Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 28 January 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 28 January 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 21 January 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 28 JANUARY 2025 at 2:00 PM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: FORMER COASTGUARD STATION, SOUTHEND (REF: 24/0018/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 26) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 27 - 46) (c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 47 - 58) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Contact: Hazel MacInnes, Senior Committee Officer Tel: 01546 604269 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL WWW.ARGYLL-BUTE.GOV.UK/** NOTICE OF REVIEW Notice of Request for Review under Section 43(a)8 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Important – Please read the notes on how to complete this form and use Block Capitals. Further information is available on the Council’s Website. You should, if you wish, seek advice from a Professional Advisor on how to complete this form. (3) Do you wish correspondence to be sent to you or your agent (4) (a) Reference Number of Planning Application (b) Date of Submission (c) Date of Decision Notice (if applicable) (5) Address of Appeal Property (1) APPLICANT FOR REVIEW Name Address Postcode Tel. No. Email (2) AGENT (if any) Name Address Postcode Tel. No. Email Stuart Nice 5 Oaklands Croft Walton Wakefield WF2 6LU Tom Grant 41 Longrow Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6ER tomgrantarchitects@g mail.com OFFICIAL USE Date Received Ref: AB1 x 22/02186/PP 24th November 2022 5th September 2024 Former Coastguard Station, Southend, Argyll, 04/12/2024 H MacInnes Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Page 4
Page 5
Page 5
Page 6
Page 6
Page 7
Page 7
Page 8
Page 8
Page 9
Page 9
Page 10
Page 10
Page 11
Page 11
Page 12
Page 12
Page 13
Page 13
Page 14
Page 14
Page 15
Page 15
Page 16
Page 16
Page 17
Page 17
Page 18
Page 18
Page 19
Page 19
Page 20
Page 20
Page 21
Page 21
Page 22
Page 22
Page 23
Page 23
Page 24
Page 24
Page 25
Page 25
Page 26
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 27
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE CHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING COASTGUARD STATION TO FORM DWELLINGHOUSE AT FORMER COASTGUARD STATION, SOUTHEND, ARGYLL AND BUTE PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 22/02186/PP LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 24/0018/LRB 19th December 2024 Page 27 Agenda Item 3b
Page 28
STATEMENT OF CASE The planning authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Stuart Nice (‘the appellant’). The planning application, reference number 22/02186/PP, for the change of use of existing coastguard station to form dwellinghouse at former coastguard station, Southend, Argyll and Bute (“the appeal site”) was refused under delegated powers on the 5th September 2024. The planning application has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The application site is located in the minor settlement of Southend which is designated as a Settlement Area in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) with regard to the spatial strategy. The application site, comprises a single storey building, set back from the public road and accessed via a shared lane. Dunaverty Village Hall and the Telephone Exchange building adjoin the south-western site boundary; a static caravan is located to the north- west of the site and adjacent to the site access track. To the south-east is the village open space and to the north-east are residential dwellings. The building has rendered elevations, under a dual pitched roof, with a roller shutter door on the north-western elevation. A mono-pitched lean-to is located on the north-eastern elevation. It is understood that the building on site has a former use as the HM coastguard station for Southend. Internally, the building has a storage area with a separate toilet and kitchen facility to the rear. SITE HISTORY There is no specific planning history for the site. 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 Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issues in relation to the case is as follows:- - Whether the proposed building, due to its scale, plot ratio and design, would provide a suitable residential environment for its future occupiers and adequate private open space, and whether the Page 28
Page 29
building is therefore suitable for residential conversion without substantial extension and alterations which would be detrimental to the character of the building. 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 The Appellant has raised new information within their submission by way of additional plans which Officers had not had sight of prior and during the processing of the original application. Commentary on the additional plans is provided within the assessment below. A detailed planning policy assessment (which was relevant at the time of the assessment of the planning application) and all other material planning considerations is covered in the Report of Handling. 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 grounds for review set out in the appellant’s submission, the following points are noted: 1. Within the “Introduction” Section of the Appellant’s Review Submission, the Appellant references Appendix A whereby they include a plan and the copy of the refusal. Officers note that the Plan attached at Appendix A does not form one of the original plans submitted with the application and does not form a refused plan as part of the decision of 22/02186/PP. The Plan included at Appendix A shows a change to the development red line boundary within the inset site plan to that submitted within the planning application. Procedurally this plan should not be considered and a copy of the Refused Plans attached to the Council’s Decision Notice are provided at Appendix B. 2. At Paragraph 1 of the Appellant’s Review Submission (Reason for Reversal of the Council’s Decision), the Appellant describes the immediate site area and states “the existing building was used for the storage and maintenance and parking of several cars and permission for the storage of materials and equipment on site.” Officers refer to Section D of the Report of Handling which confirms there is no planning history for such a use. In any event, this is a matter that has no material bearing on the reason for refusal. Page 29
Page 30
3. At Paragraph 2 of the Appellant’s Review Submission (Reason for Reversal of the Council’s Decision), the Appellant describes the coastguard station as “alien to the area”. Officers note that the building has been occupied as a coastguard station and has therefore been a compatible use with the surrounding land uses in the area without detriment to the amenity of the residential area throughout its operation. Officers do not, therefore, consider that the coastguard’s use of the building can be described as ‘alien to the area’ when it is long established on the Appeal Site. In any event, this is a matter that has no material bearing on the reason for refusal. 4. At paragraph 4 of the Appellant’s review submission (Reason for Reversal of the Council’s Decision), the Appellant considers that the “Planning Officer may have misjudged the size of the building through visual inspections” and encloses a further sketch comparison at Appendix B. Officers confirm that the planning assessment of the scheme was informed by the plans submitted in support of the original application which are to scale. The Plan enclosed at Appendix B, includes no scale or dimensions, and includes an alternative scheme which was not put forward with the original application submission. The unscaled Plan attached to Appendix B shows a building that is small in scale, and thus reinforces the reason for refusal given by officers. 5. At Paragraph 5 of the Appellant’s Notice of Review submission (Reason for Reversal of the Council’s Decision), the Appellant references the Plans provided in Appendix C to demonstrate that there is sufficient space for basic amenities ancillary to the dwelling. Officers confirm that the Plan included at Appendix C was not provided during the original submission. However, Officers consider this plan overcomes concerns regarding outdoor amenity space as it adequately demonstrates the plot can accommodate private garden area, parking and drying facilities. However, the reason for refusal insofar as it relates to the proposal not providing a suitable living environment (i.e. the internal living space proposed) remains valid and is not prevented nor outweighed by the provision of sufficient private outdoor open space. 6. At Paragraph 6 of the Appellant’s Notice of Review submission (Reason for Reversal of the Council’s Decision), the Appellant references Plans provided at Appendix D, E and F to demonstrate that the internal accommodation is adequate and complies with current building regulation standards. Officers confirm that the Plan at Appendix E was not provided during the original submission and that the Plan now includes an internal layout at first floor level with an additional shower room. Page 30
Page 31
The existing building footprint takes up a majority of the plot with limited space surrounding it. The proposed conversion looks to create a residential unit with approximately 39sqm of habitable accommodation on a very restricted plot. The first- floor attic space of building is restricted by sloping ceilings which significantly reduces the amount of usable floorspace on this level. In addition, reduced headroom, such as beneath a sloping ceiling can cause problems in the use of both facilities and furniture, usable spaces within a dwelling should therefore have an unobstructed height of at least 1.8m/ a height that a person can stand in. The proposal would not have sufficient useable space to afford the occupier an acceptable residential living environment and represents a low quality design in respect of living standards for future occupants. 7. At Paragraph 7 of the Appellant’s Notice of Review submission (Reason for Reversal of the Council’s Decision), at Appendix G, the appellant reference’s a planning permission granted in Norfolk, England (ref PF/12/1202) in which a change of use of a lifeboat storage facility was granted residential use conversion. Officers would comment that this decision and/or its content has no jurisdiction or planning weight in the Scottish Planning system. Every application should be determined on its own merits having regard to the Development Plan for that area. 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. Summary Commentary on Key Material Considerations: - Whether the proposal provides adequate private open space Criterion (d) of LDP2 Policy 66 requires residential developments to “provide appropriate private and public open space”. Following the Appellant’s submission of an additional plan, included within the Notice of Review submission at Appendix C, Officers consider that it has now been demonstrated that the site can provide appropriate private amenity space for the occupier. This matter is considered resolved and would not form a reason for dismissal. - Whether the proposed building, due to its scale, plot ratio and design, would provide a suitable residential environment for its future occupiers Policy 66 of LDP2 permits residential developments where (amongst other requirements): a) the layout, density, plot ratio, scale, form and materials of any proposed development do not detract from the character of the surrounding buildings and the local area; and a) the site provides a suitable residential environment; Page 31
Page 32
LDP2 Policy 11 states that all proposals for conversions and changes of use to buildings must: a) Respect the character of the traditional use; and b) Reuse materials wherever practicable; and c) Retain features of particular architectural or historic interest; and d) Be capable of providing the proposed use without substantial extension or alterations which would be detrimental to the character of the building; and e) Be in scale and sympathy with the surrounding landscape and not require significant infrastructure that is detrimental to the character or amenity of the place. For the reasons given above, it is considered the proposed development would not be capable of providing the occupier a suitable residential environment due to the building’s restrictive scale. Officers raise concern that by allowing this development, it would negatively set a precedent on space standards/what constitutes an acceptable internal living environment for future occupants for the Argyll and Bute area. The proposal is accordingly considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policies 14 and 16, and Policies 10, 11, and 66 of LDP 2. Taking account of the above, it is respectfully requested that the request for a review be dismissed. Appended documents: Appendix A- Report of Handling Appendix B- Refused Plans attached to 22/01286/PP Decision Notice Page 32
Page 33
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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: 22/02185/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Stuart Nice Proposal: Change of use of existing coastguard station to form dwellinghouse. Site Address: Former Coastguard Station, Southend, Argyll and Bute. 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 coastguard station to Class 9 Houses Alterations to existing building, including wall and roof raising Upgrades to existing vehicular access (ii) Other specified operations Connection to services Use of existing access (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: Argyll and Bute Council Internal Consultation Responses Area Roads Officer (3rd September 2024) – Following submission of the revised access plan, the Officer has no objection subject to inclusion of planning conditions relating to parking provision for two cars, refuse collection adjacent to the public road, and construction works to access to accord with the Council’s Standard detail drawing ref: SD 08/005 Rev B. Page 33
Page 34
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Environmental Health Officer (24th July 2024) – has no objection subject to the inclusion of a planning condition to carry out a phased site investigation and risk assessment relating to contaminated land potential. (D) HISTORY: There is no relevant planning history for the site. (E) PUBLICITY: Regulation 20 Local Application Advert – Expired on 30th December 2022 Neighbour Notification – Expired on 15th December 2022 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: One letter of public representation has been received prior to the amended access track work details being submitted. The respondent raises concern as outlined below. 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: Original submission which included access track widening would impact on the respondent’s car parking area for their property. Officer response: Revised plans have been submitted which remove the requirement to widen the access track, therefore the works would no longer impact on the neighbouring property’s parking space. (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 (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist ☐Yes ☒No Page 34
Page 35
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☐Yes ☒No The application was submitted prior to the adoption of LDP2 and it is considered that there is sufficient information available to issue a decision on the proposed development. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Page 35
Page 36
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 11 – Design – Conversions and Change of Use Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Connected Places Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Homes for People Policy 66 – New Residential Development on Non-Allocated Housing Sites within Settlement Areas High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 82 – Contaminated Land 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 The Building Standards Technical Handbook: Domestic (June 2023) ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) ABC draft Technical Note – Argyll and Bute Windows (April 2018) TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) ABC Housing Needs and Demand Assessment ABC Housing Emergency Statement SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) Page 36
Page 37
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (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: SPR Paths Archaeological consultation area Mull of Kintyre Regional Scenic Area (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better-quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland 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 ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A Page 37
Page 38
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Site Description This application relates to a single storey building located within the settlement area of Southend, on the southern side of the B842. The building is set back from the public road and accessed via a shared lane. Dunaverty Village Hall and the Telephone Exchange building adjoin the south-western site boundary; a static caravan is located to the north-west of the site and adjacent to the site access track. To the south-east is the village open space and to the north-east are residential dwellings. The building has rendered elevations, under a dual pitched roof, with a roller shutter door on the north-western elevation. A mono-pitched lean-to is located on the north-eastern elevation. It is understood that the building on site has a former use as the HM coastguard station for Southend. Internally, the building has a storage area with a separate toilet and kitchen facility to the rear. Proposal The proposal looks to change the use and convert this former storage building to a residential dwelling, together with removing the north-easterly lean-to structure and erecting a single storey addition to the south-west elevation to serve as an enclosed porch and pedestrian entrance to the proposed dwelling. The internal measurement of the building provides roughly 27sqm on the ground floor and approximately 12sqm of useable floor space on the first floor. Internally, the ground floor would provide an open plan kitchen/ living room with separate bathroom and staircase leading to the first-floor bedroom. Externally, an additional window is proposed to be installed on the north-east elevation together with the installation of one rooflight; two further rooflights are proposed to be installed on the south- western elevation. Double glazed units are proposed to be installed at ground floor and first floor level on the south-eastern elevation and the original roller shutter door on the north- west elevation is proposed to be filled in with vertical cladding a single glazed unit. Vehicular access to the site proposes to utilise the existing shared private track off the public road with alterations made to the access by the installation of a dropped kerb frontage onto the public road. The access would lead to a parking and turning area located to the north- western and north-eastern sides of the proposed dwelling, accommodating two vehicles. The proposed site plan does not detail any surface treatments nor indicate any private amenity space. Settlement Strategy Policy 9(d) of National Planning Framework 4 (“NPF4”) supports development proposals which reuse an existing building, taking into account their suitability for conversion to other uses. Within the Local Development Plan (“LDP2”) there is policy support for the redevelopment of brownfield sites located within a defined settlement area. The building has remained vacant for several years and therefore lends itself to a redevelopment scheme. The broad principle of redevelopment at this site is therefore supported by policy, subject to the compliance with the other policies within the Development Plan. Principle of Development- residential accommodation Page 38
Page 39
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Policy 66 of LDP2 states that proposals for new residential development within settlements must demonstrate that they meet the tests laid down in NPF4 Policy 16(f). NPF4 Policy 16(f) requires developments to be supported by an agreed timescale for built- out; requires the proposal to otherwise be consistent with the plan spatial strategy including local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods and requires the proposal to be, inter alia, “for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary”. The proposed development is for the conversion of an existing building which forms an existing brownfield site within the settlement area. An agreed build out timescale could be secured by planning condition. On this basis the proposal would accord with NPF4 Policy 16(f) and LPD2 Policy 01. LDP2 Policy 66 goes on further to stipulate that conversions will only be permitted where: a) the layout, density, plot ratio, scale, form and materials of any proposed development do not detract from the character of the surrounding buildings and the local area; b) it does not affect the privacy and amenity of existing and proposed properties; c) the site provides a suitable residential environment; d) it provides appropriate private and public open space, and; e) an appropriate standard of access to and parking for vehicles associated with the development is provided, it does not result in the loss of any existing parking spaces, and that traffic generated as a result of the development is capable of being accommodated within the capacity of the existing road network surrounding the development; f) it is not detrimental to the overall housing land supply of the LDP2. In this light, consideration of the main determinative issues are set out below. Scale, Character and Appearance The existing building footprint takes up a majority of the plot with limited space surrounding it. The proposed conversion looks to create a residential unit with approximately 39sqm of habitable accommodation on a very restricted plot. The first-floor attic space of building is restricted by sloping ceilings which significantly reduces the amount of usable floorspace on this level. Reduced headroom, such as beneath a sloping ceiling can cause problems in the use of both facilities and furniture, usable spaces within a dwelling should therefore have an unobstructed height. In addition to this, the plot size does not afford the occupier any meaningful private open space for their enjoyment, with the proposed car parking utilising a majority of the area. Overall, the proposal would not afford future occupant(s) a suitable residential living environment. On this basis the proposal is considered contrary to NPF4 Policy 14, 16 and LDP2 Policies 66, 10 and 11. Natural Environment There are no statutory or non-statutory designated ecological sites covering the site itself. The proposal relates to a brownfield site which has very little ecological value, due to the hard surface treatments. The site does not include any woodland habitat. The proposal therefore has no impacts in this regard. The proposal in principle does not include any detail of proposed biodiversity enhancements that would be delivered by the development, however in this instance it is considered that this may reasonably be secured by a suspensive condition seeking improvements to be considered and delivered alongside proposals for landscape, boundary treatment and surface treatment for the development. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on the natural heritage and would therefore Page 39
Page 40
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 be consistent with the provisions of NPF4 Policies 3 and 4, and LDP2 Policies 04, 73, 74 and 75. Historic Environment There are no designated heritage assets within the application site. St Columba’s Church of Scotland located approximately 150 metres northeast (as the crow flies), is a Category B listed building. There are intervening buildings between the direct sight line of the Church and the application site. As the proposal does not involve any significant changes to the external appearance of the building, the proposal is not considered to create any additional impact on the existing setting baseline. The proposal does not involve any significant ground-breaking works and no archaeological mitigation is required. The proposal would not have any adverse impacts on the historic environment and would therefore be consistent with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policies 15 and 21. Waste and Contaminated Land Matters In accordance with NPF4 Policy 12 requirements, a planning condition could address this to agree the location and details of the refuse collection which would serve the development. Policy 9 of NPF4 and Policy 82 of LDP2 provide policy provision relating to contaminated land matters. The proposal looks to convert an existing building that has been used in more recent years as a Coastguard store. No information on potential contamination arising from the former use has been supplied with this application. This could be addressed by a planning condition to allow full assessment of any potential contamination of the site together with agreement of remediation measures if required. Subject to the inclusion of this condition, the proposal would be deemed consistent with the requirements of Policies 9 and 12 of NPF4 and Policy 82 of LDP2. Water, Flood Risk, Drainage and Soils The site lies outwith any fluvial and pluvial flooding zones as identified on the SEPA Flood maps. Regarding servicing, the proposal would look to utilise existing surface water and foul water drainage arrangements which serve the site and connect to the public water supply. The proposal does not involve any significant ground-breaking works, and a soil management plan is not required in accordance with Policy 5 of NPF4 and Policy 79 of LDP2. Impact on Neighbouring Properties Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place of NPF4 does not support developments that would be detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area and Policy 14 of LDP2 confirms that proposals that would have an unacceptable, detrimental impact upon neighbouring amenity will be resisted. It is considered that there will be no unacceptable impacts upon the enjoyment of any nearby residential dwelling, once constructed, in terms of loss of privacy/overlooking/noise and/or disturbance. As such, it is considered that the proposed development therefore complies with NPF4 Policies 14, 16 and 17 and Policies 5, 8,9 and 14 of LDP2 insofar as they relate to this matter. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters LDP2 Policies 36, 39 and 40 cover the policy requirements relating to road, access and parking requirements for new residential dwelling developments. The site benefits from an Page 40
Page 41
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 existing shared access track adjoining the public road, which serves a number of residential dwellings and the application site. The Council’s Area Road’s Officer has no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of planning conditions to ensure the works to the existing access are constructed in accordance with the Council’s Standard Drawing details, together with the provision for 2 vehicular parking spaces and refuse collection adjacent the public road. As such work would be within the public road corridor, a planning condition could secure such details. Subject to these conditions being imposed, the proposal would comply with Policies 36, 39 and 40 of LDP2. Conclusion The proposal, whilst making use of an existing brownfield site, is not considered to represent an appropriate opportunity for redevelopment to a residential use as it would not provide a suitable residential environment for future occupants. In reaching this view, it is acknowledged that the proposal would contribute towards housing supply (particularly in the context of the Council declaring a housing emergency) and would bring back into use a long vacant site. However, such factors would not outweigh the inappropriate level of residential accommodation to be created, and resultant development plan policy conflict identified above. Based on the above, it is considered that the proposed development is inconsistent with relevant policies of NPF4 and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significant to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act. On this basis, it is recommended that planning permission should be 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 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. (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: Laura MacDonald Date: 04/09/2024 Reviewing Officer: Bryn Bowker Date: 04/09/2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 22/02186/PP Page 41
Page 42
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 1. The plot ratio, design and scale of the proposed development would not provide a suitable residential living environment, nor provide an adequate private open space for future occupant(s). Therefore the proposed development is contrary to policies 14 and 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 10, 11 and 66 of the Argyll and Bute Council Local Development Plan 2024. Page 42
Page 43
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 22/02186/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 Page 43
Page 44
SOUTH EAST ELEVATIONNORTH WEST ELEVATIONSOUTH WEST ELEVATION NORTH EAST ELEVATION toilet Kitchen SECTION A-APLAN AS EXISTING 3.08 Store #4%*+6'%65 6QO)TCPV 6'.(#:.10)419%#/2$'.6190#4);..2#'4 6'.(#:#4);..564''6.1%*)+.2*'#);..2#0' &4#9+0) 241,'%6 %.+'06 UECNG FCVG FTYPQ LQDPQ 1:100 A3 1st Nov 2022 1304/P/2 STUART NICE Proposed change of use of life boat station to dwelling, Southend, PA28 6RW Plan section and elevations existing C1304 Page 44
Page 45
SOUTH EAST ELEVATION NORTH WEST ELEVATION SOUTH WEST ELEVATION SECTION A-A sk2 ARCHITECTS Tom Grant TEL. 01586 554727 FAX 01586 55172741 LONGROW CAMPBELTOWN, ARGYLL, PA28 6ER TEL. 01546 603050 FAX 01546 60356524 ARGYLL STREET LOCHGILPHEAD ARGYLL, PA31 8NE DRAWING PROJECT CLIENT scale date drw no. job no 1:100 A2 1st Nov 2022 1304/P/3-A STUART NICE Proposed change of use of life boat station to 1 bed dwelling, Southend, PA28 6RW Plan section and elevations proposed C1304 NORTH EAST ELEVATION 1 HM Coastguard Station TCB HallMuneroy Cottages Dalrhion Rashamba Tel Ex Failte 800mm 800mm 1100mm 800mm 700mm 800mm 1000 x600 base unit 1.4 x 1.8m activity space. fridge SITE PLAN 1:500. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Living Porch Bedroom dressing Rev A :- internal layout amended and porch added. Porch 1000 x600 base unit 1.4 x 1.8m activity space.fridge Kitchen 800mm 800mm 1100mm 800mm 700mm 800mm Shower GROUND FLOOR PLAN ATTIC FLOOR PLAN Page 45
Page 46
ARCHITECTS Tom Grant TEL. 01586 554727 FAX 01586 55172741 LONGROW CAMPBELTOWN, ARGYLL, PA28 6ER TEL. 01546 603050 FAX 01546 60356524 ARGYLL STREET LOCHGILPHEAD ARGYLL, PA31 8NE DRAWING PROJECT CLIENT scale date drw no. job no SECTION A-A existing 3.08 SECTION A-A Proposed STUART NICE Proposed change of use of life boat station to dwelling, Southend, PA28 6RW Plan section and elevations existing Site Plan Proposed 1: 50 A3 30th July 2024 1304/P/6 C1304 2.10 2.10 NORTH WEST ELEVATION exist 1:100 Page 46
Page 47
Page 47 Agenda Item 3c
Page 48
Page 48
Page 49
Page 49
Page 50
Page 50
Page 51
Page 51
Page 52
Page 52
Page 53
Page 53
Page 54
Page 54
Page 55
Page 55
Page 56
Page 56
Page 57
Page 57
Page 58
Page 58