2024_09_17 - Grounds for Review (Additional Information)
Argyll and Bute Council · 18 November 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 18 November 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DECISION TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE, OUTBUILDING AND INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK, LAND NORTH OF PENMORE MILL, PENMORE, DERVAIG, ISLE OF MULL (LPA REFERENCE 19/01737/PP) GROUNDS FOR REVIEW (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY LOCAL REVIEW BODY) Submitted on behalf of Mr Phil and Mrs Rae Tiernan
Page 2
Page | 1 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DECISION TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE, OUTBUILDING AND INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK, LAND NORTH OF PENMORE MILL, PENMORE, DERVAIG, ISLE OF MULL (LPA REFERENCE 19/01737/PP) GROUNDS FOR REVIEW (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY LOCAL REVIEW BODY) 1. Background: 1.1 In October 2007 a meeting was held with a now unknown Planning Officer, in order to discuss the erection of the proposed dwelling on the site known as ‘The Coidh’, i.e. the current application site. This site was however not favoured by the Planning Officer, on the basis that it was not within the soon to be adopted Rural Opportunity Area (ROA). The Planning Officer therefore advised that the applicant’s look at alternative sites on the croft that were also within the proposed ROA. 1.2 In November 2007 a second meeting took place on the site, this time with the original Planning Officer and a Mr Ewen Stewart. Two potential sites within the ROA were looked at, but both of these were not considered to be suitable development sites. Mr Stewart (who had not been at the previous site visit) asked to see the original site, i.e. the current application site. On seeing this site, the applicants were advised that this was the most preferable site, and that they should apply for outline planning permission for the development of this (even though as noted above the site was not within the proposed ROA). 1.3 Following these meetings, on the basis of the advice provided by Mr Ewen Steward, outline planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse on the same site as the review application was approved in June 2008 (LPA reference 08/00438/OUT). Following this, in December 2010, full planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse and shed, again on the same site as the review application, was approved (LPA reference 10/01597/PP). 1.4 In November 2012 the building warrant approval for the erection of the approved dwelling was granted (LPA reference 12/00453/ERD). Some months prior to this works commenced on site. In June 2012 the access track was formed with rotten rock dug from a borrow pit adjacent to the site, and in July 2012 the base for the shed laid (also with rotten rock dug from same borrow pit). 1.5 Finally, in September 2017, the applicant telephoned the Planning Office
Page 3
Page | 2 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant in order to discuss the possibility of amending the design of the previously approved dwelling. He was advised verbally that as a previous planning permission had been granted this “should not be a problem”. 1.6 The review application, for the amended house design, was submitted in August 2019. Notwithstanding the two previous approvals for the erection of a house on the application site, and the verbal advice that this “should not be a problem”, planning permission was this time around refused for the following reason: “The site lies within the designated Countryside Zone wherein Policy LDP DM 1 of the Adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP) 2015 gives encouragement to appropriate infill, rounding-off and redevelopment and changes of use of existing buildings. In exceptional cases development in the open countryside up to and including large scale may be supported on appropriate sites it this accords with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). In this case the site does not present any opportunities for infill, rounding-off, redevelopment or change of use of existing buildings and no detailed and/or acceptable exceptional case argument has been demonstrated. Additionally, Supplementary Guidance SG LDP HOU 1 states that there is a presumption against small-scale housing development in the open/undeveloped areas of the Countryside Zone. The principle of development is therefore contrary to the settlement strategy of the LDP and cannot be supported. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which demonstrate that the proposal should be determined otherwise in accordance with the development plan.” 1.7 An application for review, in respect of this refusal, was lodged in December 2019. This application was considered by the Local Review Body (LRB) on 19 February 2020 (Document A) and again on 16 September 2020 (Document B). At the meeting on 16 September 2020 Councillor Moffat read out the following Motion: “Colleagues, I am of the view following consideration of all the information that this application should be approved, it supports the Council’s objective of inward development and regeneration of our Island Communities and Policy LDP 8 supports new sustainable development proposals that seek to strengthen communities. Supplementary Guidance SG LDP HOU 1 gives general support to new housing provided there is no unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact. There have also been 2 previous approvals for a similar development of this site which did not
Page 4
Page | 3 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant identify any issues in regard to the scale, design, siting or use thereby demonstrating that the proposal can be successfully integrated into its landscape setting. There is an indication in information provided to the LRB by the Planners that once LDP2 can be afforded substantial material weight, that might afford the appellants the opportunity to revisit their proposed development upon this site and for officers to consider it in a more positive light – officers have expressed that view to the appellants and are keen to find a sustainable ‘solution’. However, I’ve been advised that at this point in time it is not possible to get a competent motion to approve the application. The reasons for that are that the application does not accord with the current adopted plan LDP1 and the only material consideration that I have been able to identify is a possible minor departure from the current adopted plan LDP1 on the basis that LDP2 is a material consideration that could be brought to bear. LDP2 is currently at Proposed Plan stage and there are unresolved objections/ representations relating to Policy 02, which has been mentioned by the Applicants agent as a justification for departing from the current adopted plan and to Policy 71. As these Policies require to be considered by the Scottish Government Reporters their application in terms of LDP2 is as yet unresolved, therefore the weight that could be attached to them is not sufficient to allow them to be utilised as material considerations at this point in time, in any motion that would allow a minor departure from the current adopted plan. I would therefore like to move a Motion that consideration of this application be continued until the new LDP2 has been finalised.” 1.8 The motion moved by Councillor Moffat was agree and consideration of the application was continued. 1.9 Some four years later the LRB met again, on 19 August 2024, in order to consider the application for a third time. After considering the application the LRB requested that the applicant submit further written information as follows: 1. Submission of the Sustainability Checklist and commentary addressing LDP2 Policies 04, 05 and 08. 2. Submission of the Sustainable Buildings Checklist and commentary addressing LDP2 Policy 09.
Page 5
Page | 4 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 3. A statement addressing the policy requirements of NPF4 Policy 14, the ‘Six Qualities of Successful Places’. 4. A statement addressing the requirements of NPF4 Policy 15. 5. A statement addressing the requirements of NPF4 Policy 17 b) and, if applicable, 17 c). 6. A ‘light’ LVIA in accordance with Light LVIA part 1 Light LVIA part 2 Light LVIA part 3. 7. Any further information the Applicant considers appropriate to submit which would support approval of this development in terms of LDP2, NPF4 and other relevant planning policies. 2. The Development Plan: 2.1 In the four years since the Local Review Body first considered this application the policy context has changed significantly. The Development Plan now comprises the National Planning Framework 4 (February 2023) and he Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (February 2024). 2.2 Section 13 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 is now in force. This alters Section 24 of the 1997 Act to state that in the event of ‘any incompatibility’ between a provision of the National Planning Framework (‘the NPF4’) and a provision of a Local Development Plan (‘the LDP2’), whichever of them is the later in date is to prevail. 2.3 The policies of the NPF4 referenced in the LRB’s request can be summarised as follows: Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), which states that development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale, and will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places: • Healthy: Supporting the prioritisation of women’s safety and improving physical and mental health. • Pleasant: Supporting attractive natural and built spaces. • Connected: Supporting well connected networks that make moving around easy and reduce car dependency • Distinctive: Supporting attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into designs to reinforce identity. • Sustainable: Supporting the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, play, work and stay in their area, ensuring climate resilience, and integrating nature positive, biodiversity solutions.
Page 6
Page | 5 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant • Adaptable: Supporting commitment to investing in the long-term value of buildings, streets and spaces by allowing for flexibility so that they can be changed quickly to accommodate different uses as well as maintained over time. Policy 15 (Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods), which states that development proposals will contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20 minute neighbourhoods. To establish this, consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to: • Sustainable modes of transport including local public transport and safe, high quality walking, wheeling and cycling networks; • employment; • Shopping; • Health and social care facilities; • Childcare, schools and lifelong learning opportunities; • Playgrounds and informal play opportunities, parks, green streets and spaces, community gardens, opportunities for food growth and allotments, sport and recreation facilities; • Publicly accessible toilets; • Affordable and accessible housing options, ability to age in place and housing diversity. Policy 17 (Rural Homes), which states that development proposals for new homes in rural areas will consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account identified local housing needs (including affordable housing), economic considerations and the transport needs of the development as appropriate for the rural location. Development proposals for new homes in remote rural areas will be supported where the proposal: i. Supports and sustains existing fragile communities; ii. Supports identified local housing outcomes; and iii. Is suitable in terms of location, access, and environmental impact. 2.4 The policies of the LDP2 referenced above can be summarised as follows: Policy 04 (Sustainable Development), which states that in preparing new development proposals, developers should seek to demonstrate the following sustainable development principles, which the planning
Page 7
Page | 6 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant authority will also use in deciding whether or not to grant planning permission: a) Maximise the opportunity for local community benefit, including the creation of district (renewable) heat networks, where viable; b) Make efficient use of vacant and/or derelict land including appropriate buildings; c) Support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services; d) Maximise the opportunities for sustainable forms of design including minimising waste, reducing our carbon footprint, increasing energy efficiency, solar panels, ground, water and air source heat pumps and other forms of renewable energy generation; e) Avoid the use of locally important good quality agricultural land; f) Utilise public transport corridors and active travel networks; g) Avoid the loss of important recreational and amenity open space; h) Conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets; i) Respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; j) Avoid places with significant risk of flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion or ground instability; and k) Avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air and water environment. Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking), which states that to achieve good quality places proposals should endeavour to comply with all of the following placemaking criteria: • The proposed use should be compatible with surrounding land uses. • The proposal should, where practicable, be resource efficient by utilising existing infrastructure and facilities. • The design should respect site topography and any surrounding important landmarks or views. • The design should create and improve connectivity within, and where practical, beyond the site. • Green and blue infrastructure should be an integral part of the design process from the outset. • The design should develop the area’s sense of identity by understanding and embracing the existing distinctive characteristics, with the design respecting and complementing its surroundings in terms of density, appearance, height, scale, massing, materials and finishes.
Page 8
Page | 7 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant • Where the site contains existing buildings, structures and/or natural features that contribute to the character and identity of the wider area, these should be retained and sensitively integrated into the design unless it has been clearly demonstrated to the planning authority that it is not practicable. • The siting and design should respond to the natural environment in a sustainable manner. • The proposal should consider the design of active frontages, and create welcoming, inclusive places with a coherent structure of streets, spaces and buildings which are easy to move around, prioritising the needs of pedestrians and cyclists above motor vehicles. • The access to and orientation of buildings should reinforce the street or open space to create safe and pleasant places. • The design should be sustainable in terms of materials and construction and should consider future adaptability, and climate change mitigation measures. Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting), which states that each of the following will apply when assessing any proposal for development, including those for outbuildings and extensions: • The development should integrate into the landscape or existing built form to minimise detrimental effects on the environment. Particularly careful attention should be given to hilltop, skyline or ridge locations, where development will only be acceptable if such a location cannot be avoided, and any significant adverse landscape and visual effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of community wide importance arising from the development proposal and have been sufficiently mitigated through an environmental impact assessment or landscape and visual impact assessment. • Development on a sloping site should be designed sensitively taking account of the topography in order to prevent significant excavation or under-building. • The siting of a development should take into account the character of the area in terms of its settlement pattern, layout and density. • All new residential developments are required to consider provision for Growing Spaces – See Policy 06 – Green and Blue Infrastructure. • Any development should be carefully sited to avoid overshadowing or overlooking of itself or other properties. • The development should be positioned within the landscape to make the best use of solar gain, natural ventilation and shelter from the elements and minimise adverse environmental effects – this
Page 9
Page | 8 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant need must be balanced with the restrictions and opportunities the topography places on the siting. • The development should be sited within easy access of existing infrastructure and services • Any ancillary development such as parking and service areas, should be sensitively designed and sited. Policy 09 (Sustainable Design), which states that development proposals should demonstrate consideration of and where possible utilisation of: • Renewable sources of energy; and • Sustainable design and construction methods in terms of embodied energy; conversion and re-use; and adaptability. 3. The Applicant’s Response: 3.1 Taking each of the requests for further written information in turn: Submission of the Sustainability Checklist and commentary addressing LDP2 Policies 04, 05 and 08 3.2 The required Sustainability Checklist (TN06) is now submitted (Document C). 3.3 This notes that the applicants manage the croft on which the house will sit, that they provide meat for a local restaurant, that the applicants’ family attend the local school, and that the applicant also drives the school bus. Submission of the Sustainable Buildings Checklist and commentary addressing LDP2 Policy 09 3.4 The required Sustainable Buildings Checklist (TN07) is now submitted (Document D). A Statement addressing the policy requirements of NPF4 Policy 14, the ‘Six Qualities of Successful Places’ 3.5 Policy 14 of NPF4 relates to design, quality and place and states that development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale and will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places. 3.6 The Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Town and Country Planning
Page 10
Page | 9 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 contain a requirement for Design Statements to accompany planning applications for certain types of development. A Design Statement is a document which explains and illustrates the principles and concepts of the design of a proposed development in a structured way and sets out the thought process that has led to the final design. It should demonstrate that the site and its surroundings have been fully appraised, and that the final design solution promoted takes that context into account and should explain how the proposal takes into account national guidance, design policies within the Development Plan and any Supplementary Planning Guidance, urban design strategy or Masterplan applicable to the site. 3.7 Detailed advice on the preparation of Design Statements is contained in the Scottish Government’s Planning Advice Note (PAN) 68: Design Statements. The term “design” relates to the physical and visual impact of the built form and its external envelope on streets and public areas in our towns, villages and rural areas. Qualities of a well-designed place are that it is distinctive, welcoming, connected, safe, adaptable and resource efficient. The review application is now accompanied by a Design Statement prepared by Organic Architects, having regard to the advice contained in Planning Advice Note 68 (Document E). This details the assessment that has been undertaken to appraise the context of the development site and shows how the detailed design of the proposed development responds to this in a positive and sensitive way. 3.8 The Design Statement notes that the proposed house is aims to provide a multi-generational family home for a family with deep connections and ties to the immediate area. The applicants are significant contributors to the local community and the house will act as an anchor for their children to remain on the island. The layout of the house is intended to be adaptable over its lifespan, and the spaces inside are designed to accommodate the working life of the family whilst making the most of the special location proposed. A Statement addressing the requirements of NPF4 Policy 15 3.9 Policy 15 of NPF4 relates to local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods and states that, with respect to the location of new dwellings, consideration should be given to existing settlement patterns, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to sustainable modes of transport, employment, shopping, health and social care facilities, childcare, schools and lifelong learning opportunities etc.
Page 11
Page | 10 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 3.10 The application site lies to the north of an established grouping of dwellings at Penmore and is just 2 miles from Dervaig which is identified as a ‘Village/Minor Settlement’ in the recently adopted LDP2. Dervaig contains a range of facilities including a primary school, post office and store, church etc. Dervaig is furthermore only 7 miles from Tobermory, and the review application site is served by the 494 Tobermory to Calgary to bus service. A Statement addressing the requirements of NPF4 Policy 17 b) and, if applicable, 17 c) 3.11 Policy 17 of NPF4 relates to the provision of new rural homes. Criterion (b) states that development proposals for new homes in rural areas will consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account identified local housing needs (including affordable housing), economic considerations and the transport needs of the development as appropriate for the rural location and criterion (c) 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. 3.12 The review application, if approved, would provide for the erection of a new family home that would accord with the Council’s key planning policy aim of supporting and sustaining fragile rural communities by contributing to actions to reverse falling populations and thus support the local economy. The application proposal therefore very much fulfils the aims and aspirations of Policy 17 of NPF4, and furthermore does not conflict with any of the other relevant policies of the LDP2. 3.13 In addition to the above, as the Councillors on the LRB will know, in June 2023 the Council was the first Local Authority in Scotland to declare a Housing Emergency. Declaring a Housing Emergency was a call to action and was envisioned as being the catalyst to bring partners, stakeholders, investors and communities together to prioritise and commit to the collective action needed to tackle housing shortage. Research undertaken by the Council has demonstrated that the lack of accommodation on the islands is stifling employment, and thus economic growth. A ‘light’ LVIA in accordance with Light LVIA part 1 Light LVIA part 2 Light LVIA part 3 3.14 A ‘light’ LVIA has been undertaken by the applicant and is now submitted
Page 12
Page | 11 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant (Document F). This concludes that the proposed development will have a minor/moderate effect on the landscape, with respect to both its character and visual impact, and that there is no conflict with the requirements of the relevant policies of LDP2. Any further information the Applicant considers appropriate to submit which would support approval of this development in terms of LDP2, NPF4 and other relevant planning policies 3.15 In this final respect the planning history of the application site is a significant material consideration. This is set out in detail in Section 1 (Background) above, but can be summarised as follows: • In November 2007, at a meeting held on site with Planning Officers, the applicants were advised that the review application site was the most preferable site for the erection of a dwelling, and that outline planning permission should be applied for. • On the basis of this advice outline planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse on the review application site was approved in June 2008 (LPA reference 08/00438/OUT). • In December 2010, following the approval of outline planning permission, full planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse and shed, again on the same site as the review application, was approved (LPA reference 10/01597/PP). • In September 2017 the applicant telephoned a Planning Officer in order to discuss the possibility of amending the design of the previously approved dwelling. He was advised verbally that as a previous planning permission had been granted this “should not be a problem”. • At the meeting of the LRB on 16 September 2020 Councillor Moffat said “Colleagues, I am of the view following consideration of all the information that this application should be approved, it supports the Council’s objective of inward development and regeneration of our Island Communities and Policy LDP 8 supports new sustainable development proposals that seek to strengthen communities. Supplementary Guidance SG LDP HOU 1 gives general support to new housing provided there is no unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact. There have also been 2 previous approvals for a similar development of this site which did not identify any issues in regard to the scale, design, siting or use
Page 13
Page | 12 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant thereby demonstrating that the proposal can be successfully integrated into its landscape setting”. 3.16 Furthermore, in the Council’s Statement dated 3 June 2024 it was said that Officers had carried out an assessment of the proposed development against the new national and local planning policy framework and “can identify no immediately apparent reasons why the proposed development might be likely to fundamentally conflict with the Development Plan”. 3.17 Essentially the LRB, in 2020, similarly indicated to the applicants that once LDP2 had been adopted, planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse on the review application site would be able to be granted. Through no fault of their own the applicants have had to wait four years for their application to be able to come back before the LRB. Hopefully an approval will now be able to be forthcoming.