standards Section 6 Certifier of Design | Passive House Designer
Page 16
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 16 of 20 From: Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: 28 October 2024 15:05 To: Dante Lopez Alan MacDonald Cc: Martin WINLOW ; Alan MacDonald Subject: RE: 4865 <24/00770/PPP> - Extension of Time Letter [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Afternoon Dante, Thank you for the below email and documentation, and for your phone call last week. Apologies about the delayed response. Unfortunately from your client’s perspective, the attached do not overcome the landscape related concerns I have, which I believe is a sufficient basis to justify refusing planning permission for the proposal. As you will know, you do have the right to appeal any potential refusal, so that could be one route forward for your client. I would be grateful if you could please inform me of whether you would like a decision issued on the planning application. Many thanks, Bryn From: Dante Lopez < Sent: 25 September 2024 14:33 To: Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Alan MacDonald Cc: Martin WINLOW ; Alan MacDonald Subject: RE: 4865 <24/00770/PPP> - Extension of Time Letter [OFFICIAL] Good afternoon Bryn, Thank you for your response. Please see attached infromation concerning the Visual Impact Illustrations. Appreciate you are busy but would appreciate your thoughts on the submitted documents and if possible the opportunity to discuss further. Yours faithfully, Dante Lopez, Partner Bracewell Stirling Consulting CHARTERED ARCHITECTS 15 Lochside Street, Oban, PA34 4HP | Also at: 38 Walker Terrace, Tillicoultry, FK13 6EF and 5 Ness Bank, Inverness, IV2 4SF RIAS Chartered Practice | ISO 9001, 14001 & 45001 Registered Firm | Building Standards Section 6 Certifier of Design | Passive House Designer
Page 17
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 17 of 20 From: Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: 09 August 2024 16:56 To: Alan MacDonald > Cc: Dante Lopez < > Subject: RE: 4865 <24/00770/PPP> - Extension of Time Letter [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Afternoon Alan, Please accept my apologies for the delayed response, due to intervening annual leave and being required to cover staffing shortage alongside my day to day role. In terms of the pre-application advice, I note that the advice provided noted that the application site may be considered appropriate, and it notes also that a Visual Impact Assessment may be required to assess what the proposed development would look like. With regards to elaborating on my concerns: The raised profile and trees/vegetation of the site currently marks the termination of dwellings being sited to the east of the B8087/i.e the site naturally terminates development at Glassard. Development then switches to the western side of the B8087. Development at and around the site is typically one plot deep. Overall, the pattern of development and the positive role the site currently has as a landscape feature helps creates a pleasant spacious and ordered character along this part of the bay, appreciable from the surrounding area. In my view, based on the submitted documentation, I am concerned that the proposed development would materially harm the character and appearance of the area described above, and undermine the positive contribution the site currently makes. Many thanks, Bryn
Page 18
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 18 of 20 From: Alan MacDonald > Sent: 04 July 2024 17:58 To: Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Cc: Planning.Maki <planning.maki@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Dante Lopez < > Subject: 4865 <24/00770/PPP> - Extension of Time Letter [OFFICIAL] Good afternoon. Thank you for your frank response. Given the initial positive response within the pre-application advice report to the accommodation of a single detached dwelling upon the site I am somewhat surprised by your concerns regarding the effect of the proposals upon the surrounding area. I appreciate you believe the concerns may not be addressed within an AMSC submission, however, we are confident that any concerns could be overcome through novel collaborative design with the planning authority. Given that you are out of the office until the 22nd of July I hope that you may be able to elaborate on your concerns beforehand, so that we may respond to your request in a meaningful way in a reasonable period of time. I look forward to hearing from you. Regards Alan MacDonald Technologist Bracewell Stirling Consulting CHARTERED ARCHITECTS 15 Lochside Street, Oban, PA34 4HP T Also at: Tillicoultry: 38 Walker Terrace, Tillicoultry, FK13 6EF Inverness: 5 Ness Bank, Inverness, IV2 4SF RIAS Chartered Practice | ISO 9001, 14001 & 45001 Registered Firm | Building Standards Section 6 Certifier of Design | Passive House Designer
Page 19
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 19 of 20 From: Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2024 5:20 PM To: Alan MacDonald < Cc: Planning.Maki <planning.maki@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Dante Lopez < > Subject: RE: 4865 <24/00770/PPP> - Extension of Time Letter [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Alan, Thank you for the below and sorry for the delay with the application. I can confirm that the delay is owing to resourcing issues from the Planning Authority. Having reviewed the file and following my site visit, I wanted to set out (to avoid any surprises) that I do have some concerns regarding the effect the proposal would have on the landscape character and appearance of the surrounding area. This is an area that requires further attention, although being open, my initial impression is that I am not convinced the concern I have could be addressed in any AMSC submission. In terms of a way forward, although I cannot guarantee the landscape related concerns could be overcome, I would be happy to review any further submission you may wish to make in respect of landscape character, be it visual impact illustrations or a light touch LVIA, or rough sketches of any design you had in mind for the proposed dwelling. Please note that I am out of office now until July 22nd , so I will send out a proactive extension to the determination period which is deemed to be have accepted unless you object to it in writing. Many thanks, Bryn
Page 20
OBAN 8 High Street, Oban, PA34 4BG Page 20 of 20 From: Alan MacDonald Sent: 26 June 2024 09:21 To: Bowker, Bryn <bryn.bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Cc: Planning.Maki <planning.maki@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Dante Lopez Subject: 4865 24/00770/PPP - Extension of Time Letter Your Ref: 24/00770/PPP Good morning, Mr Bowker Thank you for passing through a request for an extension to the determination period. To allow the applicant to make an informed decision; given that the Planning Authority are unable to determine the application in the allotted time, may we respectfully ask if this is due to resourcing issues relating to the whole department or if, in the eyes of the department, the application warrants further attention? As the determination period has passed may we also ask if the planning department are minded to support the application and whether there may be further information we are able to supply to aid the determination? Thank you for your time. Regards Alan MacDonald Technologist Bracewell Stirling Consulting CHARTERED ARCHITECTS 15 Lochside Street, Oban, PA34 4HP T Also at: Tillicoultry: 38 Walker Terrace, Tillicoultry, FK13 6EF Inverness: 5 Ness Bank, Inverness, IV2 4SF RIAS Chartered Practice | ISO 9001, 14001 & 45001 Registered Firm | Building Standards Section 6 Certifier of Design | Passive House Designer