24 00770 PPP LPA LRB Statement_Redacted
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.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
1 STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR SITE FOR THE ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE, LAND SOUTH EAST OF HIGH TOR COTTAGE, SCALASAIG, ISLE OF COLONSAY PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 24/00770/PPP LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 25/0005/LRB 2ND JUNE 2025
Page 2
2 STATEMENT OF CASE The planning authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr Martin Winlow (‘the appellant’). The planning application, reference number 24/00770/PPP, site for the erection of dwellinghouse at land south east of High Tor Cottage, Scalasaig (“the appeal site”) was refused under delegated powers on the 21st March 2025. The planning application has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is the test for this application. STATEMENT OF CASE 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 Report of Handling (attached) sets out the Council’s assessment of the application in terms of Development Plan policy and other material considerations. REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING It is considered that no new material information has been raised in the appellants’ submission. The issues raised were covered in the Report of Handling which is contained in Appendix 1. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. Given the above and that the proposal is small-scale, has no complex or challenging issues and has not been the subject of significant body of conflicting representation, then it is considered that a Hearing is not required. COMMENT ON APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSION Having regard to the detailed reasons for requesting the review set out in in the appellants’ submission the following points are noted: 1. The decision took nearly 11 months in total. Resourcing issues at the time of the application are in part accountable for the delays in determining the application. The case officer
Page 3
3 communicated landscape related concerns to the applicant on 04.07.24 by email (appendix 2). The email set out that the case officer would be happy to review any further submission in this respect, although it noted it cannot guarantee it would overcome the raised concern. A proportion of the remaining of period of time prior to refusal of planning permission in principle included the case officer setting out the landscape related concern and the likely recommendation, with additional documentation and a rebuttal both provided by the applicant. The delays associated with the proposal are unfortunate but do not justify the harm and associated planning policy conflict identified in the Report of Handling and Decision Notice. 2. The pre-application advice stated an LVIA may be required and that on balance the advice encouraged a formal submission. Based on the advice provided, the appellant would have been aware that the topic of landscape could require assessment in any planning application, with related planning policies cited. When read as a whole, it is considered that the pre-application advice does not raise any notable concern (other than Roads’ consultee comments) to the proposal, but neither does it go as far as to encourage submission of a formal application. Moreover, as the pre-application response notes ‘The information represents the informal view of the planning officer and is given without prejudice to the outcome of any planning application submitted in respect of the above development.’ 3. The information submitted within the LVIA illustrates there will be no adverse visual impact. The planning authority carefully considered the additional documentation submitted at the application stage and noted that planning permission was solely sought. However, 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. Nothing the appellant has set out in the appeal submission alters this concern nor overrides identified development plan policy conflict. A detailed explanation is set out in the Report of Handling (see appendix 1) which weighed in the overall balance matters raised by the applicant in support of the proposal. None of the points raised were considered to outweigh the harm identified and associated planning policy concern. 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. This assertion is respectfully rejected, noting that the case officer was open with the applicant regarding landscape related concerns and the
Page 4
4 inability to guarantee that such concerns could be overcome, as set out above (see appendix 2). 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/i.e. from the version that was submitted for examination. Members are respectfully advised to base their assessment on policy from the LDP2 as adopted and not the version provided by the appellant. It is not considered that the proposal is rounding off, noting it would be sited beyond a visually distinguishable landscape feature and with open land further to the immediate south west along the coast side of the public road. Moreover, LDP2 Policy 02 does not state that infill or rounding off will not require a landscape and visual impact assessment, and for to such development types notes ‘will be supported by the council generally without the need for detailed environmental assessment, although such may still be required where there is evidence of any environmental risk’ (officer’s emphasis). Furthermore, Policy 02 is clear that a landscape and visual impact assessment may be required and that matters of appropriate scale, design and siting are considerations in assessing development in a countryside area. OTHER MATTERS The appeal submission includes a Renewable Generation Site Plan (drawing reference 4865-020308 Rev B) which appears to propose a wind turbine. Members should be aware that this plan nor a wind turbine did not appear to have submitted as part of the planning application. Inclusion of this at the appeal stage would represent a material amendment to the planning application as submitted. As such, it is respectfully recommended that such an amendment is not accepted. The appellant refers to four planning applications that have been approved that are ‘within the “Countryside Development Management Zone” on similarly prominent sites on the Island, which are adjacent to and will impact historic and ancient monuments.’ In the interests of clarity, respectfully this is factually incorrect; members should be aware that two of the applications cited (22/00305/PPP and 22/00306/PPP) appear to have been withdrawn and not approved as stated. The remaining two applications cited were determined prior to the adoption of LDP2. 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. Importantly, each case must be assessed on its own individual merits. The appellant considers the decision does not show a balanced planning judgement and appears to give more weight to LDP2 Policy 02. Policy 02 is important to assessing the principle of the proposed development in a countryside area. Moreover, the proposal has been assessed against the relevant policies of the development plan taken as a whole. In the overall decision, it is considered that none of the points raised by the appellant
Page 5
5 (including reference to the housing emergency) outweigh the conflict with the development plan when assessed a whole. CONCLUSION Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 requires that all decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposed development would be in conflict with the relevant provisions of the development plan when taken as a whole, and there are no material circumstances to indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Taking account of the above, it is respectfully requested that the appeal be dismissed. Appended documents: Report of Handling Correspondence between case officer and appellant.
Page 6
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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: 24/00770/PPP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Martin Winlow Proposal: Site for the erection of dwellinghouse Site Address: Land South East High-Tor-Cottage, Scalasaig, Isle of Colonsay, Argyll and Bute, PA61 7YW DECISION ROUTE ☒Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☐Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of dwellinghouse (ii) Other specified operations • (Insert details) (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material consideration, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Roads and Amenity Services: No objections subject to conditions. Scottish Water: No objections. Note the development would be fed from Colonsay Water Treatment Works (unable to confirm current capacity) and that there is no Waster Water infrastructure within the vicinity of the proposed development. (D) HISTORY: Of most relevance:
Page 7
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 23/01310/PREAPP, advice provided 12.09.2023. (E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application (expiry 06.06.24) & Neighbour Notification (expiry 23.05.25). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: - Mrs Sheena Nisbet, An Taigh Geal, Scalasaig. - Dr Michele Burnam, Fasgadh Nan Chraobham Glassard, Isle of Colonsay. - Donald Carmichael, 1 Glassard Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: • The site is used as a soak away for nearby property. Comment: Based on the available evidence and comments submitted, this would not be a matter that would justify withholding planning permission in principle for. Further details regarding proposed drainage arrangements could be secured by planning condition. • Proposal breaks with tradition on that side of the island with no properties overlooking another one. • Concerns regarding overshadowing and noise in relation to the siting of the double garage. • Concerns regarding parking and the resultant effect this would have on neighbouring amenity and unofficial passing place/road safety • There is limited information in the planning application so we are unable to discern whether it would cause overshadowing. Comment: Planning permission in principle is sought at this stage. Taking into account the separation distances involved from neighbouring properties, it is considered that a detailed design could be secured at a later stage which would not result in a materially adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring occupants. • The site is frequented by wild goats, a buzzard and hen harrier. • There are other areas on the island where building would not break with tradition and cause less wildlife disturbance. Comment: The site is not within or near to any ecological designation. Limited evidence has been submitted by respondents to demonstrate the likely presence of protected species at the site. Subject to planning conditions (including to secure a Tree Protection Plan and biodiversity enhancement measures) it is considered that there is no justifiable ecological basis to withhold planning permission. • Would be concerned if commercial activities were to take place.
Page 8
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Comment: Planning permission is sought for a residential dwelling. As such, commercial activities do not form part of the proposed development. • The site location is described incorrectly. The proposal should be considered as an extension of the planned settlement of Glassard the character of which should be safeguarded on terms of landscape and building design. Planning conditions need to go further than simply stating ‘one and a half storey.’ Comments: The description of the site location has not prevented a satisfactory assessment of the proposed development. Landscape related matters are assessed further below. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert EIAR topics below) (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes attach as an appendix) (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: The application is accompanied by a Supporting Statement. The Supporting Statement sets out the planning, site appraisal, design and sustainability context of the proposed development. ☒Yes ☐No (if Yes insert summary of key issues below) (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☒Yes ☐No (if Yes list supporting documents below) The submission is also accompanied by a documentation regarding the landscape and visual effect of the proposal. This includes a Visual Baseline, Landscape Character Assessment, a Proposed Landscape Character Assessment, and Mitigation and Enhancement.
Page 9
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details of the terms and heads of agreement and, grounds for refusal if not completed within 4 months below) (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details of direction below) (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste 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 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking
Page 10
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 06 – Green Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Connected Places Policy 33 – Public Transport Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Local Development Plan 2 Schedules (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note 3 – Houses in Multiple Occupation (April 2019) • 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 Landscape Studies • ABC Housing Needs and Demand Assessment • ABC Housing Emergency Statement (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes confirm date of screening opinion and reference below) (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes provide summary detail of PAC below)
Page 11
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes provide detail below) (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details below) (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • N/A (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Class 4.20 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 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 ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☐Settlement Area ☒Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Planning permission in principle is sought for the erection of a dwelling house, at land south east of High Tor Cottage, to the north east of Scalasaig. The proposed site would be located
Page 12
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL to the south of the B8087, south east of High Tor, and to the south west of Fasgadh Nan Craobha. The submitted General Development Layout Plan indicates potential build areas for the proposed dwelling. Principle Of relevance, NPF4 Policy 9b sets out that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by LDP policies. Policy 17c ‘Rural Homes’ states that development proposals for new homes in remote rural areas will be supported where the proposal supports and sustains existing fragile communities, supports identified local housing outcomes and is suitable in terms of location, access and environmental impact. For planning purposes, the site is located within the Countryside, and as such LDP2 Policy 02 applies. Whilst it is not considered that the proposal comprises infill or rounding off development, LDP2 Policy 02 nonetheless gives 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 such as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP 2. Courtesy out NPF4 Policy 15 (Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods) and LDP2 Policy 08 are also relevant, and in summary and combined seek to ensure that development contributes to local living and is within easy access of existing infrastructure and services. As Scalasaig is a short distance from the site and contains services and facilities that future occupants could utilise and support, the proposal would accord with these policies. Subject to consideration of the matters set out below, the proposal would be acceptable in principle. Landscape character & appearance The raised profile and trees/vegetation of the site currently marks the termination of dwellings being sited to the east of the B8087 and effectively terminates development at Glassard. South of the site towards the shoreline consists of raised exposed rocky outcrops, which continues along the shore to the southwest, to the front of nearby residential properties. The site is strongly visually associated to this landscape context. In contrast, the shoreline to the front of properties at Glassard is more gently sloped which further visually distinguishes development and landscape character at Glassard from the application site. In terms of development pattern, the site occupies a location wherein the development pattern (beginning with High Tor) is to the western side of the B8087 (i.e, not in front of the road along the exposed elevated shoreline). Development here is in the main one plot deep. Overall, the pattern of development in the locality and the positive role the existing site has as a landscape feature defining and maintaining this pattern combine to create a spacious and ordered character along the bay, appreciable from the surrounding area. The submissions made by the applicant propose the retention of significant trees within the site and set out that a landscaping strategy would allow screening and integration to the wider area. It is also proposed that non-native planting at the site (with a naturally limited life span) would be replaced with native planting. It is understood that the scale of development would be similar to or lower than that of the surrounding dwellings, and that the dwelling could be sited in line with adjacent development. It is also noted that the site is not located within a designated landscape designation, and at this stage solely planning permission in principle is sought, with detailed design matters to be considered at a later stage.
Page 13
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL The applicant notes that the settlement boundary encompasses land to the south of B8087 opposite Glebe Cottage and The Surgery. However, it does not necessarily follow that the principle of housing development would be acceptable at the noted areas because of its presence within the settlement boundary; any potential proposal would be assessed on its own merits, with landscape and visual effect being a key determinative consideration. Having carefully considered the additional documentation submitted by the applicant, it is considered that the application site in principle is incapable of accommodating a dwelling without having a materially adverse effect on the landscape character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reinforcing this view is the likely engineering works required to develop the uneven terrain of the site, alongside domestic garden paraphernalia that would likely be associated with the proposed house. The overall resultant harm of the residential development of the site would be noticeable from the wider area, given that the site is open and prominent. The proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the landscape character and appearance of the surrounding area. Consequently, it would be contrary to LDP2 policy 02, 04h), 05, 08, NPF4 Policy 4a, 14 and 17 which are of most relevance to this matter. Amenity of surrounding occupants Given the separation distances involved, and noting detailed design would be a matter for future consideration, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in a materially harmful effect on the amenity of neighbouring occupants. Roads Roads and Amenity Services have raised no objections to the proposed development subject to planning conditions. On this basis, the proposal raises no substantive concerns in respect of roads and parking provision, details of which could be secured by planning conditions. Supporting Infrastructure The proposed development would utilise public water supply to which Scottish Water have raised no objection. As the site is not located in an area served by a mains sewer, private drainage arrangements would be required. Such details could be secured by planning condition. Biodiversity The site is not near or within any protected ecological site nor is there any substantive evidence to indicate that the proposal would adversely affect protected species or protected ecological designations. Trees are on site but there is sufficient room to site a dwelling that would avoid tree loss. Planning conditions could be used to secure a Tree Protection Plan and to secure landscaping measures. Such landscaping measures would require the proposed development to secure biodiversity enhancement as required by NPF4 Policy 3c. Other Matters Based on SEPA’s Flood Risk Maps, a small part of the site to the south-west is subject to surface water flooding. This part of the site slopes down and away from the roadside. Accounting for site topography and the small area of flood risk involved, it is considered that surface water drainage matters could be appropriately addressed by planning condition.
Page 14
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL It is noted that the proposed development would be adjacent to an existing settlement, and future occupants would help support local shops and services. In addition, there is no reason to doubt that the dwelling could be designed to a very high standard and would comprise a modern low energy Passive home. The proposal would also help meet current demand for housing, particularly in the context of the Council declaring a housing emergency and no concerns have been raised by consultees. The applicant asserts that the pre-application advice received on balance encouraged the submission of a planning application. Such advice is provided without prejudice to the planning authority’s assessment of any subsequent formal planning application. It is noted that the pre-application advice provided did not raise any substantive concerns regarding residential development of the site, although it did note that a Visual Landscape Impact Assessment might be required to assess the proposed development. Additional landscape related documentation has been submitted as part of this planning application, which has not allayed concerns regarding the proposed development. Moreover, the planning authority must determine the application based on its own merits. The appellant asserts that the settlement boundary for Glassard is incorrect. However, the LDP2 has been independently examined, was found to be sound, and subsequently adopted by the Council. Moreover, the determination of a planning application does not provide the remit to amend a development plan settlement boundary for an area. Overall, the matters raised by the applicant in support of the proposal combined do not outweigh the harm and resultant policy conflict identified above in relation to landscape character and appearance, which justify planning permission in principle being refused for the proposed development. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Refused: The proposal is considered to be in conflict with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan when taken as whole, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act. As such, planning permission should be refused for the proposed development. (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 (If yes provide detail below) Author of Report: Bryn Bowker Date: 12.03.2025
Page 15
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Reviewing Officer: Peter Bain Date: 21.03.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 16
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. (Insert Application Ref.) (Copy Reasons into Uniform Decision Tab) 1. 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.
Page 17
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT (Copy Informative Notes to Uniform Decision Tab) • N/A
Page 18
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application: 24/00770/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 (Complete Uniform Reception, Plans Tab) (B) The reason why planning permission has been refused: The proposal is considered to be in conflict with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan when taken as whole, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act. As such, planning permission should be refused for the proposed development.
Page 19
No embedded text on this page.
Page 20
Thank you for your time. Regards Alan MacDonald Technologist Bracewell Stirling Consulting CHARTERED ARCHITECTS 15 Lochside Street, Oban, PA34 4HP 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 -----Original Message----- From: planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk <planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 3:24 PM To: Planning < Subject: 4865 24/00770/PPP - Extension of Time Letter Please see attached ________________________________ Argyll and Bute CouncilÂ’s e-mail system (also used by LiveArgyll) classifies the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classifications. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Argyll and Bute Council or LiveArgyll shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by them. All communications sent to or from Argyll and Bute Council or LiveArgyll may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.. This email has been scanned for viruses, vandals and malicious content. Argyll and Bute Council classify the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classifications. The adopted classifications are: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Non public sector business i.e. does not require protection.
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.