01282 Statement of Case.doc
Argyll and Bute Council · 11 March 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 11 March 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Classification: OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 25/0002/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION 24/01282/PP CHANGE OF USE OF ANNEXE TO SHORT TERM LETTING ACCOMMODATION GLENAROS ANNEXE, DRUMMORE ROAD, OBAN 3 FEBRUARY 2025
Page 2
Classification: OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF CASE The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr Ross Maitland (“the appellant”). Planning permission 24/01282/PP for the change of use of annexe to short term letting accommodation within the garden ground of Glenaros, Drummore Road, Oban (“the appeal site”) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on 7 November 2024. The planning application has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The annexe building is located along the eastern boundary of the dwellinghouse, comprising a single storey, mono pitched modular structure finished in timber cladding with a metal roof providing open plan living/sleeping space with a separate shower room. Whilst it is accepted that the annexe building does not raise any adverse privacy, amenity or visual impact issues, or result in the loss of useable residential accommodation, a suitable access regime to serve the proposed development cannot be achieved. The development constitutes a material intensification of the use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing access road, if achievable, is located outwith the application site boundary and is not within the acknowledged legal ownership/control of the applicant. Consequently, it was considered likely that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety and therefore planning permission was refused. 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. STATEMENT OF CASE Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issues in relation to the case are as follows: • Whether the proposed development constitutes a material intensification of the vehicular use of a sub-standard private road with no delineation between pedestrian or vehicular use and whether the upgrade of the private access can be achieved on land within the ownership/control of the Applicant. The Report of Handling (Appendix 1) sets out the Council’s full assessment of the application in terms of Development Plan policy and other material considerations.
Page 3
Classification: OFFICIAL REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING 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 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 any significant public representation, it is not considered that a Hearing is required. COMMENT ON APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION The case from the Planning Service is set out in the Report of Handling appended to this statement. With regards to the Appellant’s submission, Officers have the following comments. Planning permission reference 22/01765/PP was applied for and granted to provide ancillary accommodation to serve the incidental accommodation needs of the dwellinghouse, with no commercial element indicated, with the purpose of the annexe effectively to provide overspill accommodation to serve the existing dwellinghouse. At the time when the planning application the subject of the current LRB was submitted, seeking to secure permission to change the use of the annexe to allow it to be used for short term letting purposes, the Council as Roads Authority recommended refusal due to the access regime spurring from the A816 public road being unsuitable for any intensification in use. The Supporting Statement submitted with the planning application at the time acknowledged that previous discussions had taken place with the Roads Authority regarding the site and that the developer was advised that Roads would not support a short term letting unit on the site due to the intensification in use of the existing Drummore Road and its access onto Soroba Road which were not deemed suitable for any intensification of use. It is noted that the appellant has provided no evidence to demonstrate that the intended rate of occupation of the annexe as originally applied for and granted would be the same or greater than the occupancy of the now proposed commercial holiday letting business. It is the opinion of Officers that the likely frequent use of the annexe as a short term letting business, as opposed to its occasional use for ancillary overspill accommodation, would result in a material increase in vehicular movements utilising the existing access regime which the Roads Authority has deemed not suitable for such intensification on the grounds of highway safety. With regards to the appellants assertion that he would have the freedom to utilise the residential annexe for short term holiday letting purposes arising from the initial 2022 permission, this is strongly refuted by Officers. The two developments are not the same thing at all. One constitutes incidental residential accommodation to meet the needs of a single existing dwellinghouse and the other is a business use which would function as a completely separate planning unit. Furthermore, it is the opinion of Officers that it was the appellants’ intention from the outset to utilise this building for commercial short term letting purposes and not for ancillary residential purposes as initially applied for. The property is currently being marketed on Booking.Com with reviews from July 2023 evident on their website, 8 months after permission was granted for ancillary accommodation Benollis, Oban (updated prices 2025). Officers have seen no evidence to demonstrate that this development was ever used for incidental residential
Page 4
Classification: OFFICIAL accommodation and given that the building was clearly in use as a short term holiday let some 8 months after the 2022 planning permission, Members are invited to ask themselves if they think it feasible that the development was completed, used for its stated intended purpose (that of ancillary residential accommodation to provide for the needs of the single household) and then, for reasons unknown and in incredibly short-order, used unlawfully as a short-term holiday letting business. 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. As set out above, it remains the view of the Planning Service, as set out in the Report of Handling appended to this statement, that the proposed development constitutes a material intensification of the use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing private road, if achievable, does not form part of the planning application site and is not within the acknowledged legal ownership/control of the Applicant. Taking account of the above, it is respectfully requested that the application for review be dismissed.
Page 5
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX 1 Report of Handling Relative to 24/01282/PP 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: 24/01282/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Ross Maitland Proposal: Change of use of annexe to short term letting holiday accommodation Site Address: Glenaros Annexe, Drummore Road, 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 • Change of use of annexe to short term letting holiday accommodation (ii) Other specified operations • Utilisation of existing vehicular access • Utilisation of existing water and drainage connections (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Argyll and Bute Council – Roads Authority Report dated 22/08/24 recommending refusal due to the existing road network being unsuitable for any intensification due to it being narrow, with no passing places and
Page 6
Classification: OFFICIAL limited provision for pedestrians and the junction with the A816 being poorly aligned with a steep gradient. Argyll and Bute Council – Environmental Health Service No response at time of report. Scottish Water Letter dated 18/07/24 advising no objection to the proposed development but providing advisory comments for the applicant. Network Rail E-mail dated 25/07/24 advising that the proposed development will have no impact on railway infrastructure and accordingly they have no objection or comments to make on the proposal. 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: 22/01765/PP Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and redevelopment of garage to form ancillary annexe – Granted: 03/11/22 (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 24 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 15/08/24. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Oban Access Panel, by e-mail 20/07/24 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 Panel would encourage the applicant to explore the feasibility of creating accessible accommodation (albeit limited) with disabled-friendly access and facilities that provide disabled people with equal access and facilities and enable them to enjoy the experience with a high degree of comfort, safety and independence. That said, we acknowledge, in this instance the constraints imposed by the size and elevated position of the existing building. Improved access for people with limited disabilities could be achieved with provision of a portable ramp and some grab rails in the toilet and the Panel would encourage Mr. Maitland to give this consideration
Page 7
Classification: OFFICIAL Officer Comment: Whilst Planning Officers are not supporting the proposed development, the comments submitted by the Panel have been taken on board by the applicant with the Supporting Statement advising that the applicant endeavour to provide a portable ramp for access to the annexe and grabrails within the shower room. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (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 A Supporting Statement has been submitted with the application which is discussed in more detail in the main assessment at Section P(v) below. (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist The relevant Sustainability Checklists have 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
Page 8
Classification: OFFICIAL (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 NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural 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 18 – Infrastructure First Productive Places NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism 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 11 – Design – Conversions and Change of Use Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 22 – Economic Development Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Connected Places
Page 9
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity (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 • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • ABC Economic Development Action Plan (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: • N/A (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
Page 10
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 (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 Proposed Development Planning permission is sought for the change of use of an annexe building within the garden ground of Glenaros, Drummore Road, Oban to allow it to be used for short term letting purposes. As a background to this application, planning permission was granted for the annexe in November 2022 as ancillary accommodation to serve the main dwellinghouse with the permission conditioned accordingly which prohibited short term letting use. The annexe has now been constructed on site with the current application seeking to change its use to allow it to be used for short term letting purposes. The annexe building is located along the eastern boundary of the dwellinghouse, comprising a single storey, mono pitched modular structure finished in timber cladding with a metal roof providing open plan living/sleeping space with a separate shower room. The annexe incorporates a pair of sliding doors and Juliet balcony to its north elevation and windows to its south west elevation all of which face over the garden ground of the dwellinghouse thereby raising no privacy or amenity issues with neighbouring properties.
Page 11
Classification: OFFICIAL Servicing and Infrastructure The application shows the existing UC73 public road spurring from the A816 public road utilised to serve the proposed development with a dedicated on-site parking area provided to facilitate its use for short term letting purposes. Water supply and drainage are via connection to the public water main within the control of Scottish Water. The access and servicing arrangements are discussed in more detail in the relevant sections below. Compliance with National and LDP2 Policy Argyll and Bute ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) was adopted on 28 February 2024 which, together with NPF4 which was approved 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. 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 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 considered that there are no issues of compliance with Policy 3. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Officers
Page 12
Classification: OFFICIAL and whilst no specific proposals for biodiversity improvements have been submitted it is considered that, in the event that planning permission were to be granted, adequate and proportionate measures for biodiversity enhancement and protection could be delivered by planning condition. Such measures would be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 3 and LDP2 Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity. NPF4 Policy 4 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 Local Landscape Area or within an area identified as Wild Land. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 4 and does not conflict with any policies set out in LDP2. NPF4 Policy 9 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. The development proposed by this application is considered to be on a brownfield site by virtue of the fact that it is proposing the change of use of an existing building within the established residential curtilage of the property representing the sustainable reuse of brownfield land directly supported by NPF4 Policy 9(a) and Policy 01 of LDP2 which defines the site as being within the Settlement Area of Oban. NPF4 Policy 12 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 secure permission for the change of use of an existing building within the garden ground of the dwellinghouse to allow it to be used for short term letting purposes. Whilst this is a development likely to generate waste when operational, it would benefit from regular waste uplifts by the Council and would be expected to comply with our adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. The proposal is considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 12 and does not conflict with the requirements set out in LDP2 Policy 63, Waste Related Development and Waste Management. NPF4 Policy 13 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 proposes to utilise the UC73 public road which spurs from the A816 public road to serve the proposed development. Part (b) of Policy 13 sets out that development proposals will be supported where it can be demonstrated that the transport requirements generated have been
Page 13
Classification: OFFICIAL considered in line with the sustainable travel and investment hierarchies and where appropriate they: i. Provide direct, easy, segregated and safe links to local facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks before occupation; ii. Will be accessible by public transport, ideally supporting the use of existing services; iii. Integrate transport modes; iv. Provide low or zero-emission vehicle and cycle charging points in safe and convenient locations, in alignment with building standards; v. Supply safe, secure and convenient cycle parking to meet the needs of users and which is more conveniently located than car parking; vi. Are designed to incorporate safety measures including safe crossings for walking and wheeling and reducing the number and speed of vehicles; vii. Have taken into account, at the earliest stage of design, the transport needs of diverse groups including users with protected characteristics to ensure the safety, ease and needs of all users; and viii. Adequately mitigate any impact on local public access routes. NPF4 Policy 13 is considered alongside LDP2 Policy 35, Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes which sets out a requirement that the acceptance of development utilising new and existing public roads, is subject to road safety and street design issues being addressed to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority and the Planning Authority. In this instance, the Roads Authority has objected to the current application advising that the UC73 Drummore public road is unsuitable for further development or intensification of use for the following reasons: • The road has limited provision for pedestrians; • The road is narrow with no passing places; • The junction at its connection with the A816, Soroba Road has poor geometry, it is poorly aligned as well as suffering from a steep gradient; • The UC73 Drummore Road- A816 Soroba Road junction also forms part of the pedestrian footway to the east of the A816. The Supporting Statement (SS) submitted with the application acknowledges that previous discussions have taken place with the Roads Authority regarding a short term letting unit at the property with the Roads Authority advising that they would object to such a proposal due to the intensification of use of Drummore Road and its access onto Soroba Road not being suitable for intensification of use. However, the SS references two similar planning applications within Oban where the Roads Authority objected on the same grounds with planning permission refused but subsequently approved at appeal to the Local Review Body (LRB). The SS outlines that there does not appear to be any difference in circumstances and feel it appropriate that the application be approved with a condition applied which states that the letting unit may be occupied so long as the main dwellinghouse is not being occupied at the same time for bed and breakfast purposes, noting that Glenaros is a five bedroomed house which could let out two bedrooms for bed and breakfast purposes under permitted development rights.
Page 14
Classification: OFFICIAL Officers acknowledge that on previous occasions, and against Officer advice, the LRB panel has accepted an argument that an existing or proposed lawful incidental use of part of an existing dwellinghouse as bed and breakfast accommodation could be forfeited and replaced by development consisting of self-contained tourism accommodation within a ‘pod’ or ‘pods’ within the garden ground of the property and that this would somehow result in no net increase in vehicle movements associated with the dwellinghouse plus the new ‘pod’ development. Officers continue to question this approach but accept that Members are entitled to arrive at such decisions. However, the argument accepted previously only works if the dwellinghouse is either currently in use as incidental bed and breakfast accommodation or that there is a reasonable prospect that it could be. The dwellinghouse the subject of the current application is not, and has not, been used as bed and breakfast accommodation and the application has not advanced details as to the suitability of the existing dwellinghouse for such purposes. Accordingly, in this instance, the proposal to change the use of the ancillary annexe to allow it to be used for short term letting purposes must, therefore, be considered to represent an intensification in the residential occupancy of the site and, therefore, an intensification of the use of the existing constrained access regime. The development constitutes a material intensification of use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing public road, if achievable, is located outwith the application site boundary and outwith the land in the control of the Applicant. In view of the above, the proposed development is therefore considered likely to have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety contrary to NPF4 Policy 13(g) and LDP2 Policy 35, Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes. NPF4 Policy 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. The development the subject of this planning application proposes connection to the public water supply and drainage infrastructure in the control of Scottish Water to which Scottish Water has raised no objection but provided advisory comments regarding connection to their infrastructure. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 18 and LDP2 Policy 04, Sustainable Development which seek to ensure suitable infrastructure is available to serve proposed developments and the current proposal would raise no issue of conflict should permission be granted. NPF4 Policy 22 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. As detailed above the development proposes connection to the public water supply to which Scottish Water has not objected to.
Page 15
Classification: OFFICIAL The proposal is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 22 and the current proposal would raise no issue of conflict should permission be granted. NPF4 Policy 30 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate sustainable tourism development which benefits local people, is consistent with our net zero and nature commitments, and inspires people to visit Scotland. Policy 30(a) supports tourism development in locations identified in the LDP with a requirement in Part (b) of this policy for developments to take into account various criteria. A statement in support of Policy 30(b) has been submitted with the application as follows: i) The contribution made to the local economy “The proposal will ensure that there is a contribution to the local economy. Those businesses that benefit include the area’s restaurants which actively target and encourage the business of visiting holidaymakers; shops, cafes recreational businesses etc. There will also be the need for a cleaner to be employed. It is estimated that visitors to the area spend nearly £1000 on average per visit”. ii) Compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of the nature and scale of the activity and impacts of increased visitors “The proposal is small scale in its nature and scale. As noted above, the house could legally let out two B&B bedrooms and if a Condition is added as noted above, then there would be no greater impact by visitors on the local community or neighbouring properties. In addition, living adjacent to the annexe, the applicants can ensure no anti-social behaviour occurs”. iii) Impacts on communities, for example by hindering the provision of homes and services for local people “The annexe is an existing structure and too small for permanent occupation as a house therefore will not negatively impact upon the provision of homes and services for local people”. iv) Opportunities for sustainable travel and appropriate management of parking and traffic generation and scope for sustaining public transport services particularly in rural areas “The site is within walking or cycling distance from the town centre where ferries, trains and buses terminate. There is a bus stop on the adjacent Soroba Road and then a very short walk to the property. Oban is also a key destination on the Sustrans cycle network route 78. Car parking is available on site”. v) Accessibility for disabled people “As encouraged by comments from the Oban Access Panel to this application, the applicant will endeavour to provide a portable ramp for access to the annexe and grabrails within the shower room”. vi) Measures taken to minimise carbon emissions
Page 16
Classification: OFFICIAL “As noted previously, the building was constructed last year and is highly insulated similar to the standards of new build housing. Lighting within will be low energy and water efficient sanitary fittings are provided”. vii) Opportunities to provide access to the natural environment “The annexe is obviously located in town however access to the natural environment is close by. A short distance from the site is Glenshellach, a glen of natural beauty and close to the town. There are numerous areas to explore further out and which can be accessed on foot, by bicycle or by use of public transport”. Part (e) of Policy 30 does not support the reuse of existing buildings for short term holiday letting purposes unless it can be demonstrated that the loss of the residential accommodation is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. However, in this particular instance, the agent has advised that whilst it is accepted that the planning permission for the conversion of the garage into incidental residential accommodation was granted in 2022 and the works completed only last year, it was always their client ’s intention to use the accommodation for short term holiday letting purposes. The agent further advises that their client did not fully realise that this element of the wider proposal required specific planning permission and therefore the current application is seeking to rectify this misunderstanding. Accordingly, it can be confirmed that there will be no loss of residential accommodation resulting from the use of the annexe building as short term letting accommodation as it was never the intention for it to be used as additional residential accommodation for the household. This small-scale tourism proposal is considered to be consistent with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 30 and LDP2 Policy 23, Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities. Conclusion Notwithstanding the above assessment that the proposed annexe does not raise any adverse privacy, amenity or visual impact issues, or result in the loss of useable residential accommodation, a suitable access regime to serve the proposed development cannot be achieved. The proposed development constitutes a material intensification of the use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing public road, if achievable, is located outwith the application site boundary and the land in the control of the Applicant as submitted and the proposed development is consequently, in view of the above, considered likely to have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 13(f) and LDP2 Policy as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 11 as underpinned by SG LDP TRAN 4(2) and Policy 35, Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No
Page 17
Classification: OFFICIAL (R) Reasons why Planning Permission should be refused See reasons for refusal below (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: 07/11/24 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 07/11/24 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 18
Classification: OFFICIAL REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/01282/PP 1. The proposed development conflicts with Policy 13 of the adopted ‘National Planning Framework 4’ and Policy 35 of the adopted ‘Local Development Plan 2’ as the proposed development would result in the intensification in vehicular use of a sub- standard public road with no delineation between pedestrian or vehicular use. The proposed development constitutes a material intensification of the use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing public road, if achievable, does not form part of the planning application site and is not within the acknowledged legal ownership/control of the Applicant.
Page 19
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 24/01282/PP (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.