From Donald Carmichael
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
Classification: OFFICIAL From Donald Carmichael – 4 June 2025 Dear Fiona, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this review. I’m replying to the same copy list you used. Having considered the documents carefully, I cannot see that they fundamentally change the issues on which the Council presumably based its earlier decision to refuse the application. There may be points of detail that have been elaborated or clarified but the bigger issues remain the same. Significantly, the application still misconstrues the nature of these settlements. Glassard is a distinct, planned settlement. It was therefore previously infilled with very strict planning conditions on siting and design to maintain the precise character of the original village, including distinct boundaries. Scalasaig, to the South, has also been gradually infilled, albeit over a much longer timescale and with a greater variety of styles. It is therefore wrong to describe this general area as constituting a single ribbon development that is by default suitable for infilling. It is two separate settlements that have largely maintained their boundaries, while being infilled to varying degrees and in different ways - Glassard with a homogenous design and Scalasaig with more varied designs. Fasgadh was a contested application because it effectively extended Glassard as opposed to infilling it. There was therefore a site visit by Councillors to help determine the outcome. In deciding to grant that application, the visiting Councillors committed to maintain the same strict Glassard building guidelines and not to extend further South, by way of ribbon development on the shoreside of the road. That is why the land immediately south of Fasgadh is not included in the pink zone for potential development shown on the map. It is not an oversight! The gap serves a specific purpose, reflecting the Councillors’ decision. The zig-zag of the green line on the same map (the illustrative development line) is thus also misleading, implying a continuity where the intended objective was actually to maintain a separation. If, for the sake of argument, a new building was sited in this “no go zone”, would it be Glassard or would it be Scalasaig? The easiest way of deciding is probably by reference to its proximity to the Glassard buildings, the side of the road on which it lies, and its visual signature in the landscape. Most relevant is the proximity to Fasgadh and the fact that this would be on the
Page 2
Classification: OFFICIAL shoreside of the road, which only the Glassard buildings are. Most people would in practice see this as a ribbon development of Glassard. As to visual separation, that is a secondary issue here. Trees come and go and the existence of a small copse is neither permanent nor ultimately significant. The trees are ageing and several have come down in recent storms. Thinning them out proactively for access, while at the same time maintaining meaningful masking, would actually be very difficult, given how few of them there are. Against this background, the application misses the mark in illustrating the different building designs in Scalasaig, as though they were all potentially relevant to what would be a further extension of Glassard. It does not create a persuasive argument in favour of a Scalasaig design mix as opposed to the planned Glassard designs. Furthermore, on fundamental points of detail, the application does not specify either a precise design or location for the new building. There are several very different locations flagged within the site boundaries. While mention is made of a possible Glassard design, it also appears elsewhere in the documentation that they are looking for more of a free hand. This makes the potential end-result quite unpredictable. I don’t think this is reasonable, given the planning background. Another detail lacking clarity is the possible wind turbine. Its flicker footprint is mentioned but for most people it will be the noise that is the issue. Unlike others on the island, which are set well back from neighbouring buildings, this one would be very close to neighbouring housing. For this very quiet, rural setting it would be appropriate for the Council to use its discretionary powers to specify a very quiet turbine, at the very least in line with the WHO night time guidelines for uninterrupted sleep. The PDR day time threshold would be quite inappropriate for this near silent domestic setting. It’s not an area of active commercial or agricultural machine activity with an elevated baseline of background noise. The baseline to which the nearby residents are accustomed is the birds, the breeze and the passing ferry! Standing back from the history of the settlements and the planning background, visual amenity is probably the most important general consideration for this particular site. The design issues are in theory easy enough to address, but the position in the landscape is not. The application includes a photo. It illustrates the problems quite well. The view across to Jura for all passers-by is spectacular (much more-so than the photo shows). This sets it apart from many potential sites on the island with attractive but less exceptional views. A building here would be highly intrusive - a bit like deliberately spoiling the view from a beauty spot, since the road is actually the viewing point. Specifically, the new development would sit proud on a shoulder of land. It would be right in the line of sight. By contrast, the Glassard buildings are tucked away below the road and line of sight, following a natural, inset curve in the landscape. Fasgadh is closer to road level but it sits to the side of that same shoulder and its visual impact is masked by the ridge line running down from the shoulder to the sea. They
Page 3
Classification: OFFICIAL are all “buildings in their landscape” and not detracting from their landscape. This new one would therefore create a very different visual impact, even if following the Glassard building design. Similarly the Scalasaig buildings protect the same roadside views by virtue of being on the upper side of the road. In summary, a development here would be at odds with previous, intentional Council decisions to protect the Glassard boundaries and to exclude this specific area from infill or ribbon development; and it would be an insensitive intrusion in this particular landscape setting. The recent development of housing in Colonsay has been very welcome and long overdue. It illustrates that there is the will and the means to provide additional housing, and it is good that more is to follow. However, this is a general socio- economic argument, not an argument for siting one particular building in an inappropriate location that Councillors have previously ruled out. These two issues should not be confused. Both can be satisfied with a different choice of location. I don’t see anything in the application that gives a good reason for overturning earlier decisions not to develop here. I feel that doing so would be questionable. I have probably repeated my previous correspondence but I trust this is nonetheless helpful. Kind regards Donald Carmichael