Agenda reports pack
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
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 11 November 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2024 at 4:30 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: LAND NORTH OF PENMORE MILL, PENMORE, DERVAIG, ISLE OF MULL (REF: 20/0001/LRB) (a) Further information requested from Applicant (Pages 3 - 66) (b) Assessment of further information by Planning (Pages 67 - 82) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Dougie Philand Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
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 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
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 4
Page 5
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 5
Page 6
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 6
Page 7
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 7
Page 8
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 8
Page 9
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 9
Page 10
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 10
Page 11
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 11
Page 12
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 12
Page 13
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 13
Page 14
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 14
Page 15
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. Page 15
Page 16
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 17
Agenda item CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: LAND NORTH OF PENMORE MILL, PENMORE, DERVAIG, ISLE OF MULL o Meeting of First Calling 20/0001/LRB, ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY, Wednesday, 19 February 2020 11:00 am (Item 3.) Minutes: The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised that his first task would be to establish if the Members of the Local Review Body (LRB) felt that they had sufficient information before them to come to a decision on the Review. Councillor Moffat said that she found it disturbing that the only thing she could take from this was the unfairness of it. She commented that an unfair decision was made and that the decision had been partially acted upon by the claimant with money spent putting in a track etc for the property, and for him then to be told that the decision made should not have been made. She advised that she found this difficult to live with and said that she could not see a building being an onerous burden on the land. Councillor Freeman referred to comments about a rural opportunity area and said that it was his understanding there was no rural opportunity area although there has been a suggestion that there could be in the future. He advised that given the planning history he was certainly sympathetic but open to persuasion either way. Councillor Kinniburgh also advised of his sympathy for this case. He said that he thought the decisions made in the past perhaps should not have been made in respect of the planning permission in principle being granted in 2008 and then planning permission being granted in 2010. He referred to the Applicant’s argument that a meaningful start had been made with the construction of the track and pointed out that this track was already in place before the application in 2010 was submitted as the picture of the track was submitted with the application. He commented that Planning have addressed this in their submission and have provided pictures to show that the track was now overgrown again. He advised that with this knowledge he was minded to support the conclusion reached by the Planning Officer that the proposal did not fit with the Local Development Plan. He advised that it was his understanding that because the LDP2 had some way to go this could not be a material planning consideration at this stage. Councillor Freeman advised that it was his understanding that the LDP2 could only be considered material once the consultation stage was concluded and that only then those policies not objected to could be given weight. Councillor Kinniburgh referred to comments made by Planning that the proposal could only be considered against the current LDP at the moment and that it might be possible to grant in the future depending on the outcome of LDP2 and said that this put further elements of doubt on him. He said that he found it very difficult to come to a balanced judgement on this case because of these factors. Councillor Freeman referred to the decision made in 2010 that the proposal was consistent with the adopted Local Development Plan at that time. Councillor Kinniburgh advised that it appeared to him that the Applicant had abandoned the project. He said that he thought if he had wanted to continue with it he would have renewed his permission back in 2013. He acknowledged that the Applicant had been abroad for personal reasons and that it may have slipped his mind. He commented that there did not seem to have been any contact made to renew and that a new application has been submitted with the assumption that it would be granted because it had been before. Councillor Moffat said that the Applicant did not appear to have known that the proposal did not conform with the LDP before. Councillor Freeman pointed out that the Applicant was told in the decision notice that it did comply with the LDP. He commented that the Applicant, as a lay person, would not have had any reason to doubt this was not the case. Councillor Freeman said that it was his understanding that works had commenced. Councillor Kinniburgh advised that this point was in dispute. He said that the access track was formed before the 2010 application was submitted and that it had been referred to in photographs submitted with the application. Councillor Kinniburgh reiterated that the Applicant appeared to have abandoned building on the site as he never renewed the planning permission and now 6 years down the line he was claiming a track was put in. He pointed out that the track was now so over grown it could not be seen in the photographs provided by Planning. He advised that he had great difficulty with this case but thought that it should be considered against the policies in Page 17
Page 18
the current Local Development Plan. He added that he was uncomfortable that both parties have acknowledged that it could be granted in the future under the new LDP2. Councillor Moffat commented that if the Applicant had been out of the country he may not have realised the permission had expired. She advised that she found it difficult that he was previously told the proposal complied with the policies of the LDP and was now being told it had in fact been contrary to the LDP. Mr Jackson advised that the LRB needed to consider this case against the current 2015 Local Development Plan. He pointed out that the previous application for planning permission had been considered against the 2009 Plan and the planning permission in principle was considered against a Plan previous to the 2009 Plan. Councillor Freeman advised that the LRB could consider this case against the current LDP and take a decision to approve as a minor departure to that Plan. Mr Jackson advised that the LRB would need to provide justification for departing from the Plan and would need to find a competent Motion to approve. He suggested that the LRB may wish to seek further information. Councillor Kinniburgh advised that the LRB could place more emphasis and weight on the previous permissions than what Planning were putting on them. Councillor Freeman advised that he believed that the history of the site was relevant. Councillor Moffat said that she could see the site being able to accommodate a house without causing major damage to the landscape. Mr Jackson stressed that the LRB would have to justify why they were putting more weight on the previous permissions. He pointed out that Planning have stated that they were granted erroneously and that the proposal needed to be considered against the current Local Development Plan. Councillor Moffat referred to the Applicant suffering financial loss because of these erroneous decisions. She said the decisions were not made correctly but they were still made. Councillor Freeman advised that he thought the two applications granted in the past carried weight and pointed out that there had been no objections to the applications at the time. Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from Councillors Freeman and Moffat they did not wish to seek further information. Councillor Freeman advised that on balance, given the history behind this case, he was in favour of granting this application and that he may seek advice if required on preparing a competent Motion. Mr Jackson suggested that the LRB may wish to ask Planning for up to date conditions and reasons to attach to any consent if the LRB were minded to approve as the previous conditions were based on the policies of previous Development Plans. Decision The Argyll and Bute LRB agreed to: 1. request the Planning Officer to provide appropriate conditions and reasons to attach to any consent if the LRB were minded to approve this application; and 2. adjourn the meeting and reconvene once all interested parties have had the opportunity of commenting on the further information requested. Page 18
Page 19
MINUTES of MEETING of ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY held BY SKYPE on WEDNESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2020 Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair) Councillor George Freeman Councillor Jean Moffat Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance, Risk and Safety Manager (Adviser) Fiona McCallum, Committee Services Officer (Minutes) 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: LAND NORTH OF PENMORE MILL, PENMORE, DERVAIG, ISLE OF MULL (REF: 20/0001/LRB) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. He explained that no person present would be entitled to speak other than the Members of the Local Review Body (LRB) and Mr Jackson who would provide procedural advice if required. He advised that his first task would be to establish if the Members of the LRB felt that they had sufficient information before them to come to a decision on the Review. The Members of the LRB confirmed that they had enough information, Councillor Moffat indicated that she had a competent Motion which she would put forward at the appropriate time. She referred to everyone suffering because of the Covid-19 pandemic, which she said was holding everything up. She commented that there were issues with LDP2 which had to be resolved at Government level and therefore she felt that the LRB should be holding back on their decision with this case until these issues were addressed. Councillor Freeman said that he had made it clear throughout this process that he was very sympathetic to the application especially when the background and history behind this site was considered. He said that from a simple layman’s point of view, he thought it was crazy that attempts were being made to refuse this application when there had been approvals over the years for it. He said that he would be happy to hear any Motions or Amendments put forward. He said that he accepted that there were issues with the draft LDP2 and pointed out that it would be at least 18 months before this was approved. He suggested it would not be possible to delay a decision on this application until the new LDP2 was adopted. He commented that he did not accept that it would not be possible to come up with an amendment to go against an Officer’s recommendation and said that he had never come across that situation before. Councillor Kinniburgh said it was important to bear in mind the current LDP. He acknowledged that LDP2 was currently being progressed but advised that the LRB Page 19
Page 20
could not put significant material weight on that for this particular application because of where the LDP2 was in the process. He advised that the LRB had to decide this application on the current LDP adopted in 2015. He commented that it had been 2010 when the last application for this site was approved and there had been no attempt since then to renew the application as far as he could see. He said he was sympathetic to what had happened in the past with this case but there were critical points that should be taken into account. He said that he agreed that it was usually possible to get a competent Motion to go against a Planning Officer’s recommendation but, in this instance, he thought it would be difficult. He advised that no meaningful start had been made on the site. He pointed out that the Applicant had suggested some works had been carried out in 2012 but the Planning Officer had provided photographic evidence that this work was carried out prior to 2010 as this evidence was used in the application submitted at that time. He said that he thought it would be very difficult to find a competent Motion to approve the application today. The Chair asked Mr Jackson if he could comment on the current situation with LDP2. Mr Jackson advised that representations have been received in respect of policies 02 and 71 in LDP2. He indicated that policy 02 was the main one that could have been used to justify the Applicant’s position that LPD2 in its current form could be afforded significant weight. Councillor Freeman advised that everyone should be aware that LDP2 could only be used where there were no objections to specific areas of the LDP2. He said that in this case because there were objections this part of the LDP2 could not be used at this time. He indicated that if there had been no objection to that specific part of LDP2 this could have been used to justify approval of this application. 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 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, Page 20
Page 21
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. Moved by Councillor Jean Moffat, seconded by Councillor George Freeman. Decision The Argyll and Bute LRB agreed that consideration of this application be continued until the new LDP2 has been finalised. Having moved an Amendment which failed to find a seconder, Councillor David Kinniburgh asked for his dissent from the foregoing decision to be recorded. Page 21
Page 22
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 23
TN06: SUSTAINABILITY CHECKLIST It is mandatory that potential developers complete this checklist for all applications for development. It is recommended that this be completed at Pre-Application stage and updated as required should a planning application be made. It is intended that by completing the checklist the applicant could take the opportunity to review the sustainability of their project and make changes to their application, where appropriate and to ensure compliance with LDP policies. Not every criterion will be relevant for every development, for example extensions, in which case “not applicable” should be noted in the details column. Where applicable, additional supporting information should be appended to this document and the relevant appendix number should be noted in the details column. COMMUNITY – LIVEABLE PLACES Give details Demonstrate how the project contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of the community, including but not limited to the creation or diversification of businesses; essential community services; digital infrastructure skills training or education; healthcare or social support; play and recreation facilities; a district (renewable) heat network. Demonstrate how the project support new ways of working such as home working, remote working or community hubs. Demonstrate how the proposal minimise the need for people to travel to access employment, food, education, recreation and other essential services. Provide details of any existing public transport or active travel routes. Demonstrate how the proposal incorporates new active travel proposals. Page 23
Page 24
Does the proposal involve the resettlement of previously inhabited areas? Any other comments ECONOMY – PRODUCTIVE PLACES Give details Demonstrate how this is considered an appropriate location for regeneration and growth. (refer to national and local spatial strategies and policies) Provide details of how the project has any effect (positive or negative) on any existing organisations. Demonstrate how the proposal maximises the use of existing infrastructure capacity or contributes towards new essential infrastructure. Would the proposal result in the loss of agricultural land, or the fragmentation of farm units? If so, provide details. Any other comments ENVIRONMENT – SUSTAINABLE PLACES Additionally, a Biodiversity Checklist must be completed as required by Policy 73 and TN04, and/or a Flood Risk Assessment must be completed as required by SEPA or the Planning Authority Give details Is the site brownfield? If so, what is the extent of naturalisation on the site? Page 24
Page 25
Or does the proposal re-use a redundant or unused building? If so, provide details. What measures are proposed to improve or restore the natural environment? Would the proposal involve the loss of trees and/or woodland? If so, provide details. And would the proposal involve the loss of a protected open space? If so, provide details. Would the proposal disturb carbon rich soils such as peat? If so, provide details. Would the proposal result in the loss of an existing waste site? If so, provide details. Provide details of any specific measures in place to protect existing landscape and vegetation from damage or degradation during construction. Provide details of any specific measures in place to protect the water environment during construction? Any other comments LANDSCAPE CHARACTER Give Details Is the proposed site in a settlement area or countryside area? Is the proposed site within a National Scenic Area (NSA) or Local Landscape Area (LLA)? Page 25
Page 26
Describe the landscape character, referring to section 2.0.1 for examples of key characteristics that may need to be considered. Please identify any relevant landscape studies, conservation area appraisals etc that you have taken into consideration. Where appropriate, it is recommended that maps highlighting designations and sensitive non-designated receptors, as well as related photos, are appended to this document. Please note relevant appendix numbers within the details section. List any unimplemented but live planning consents in the vicinity of the site which will be considered in terms of cumulative effects. INTEGRATION OF THE BUILDING INTO THE NATURAL OR BUILT LANDSCAPE It is recommended that this section is detailed more fully within a Design Statement Give Details Describe the number of units (plus ancillary buildings) proposed along with the proposed floor areas, heights (to ridge) and materials Outline how the building has been designed on the site to make the best use of solar gain, natural ventilation and shelter from the elements Does the development avoid land engineering works such as cut and fill? How has the building been designed to integrate into the topography? Are any trees or hedgerows to be removed to allow for the Page 26
Page 27
development and if so is there any compensatory tree planting proposed? How has the character, form and design of any surrounding buildings been taken into account in the design and siting of the building? How has existing infrastructure been utilised? Should the Planning Authority determine that there is preliminary evidence that there may be adverse effects on landscape and visual amenity (in Countryside Areas) or the site is located in a National Scenic Area (NSA) or Local Landscape Area (LLA) then a VII or LVIA (light or full) will be required. TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING AUTHORITY On the basis of the information provided in the Sustainability Checklist is further landscape and/or visual information required? Nothing further ☐ VII ☐ LVIA (light) ☐ LVIA (full) ☐ Reason for decision Page 27
Page 28
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 29
APPENDIX TO TN07: SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS CHECKLIST It is mandatory that potential developers complete this checklist for all applications for development. It is intended that by completing the checklist the applicant could take the opportunity to review the sustainability of their project and make changes to their application, where appropriate and to ensure compliance with LDP policies. Not every criterion will be relevant for every development, for example extensions, in which case “not applicable” should be noted in the details column. FABRIC FIRST Give details Provide details of any proposals to use re-cycled or locally sourced materials? What measures will be taken to reduce construction site waste What construction materials will be used to reduce embodied energy? Does the design provide adaptability for changing needs over time? If so, explain how Demonstrate how the design provides dedicated space for home working? Has fibre broadband or Wi-Fi infrastructure been installed to allow home working? Have the energy requirements for the building been calculated? If so, provide details of this. Page 29
Page 30
RENEWABLES AND WATER (see also Technical Working Note on Minimising water Consumption) Give details What percentage of the total building energy demand will be produced from on-site renewable energy technologies. Outline how space/water heating, cooling and lighting will be delivered using low or zero carbon technologies. Provide details of any water saving technologies to be employed such as aerated shower and tap heads? Provide details of any measures which have been adopted to re-use ‘grey water’ or harvest rainwater? Has a sustainable waste water system been designed to avoid pollution of the water environment? If so, provide details. ANCILARY DEVELOPMENT, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING Give details Provide details of the provision for on- site storage of waste and recyclates? Provide details of allowance for bicycle storage? Page 30
Page 31
Does the development have an electric car charging point? Provide details of any porous surfacing materials for drives, paths and hardstandings? Page 31
Page 32
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 33
P a g e | 1 Design Statement Land North of Penmore Mill, Dervaig, Isle of Mull Prepared by Bari Reid for Page 33
Page 34
P a g e | 2 1.0 Introduction The application has been made for a single family dwelling located on croft land owned by the applicant. This is an amended design to a house previously approved on the same site. Given the location, the house is intended to be effectively off-grid in that, microrewables, a private water supply and a sewage treatment system are proposed to minimise the ecological footprint of the proposal. A workshop also forms part of the wider site plan to facilitate operation of the working croft. 2.0 Site Description The site is accessed via a private track with a shared access junction with the main road. The site gently slopes upward to the northwest, bounded by an existing chain-link fence which forms the boundary of the croft. The site benefits from outward views to the south and east and is sheltered by an area of hazel trees just outside the site boundary, areas of mature planting provide shelter to the site whilst also providing a backdrop for the small scale proposals. 3.0 Existing Site Previous Applications and Approvals are discussed in the Appeal Case. 4.0 Site Context A detailed “light” LVIA accompanies this submission which addresses the Site context in a thorough manner. This area of countryside was previously identified as an ROA and capable of absorbing development of this nature, the surrounding landscape is dotted with individual houses and small building groupings which are sited to best contend with the weather and to maximise views out. Page 34
Page 35
P a g e | 3 5.0 The Brief The proposed house is aims to provide a multi-generational family home for a family with deep connection 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 it’s lifespan, spaces are designed to accommodate the working life of the family whilst making the most of the special location proposed. 6.0 Design Principles The house is positioned to work with the natural contours of the site, minimal underbuilding and groundworks are proposed. The access track through the site follows the hill edge of the site and the hazel trees on the boundary edge also offer some shelter Westerly winds. Roof pitches are proposed which allow the upper living levels to be accommodated and keep the overall scale to the preferred Storey and Half arrangement popular with Argyll and Bute Planning Dept. A Gable feature on the front and rear elevation provides the necessary height to maximise the views out, the pitch of the gable is based on some reclaimed oak trusses which are intended to be incorporated into the building. On the ground floor, bedrooms are located around a shared social space with the primary ensuite bedroom located on the upper level with the main family living space. A deck is also proposed at first floor level to add some useful external space adjacent to the kitchen and dining areas. Windows are detailed be square or vertical in proportion. 7.0 Building Materials High Quality, durable and natural finishing materials are proposed for this house. The intention is that the materials will weather and blend with the natural colours in the surrounding landscape. Page 35
Page 36
P a g e | 4 Untreated rough sawn larch cladding gives a tactile finish to the elevations and will start to silver quickly and blend with the context, mill finish aluminium is the natural metal which will dull as it weathers. High performance aluminium clad timber windows have been selected for their energy efficiency and long term durability. 8.0 Access and Parking There is an existing access track to the site which will was formed at the time of the original approval and which will require some upgrading work. The existing junction with the main road will remain. Within the site there will be an attached garage to provide a direct, covered, access from vehicle parking into the mudroom. Parking for 3 cars is provided on site plus a double garage and turning space for the cars. The external hardstanding areas also provide vehicle access to the workshop. External Lighting will be restricted to Passive Infra Red (PIR) system installed below eaves height on the external walls of the property. 9.0 Services The site has no access to mains services aside from electricity. Water is supplied via a private water supply from a spring at the south of the site. A private sewage treatment plant is proposed adjacent to the house. 10.0 Landscaping No formal landscaping aside from the access formation is proposed as part of the application, the house is sited in an area of natural beauty with existing mature planting surrounding the site. 11.0 Sustainability The detailed Sustainability checklists are appended to provide more detailed information. The house is positioned within the landscape to maximise solar gain; it is orientated north to South which will improve the natural light. Solar PV panels are proposed on the southerly facing roof of the house and the workshop building, these will reduce the load required from the electrical infrastructure. A highly efficient biomass boiler is proposed as the primary heating source for the house, the space heating load will be minimised by incorporating a high level of insulation and solar gain into the design. Page 36
Page 37
Land Visual impact Assessment For LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFERENCE: 20/0001/LRB PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE: 19/01737/PP LAND NORTH OF PENMORE MILL, PENMORE, DERVAIG, ISLE OF MULL (REF:20/0001/LRB) Page 37
Page 38
Contents 1. Introduction 2. Study Area 3. Methodology 4. Landscape and visual Baselines 5. The Project 6. Mitigation / Enhancement 7. Conclusions 8. Appendices Page 38
Page 39
1. Introduction This study sets out a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) of the potential impacts relating to a proposed dwelling house and associated shed located on land North of Penmore Mill rDervaig, Isle of Mull. The proposed site is an empty field, with a backdrop of rising ground to the North and West. The applicants proposing the development are a local family of 5 and are the tenant Crofters on Penmore Mill Croft. They intend to work the croft as a means of income and also run an established building firm from the proposed dwelling and associated shed. The croft currently has sheep and cattle on it, the meat of which supplies the local restaurant Am Birlinn. The Proposed Development will generate its own power onsite from renewable means. Any water and drainage taken and returned to the local landscape with the appropriate treatment and care taken. Telecommunications will be through satellite link and or mobile 4g network meaning that there will be no need to bring cabling across the land to the house as it will be entirely self-sufficient. The site is situated on the Isle of Mull and is within the Argyll and Bute Local Authority and therefore subject to . • Argyll And Bute Local Development Plan 2 Figure 1. Site Location Plan Page 39
Page 40
1.3 Documents and reference databases which will be referred to in the course of this study will be: • National Planning Framework 4 (February 2023) • Argyll and Bute Council - Adopted Core Paths Plan (June 2015) • Past Map (pastmap.org.uk) • Scotland’s Environment (www.environment.gov.scot) 1.4 This assessment will firstly look at the location and context of the site, taking account of surrounding settlement patterns, transport networks, cultural heritage features and nature conservation designations. It will also consider any constraints set out in the current Local Development Plan, where they relate to the landscape or surrounding context and from definitions of the Landscape character as provided by Nature Scot. This process will establish a baseline within the landscape against which any impacts can be judged. 1.5 A review of the physical conditions of the site will be carried out and any constraints identified, followed by a review of the potential visual impacts which a development of this kind may produce. This is supported by a set photographic study to illustrate the finding of the visual impact assessment. A set of overall constraints to development will be highlighted and recommendations set out. 1.6 The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the recommendations of <Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Third Edition) published by the Landscape Institute in conjunction with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. Page 40
Page 41
2.Landscape designations and strategies - From the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), the proposed site lies in what is marked as Countryside Area. In general, the extended area is undulating ground The site is approx 26m above sea level bordered by Crofting land to the North, and East. The west side of the site is bordered by rising ground of the surrounding Penmore Mill croft, which overlooks the site( approx 10m higher) When looking at the site from the North East round to the South East, the site is not prominent due to this rising ground. Approximately 100m to the south-east there is a small amount of Woodland on sloping ground which stops at the Allt torr a bhacain River. Continuing over the river to the south east there is more woodland that terminates at the B8073 Road. Fig 2.From LDP2 showing the proposed site in context to surrounding area and that it falls in the Countryside Area Spatial Strategy Zone 2.1 National Planning Framework 4 The National Planning Framework 4 was published in February 2023 and sets out the planning context for Scotland for the coming years. This takes a broad strategic view on planning issues with the intent of creating a more balanced and sustainable planning policy set up with communities and the environment at the forefront. There are many elements to consider in relation to the proposed development of the site, but the key element will likely Page 41
Page 42
be in the protection of existing and promotion of new and improved levels or biodiversity. This effect is known as Biodiversity Net Gain and works on the principle that wherever possible the highest value habitats within the landscape must be protected and integrated into the design of a scheme. Where this cannot be achieved, an enhancement (or net gain) in value must be achieved through compensation. The relative baseline value of the habitats affected would be identified through initial assessment and will dictate the degree of action required to achieve a net gain in the proposals. This will require a higher degree of involvement of ecologist and designers at the outset to ensure that these requirements can be achieved be developers. 2.2 The Local development Plan (LDP2) sets out the planning policy against which the appropriateness of the proposals will be assessed. Policy 02 relates to development out with settlement areas, as the proposed house would be. <Policy 02 – Out with Settlement Areas Out with the Settlement Areas shown on the proposals map, development will only be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that it accords with: • an allocation of this plan, or • parts A, B or C as set out below, and • all other relevant policies of the LDP2. With respect to the third bullet point, particular attention is drawn to the need for development proposals to accord with Policies 70 to 76 with respect to landscape and the natural environment. Development proposals will also be required to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (either individually or cumulatively) on natural heritage resources, built and/or cultural heritage resources, and landscape and visual amenity. Where a major development is proposed, or for any development where there is preliminary evidence that there may be such adverse effects (and where a formal environmental impact assessment is not required), a landscape and visual impact assessment, natural heritage assessment, or built and/or cultural heritage assessment may be required. In circumstances where there is otherwise evidence of a risk to the environment (for example flood risk or environmental pollution) other assessments may be required. The need for any such assessments would be determined at the development management stage, generally through pre-planning application processes. 2.3 Countryside Areas Within the Countryside Areas there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant subject policies. In particular, the following types of development will be supported by the council, generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments, although such may still be required where there is evidence of any environmental risk: • Infill; or • Rounding off; or • Redevelopment opportunities of clusters; or • Previously developed sites. Note: Development adjacent to, but out with settlement boundaries which are delineated in the Proposals Maps will not constitute infill, rounding off or redevelopment Page 42
Page 43
2.4 Remote Countryside Area Within the Remote Countryside Areas, only specific categories of development on appropriate sites will generally be supported. These comprise: • Renewable energy related development • Telecommunications/Digital or other infrastructure where a specific locational requirement has been demonstrated. • Development directly supporting. o agriculture o aquaculture, or o other recognised countryside activity 2.5 Helensburgh and Lomond Green Belt (Not relevant to this proposal)= 2.6 The policy sets out criteria for development that may be acceptable. The site is not allocated in the current plan, and it would be unlikely that this type of development would be. The second bullet point provides scope for development through specific circumstances being applicable. Part A states a favourable view of sustainable development in appropriate locations in the Countryside. The site in question was formerly a working farm, albeit dormant for some time. The land is currently being farmed and managed once again however, and the restoration of the landscape to cattle grazing is currently established. The proposals would therefore be to create a base to allow this activity to continue and to regenerate a once active site. The design of the house is also specifically planned and designed to be as sustainable as possible as the proposing family has a relationship and association with the land and community. They have stated this as a prime motivation in building the house and maintaining the quality of the local environment. Part B also allows for development associated with Agriculture to be viewed favourably in remote rural location. 2.7 The above criteria would appear to be positive in terms of compliance with the LDP provided that the proposals adhere to the other policies of the Plan – as stated in Policy 02. It specifically cites policies 70 to 76 which relate to the landscape and area: • Policy 70 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) • Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Area (LLA) • Policy 72 – Development Impact on Areas of Wild Land • Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity • Policy 74 – Development Impact on Sites of International Importance • Policy 75 – Development Impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves • Policy 76 – Development Impact on Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) 2.8 All of the landscape designations cited above have been considered and reviewed in this report and none apply to the site of its proximity. Any visual impacts upon such designations will also be considered in the course of the assessment. Page 43
Page 44
3. Study Area - Figure 3. Study Area 3.1 This LVIA (Light) takes into consideration the landscape and visual effects which might arise as a result of the proposed development and surrounding land cover, a proportionate approach has been taken. The proposed site has limited lines of site from alot of the Study Area due to the topography and the location of the site. As such a study area 2km from the proposed development has been used, whilst noting the site can be seen from the Carpark for the Kilmore Standing Stones situated on the B8073 to the East of Dervaig. The car park is approx 3.3 kilometres from the proposed site but is a well frequented place for people to stop, due to the considerable view from there. Figure 3 shows a study area extending over a 2km radius from the site. This area will be assessed in detail, as being the landscape where impacts could potentially result from a development of this size and nature. Impacts are highly likely to diminish rapidly with any potential longer ranging impacts will also be considered. The proposed site cannot be seen from the North East around to the South due to the topography of the ground. 3.2 The site is located on the western side of Loch a Chumhainn in the northwest of the Isle of Mull in Argyle and Bute. To the southeast at the head of the Loch lies the small village of Dervaig but settlement within the study area is sparse and distributed across the landscape at a very low density. This settlement varies between rural farmsteads and homesteads ranging in longevity. Page 44
Page 45
3.3 Over the last 70 years the proposed site has been used for stock grazing, hay making, and growing crops such as oats and potatoes. This would suggest the soil is fertile which explains the thick grass covering with an incidental amount of bracken.To the south east is a mix of hardwood and softwood trees including Oak, Sycamore and Hazel which grow on the banks of the Allt torr a bhacain River. The river, in days gone by, powered the waterwheel at Penmore Mill. To the North West is a grassy field that gives way to sloping ground approximately 80m from the proposed site. To the northeast the proposed site slopes down towards a bog which stretches towards the coastline. The nearby coastline is mainly rocky, punctuated with small sandy beaches. The site enjoys views to the North east of Loch a’ Chumhanin. Sea views including the isles of Rum and Muck can be seen to the North. Full Planning permission and building warrant was granted to build a residential Dwelling on this same site in 2012, Ref.no. 12/00453/ERD. In the adjoining field to the North Planning permission was granted for an Agricultural shed in 2006, ref 06/01916/PNAGRI. The proposed shed was 55m from the proposed development. Neither of these projects were started. 3.4 Locally the topography varies greatly with many rises and falls and small hills and bluffs. Access roads twist and turn between these and dwelling and woodland sit in the sheltered areas between them meaning that much of the signs of built form and settlement lies hidden within the landscape. 3.5 Transport Links The undeveloped nature of the landscape means that there are few significant roads running through the study area. The B8073 road crosses the island from Tobermory across Mishnish to Dervaig and around the western shore of the Loch before turning west towards Calgary Bay. A range of local access tracks link scattered dwellings and settlements with this spine roads. Access to the site is gained via a rough track from the B8073 to the south close to Penmore Mill which shares an access with the proposed site. 3.6 Heritage The study area has been inhabited for thousands of years and there are some remnants left by the former occupants. ● Kildavie Settlement Archaeological Site 1.6km Page 45
Page 46
● Dun Nan Gall 860m Outside of the study are other cultural sites: ● Druimghigha Dun 2.7km ● Dervaig Village conservation area 2.33km ● There are no Listed buildings, designed gardens or landscapes,or World heritage sites within 5km of the Site. 3.7 There are a series of recognised footpaths across the landscape of Mull however these are generally located on the eastern side of Loch a Chumhainn as can be seen on the excerpt below. These are separated physically by the sea loch and often pass through areas of woodland at a distance. Figure 4. House site in relation to Core Path through Quinish estate, Kildavie Settlement Archeological Site and the Dun at Druimghigha. Page 46
Page 47
4.Methodology - 4.1 This LVIA ( Light) sets out to evaluate the potential landscape and visual effects from the Proposed new dwelling house. This information provided has come from ● asking questions of local residents ● using available maps, both paper OS maps and maps online including Google Earth ● Field Survey 4.2 This study will consider the wider context of the landscape in which the site is located. Elements such as settlements, transport links, core paths, recreational attractions, Tree Preservation Orders, and cultural and natural heritage designations are examined in this section and the relevant conclusions drawn. These elements will form the core of the baseline conditions against which the assessment of impact can be made. 4.3 National Planning Framework 4 was published in February 2023, and sets out the general principles for locating good quality developments in the best locations. The specific recommendations in this document have served to guide the methodology used in the preparation of this report. The specific Local Planning environmental issues affecting the site will then be analysed and any potential impacts considered. 4.4 The Landscape Character of Scotland is defined through a set of assessments carried out in the 1990’s by NatureScot (then Scottish Natural Heritage). Many of these have been updated since but still form the basis for the definitions today. Currently, NatureScot have set out a map-based database with datasheets for the designated landscape character types across Scotland. This database will be consulted and the applicable LCT identified. Any key features, characteristics, pressures or opportunities will be considered and impacts upon them assessed. 4.5 Following this, the physical conditions of the site itself are addressed through the study of the site’s topography, vegetation and built forms. Other detailed assessments of ecology, arboriculture and archaeology have also been carried out upon the site and any implications resulting from these will be considered. This is followed up with a photographic study of the site, illustrating the conditions and features that currently exist. Page 47
Page 48
5.Landscape baselines - 5.1 The landscape character type that the site lies in is classed as Stepped Rocky Coastlands. It is described below Location and Context ● The Stepped Rocky Coastlands Landscape Character Type is found on Mull (where it generally occurs along the coastal fringe of the Sound of Mull, in the Gruline area and along the southern coast of Loch Scridain) and on the southern tip of Bute.Indented Coastline- low headlands have a distinctive stepped profile ● Open Moorland broken by rocky outcrops and ledges ● Diverse, patchy mosaic of woodland, bog, and marginal pasture on lower fringes of moor ● Scattered small holdings and cottages on edge of moor ● Small estates influence the landscape character in some sheltered coastal bays Key Characteristics ● Distinctive coastal low stepped headlands and sheltered bays. ● Undulating, eroded moorland on lower fringes of the high stepped basalt. ● Low ridges broadly follow a south-east/north-west alignment, with ribbon lochs in the glens. ● Indented coastline; low headlands have a distinctive stepped profile. ● Open moorland broken by rocky outcrops and ledges. ● Extensive conifer forests on lower slopes of plateau. ● Diverse, patchy mosaic of woodland, bog and marginal pasture on lower fringes of moor. ● Scattered small-holdings and cottages on the edge of the moor. ● Small estates influence the landscape character in some sheltered coastal bays. 5.2 Landscape Character Description Landform The Stepped Rocky Coastlands Landscape Character Type is found on the lower fringes of the high stepped basalt on the Isle of Mull. There is a further outcrop on the southern tip of the island of Bute, where the underlying basalt originated from volcanic eruptions on the Isle of Arran. As basalt weathers, it produces slopes with a distinctive stepped profile. A sequence of flat terraces is separated by low vertical rock faces. This profile is clearly defined on the high stepped basalt of Mull, but is also apparent on the lower fringes of the basalt, where the ledges stand out as rocky outcrops and the landform has a distinctly horizontal grain. Here the plateau has been eroded to form a series of low ridges, averaging approximately 170 SNH National Landscape Character Assessment Landscape Character Type 50 STEPPED ROCKY COASTLANDS SNH National Landscape Character Assessment LCT 50 – STEPPED ROCKY COASTLANDS 2 metres in height, which broadly Page 48
Page 49
follow a northeast-northwest alignment. There are sometimes ribbon lochs in the glens between the ridges, giving visual emphasis to the grain of the landform. However, at a detailed scale, the landform is uneven, rocky and often rather disorientating. A narrow outcrop of limestone to the east of Craignure provides a pocket of fertile land and the setting for the Torosay estate. The plateau has a deeply indented coastline, with ledges of flat, dark grey rock jutting into the sea. The distinctive stepped profile shows up clearly on the small headlands which separate coves of dark-grey mudflats and shingle. There are numerous outlying rocks and off-shore islands. 5.2 Landcover The upper plateau is open moorland with patches of heather between rocky outcrops and tussocky moorland grass. There are extensive conifer forests on the lower slopes to the south of Tobermory and in Glen Aros. The lower fringes of the moorland are a diverse, patchy mosaic of gorse, bog, moorland, scrubby woodland, scattered cottages and pastures. Many of the fields are partially derelict and enclosed by the broken remnants of stone walls. Most are rough pasture, with patches of rushes. The edges of the low-lying bog are fringed with scrubby woodland. The landscape surrounding the proposed site is generally farmland and there is a scattering of houses and agricultural sheds, one of which is used by an Oyster farmer, which is approximately 500m away. There are no roads or tracks that link these sheds or houses apart from the proposed site's track, which links with the same bellmouth as Penmore Mill onto the B8073.The local residents use the fields and bogs as pathways for getting about and dog walking. Fig 5. Looking North from the site,thick grass with patches of bracken, rising land in the background. Page 49
Page 50
5.3 Settlement There is generally an increase in the proportion of pasture towards the coast, where there are scattered small-holdings and simple, white-painted cottages in sheltered sites beside the steep rocky outcrops. The flat terraces on the coastal headlands are often rough pasture, broken by clumps of gorse on the low rocky cliffs and along small gullies. There are numerous crofting townships in this area, closely associated with areas of rectilinear fields and pasture. Medieval and post-medieval settlement and agriculture remains are common, often by way of field systems and building footings. Earlier archaeological remains are also varied with some late prehistoric relics such as cairns. Sheltered indented coastal bays, such as Carsaig Bay and Calgary Bay, have a more domestic landscape character, often influenced by the grounds of small country houses and estates. Here there are often stands of mature woodland trees, a more complex network of stone walls and short avenues of beech trees which are distinctive features. Rhododendron is endemic on the valley slopes near Lochbuie, having 'escaped' from the grounds of the small estate on the coast. The Stepped Rocky Coastlands are highly visible from key roads (such as the A848 on Mull) and the sea. The designed landscape of Torosay Castle is listed in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. There is also evidence of a designed landscape on the west of the island. Fig 6.Kildavie Settlement Archeological Site Page 50
Page 51
5.4 Visual Baselines - The Proposed site lies on land North of Penmore Mill, Dervaig Isle of Mull. There are 3 residences that have a view of the site and any development on it, they are as follows: Ceann Cuin 556m Tor A Mulloch 496m Quinish House 1700m across Loch Cuin The public viewpoint at the carpark of the Killmore Standing stones above and to the east of Dervaig is 3.3km away, other houses in the area such as Witches Cottage and Achadh Na Raineach, (although further away than the proposed site) can be seen from the viewpoint, this is in part due to the white/ light colouring of both houses. On 12 April 2024 Planning permission was granted for a dwelling house at Dun Auladh Farm (reference 23/00927/PP) this too can be seen from the Kilmore Standing Stones Car Park. Dun Auladh Farm is 1km SouthEast of the Proposed site. Figure 7. Image from Google Earth viewshed. Light green shows visible approx viewpoints of the proposed site. Page 51
Page 52
Figure 8. Yellow points in clockwise direction, The site can be seen from these points ● Proposed site ● Tor a Mulloch House ● Quinish House ● Core Paths on Quinish Estate ● Cean Cuin ● Kilmore Standing Stones Carpark ● Dun Auladh Farm Views of the proposed site from the eastern and sometimes from the western shores of Loch Cuin could vary, this will be defined by the location of people in these areas and the time of year they are present. In summer time the foliage of trees will potentially reduce the visibility of the proposed development. The Core Paths through Quinish estate are popular for walkers and the proposed development could be seen from varying points on the tracks given the topography of the terrain, although anyone seeing the proposed site will be approximately 1km away. Road view of the site are limited, it can be seen from the 8073 but from over 2km away due to the mitigation on the Southern edge of the site. Page 52
Page 53
Figure 9. View from Kilmore standing stones car park looking Northwest towards the proposed site. Page 53
Page 54
Montage 1, looking at site from local points nearby, Key to montage on the following page showing location of photos. Page 54
Page 55
Key to Montage 1 , showing where photos 1, 2 and 3 were taken from. Page 55
Page 56
Figure 10. Looking South from the site towards Dun Auladh Farm, Drumghigha and the trees in the foreground leading down to the Allt torr a bhacain River.The 8073 is on the farside of the trees and cannot be seen from the site. Page 56
Page 57
Figure 11. Bordering the site to the West is a stand of hazel trees which grow on sloping ground which changes to bog as it flattens out, overlooking the site. This bank of Hazel will form a backdrop for the Proposed development from most viewpoints from the South West to the North East. Due to the topography of the proposed site and the ground to the North and West, the proposed development will be seen against a backdrop of higher ground. The black, dark green and dark blues of the materials used for the construction of the proposed development will aim to minimise the visibility of it from the above mentioned areas. This is in contrast to the vernacular white houses and coloured roofs of dwellings nearby. Page 57
Page 58
6.The Project - 6.1 The LDP2 written statement reads, within the Countryside Areas there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant subject policies.The proposed site and dwelling has the potential of conforming to this criteria. 6.2 The proposed development is an off grid dwelling house with an attached garage and detached outbuilding which will be split between a shed and a pool house. The shed will provide space for the off grid components and for the running of the applicant's building business. The pool house will contain a pool which will conform to the required regulations in rural areas of having 10,000 litres of stored water for fire fighting purposes. The house and shed will be constructed of the same materials and will be colour matched. Metal roofing, aluclad joinery and timber cladding, will be coloured in an effort to blend with the surrounding land backdrop. Colours in the darker pallet such as black, dark greens and dark blues will aid in helping the proposed development be enveloped by the landscape. Both the shed and house will have solar panels facing South as part of the off grid system. The Proposed Development would be accessed by the existing private track, marked on Figure 13. Fig 13 Shows site layout of Proposed Development Page 58
Page 59
Figure 14 . Site Location Plan, and arrows showing existing access track and shared access from B8073 with Penmore Mill. 6.3 Site in general The site is clear and covered in grass. It slopes gently from northwest to southeast. There are no watercourses that cross it and no trees that will need removing. There are no structures either historic or current on the site. The boundary to the east is definitive with the neighbouring croft. Other fence lines run to the North, South and West. This reflects the site is part of the grazing land for the croft. Page 59
Page 60
Figure 15. Proposed site covered in grass with Hazel bank in the background. Photo taken from South East looking North West. Figure 16. Same view as Fig 15 with House Visualisation. Page 60
Page 61
Figure 17. Looking North at the site Figure 18 House visualisation, same view as Figure 17 Page 61
Page 62
7. Mitigation and Enhancement- 7.1 Landscape Mitigation Figure19 below shows the approximate visibility of the site in the surrounding area. Proposed Additional mitigation measures: ● The proposed colours and materials used will blend to the surrounding countryside e.g naturally weathered timber cladding, black joinery, Mill finish to metal sheet roof. ● has a raised ground backdrop from any possible viewpoint from the North East round to the South. ● Only the immediate areas around the development and the access track will be touched, leaving a lot of the existing flora and fauna intact. ● The stand of Hazel trees to the immediate west of the site will remain untouched, apart from cutting back any overhanging branches onto the existing access track. These Hazel trees are a major part of helping the proposed development blend into the existing Landscape ● Living areas of the house to be on the 1st floor as opposed to the ground floor, to maximise the views. ● Existing hazel stand on NorthWest boundary (located on neighbouring croft) acts as a break in the view from the North East looking at the proposed site Page 62
Page 63
7.2 Construction Mitigation The proposed site is clear apart from the covering of existing vegetation. ● An emphasis on excavations being limited to the immediate building areas to be adhered to. ● Subsoil and topsoil will be separated and reused where possible . e.g topsoil to be reused in raised beds to grow vegetables ● Surface scrape of existing vegetation to be retained and used to reseed any areas required as a result of construction ● The surrounding fields and other parts of the proposed site will remain untouched Figure20. Looking North - Overgrown track leading to the site., bordered on the left by the fence line and hazel trees. This was an established track but has been overgrown through infrequent use. Page 63
Page 64
8.Conclusion In Conclusion, the Proposed development will have a minor/moderate effect on the landscape, in both its character and visual impact and conforms with policies in LDP2. The following factors contribute to this ● From LDP2 the site is in the Countryside Zone ● Higher ground to the North and West of the proposed site will provide a natural backdrop to the proposed developments building envelope ● Screening of site from B8073 from trees bordering the Allt Torr a’ Bhacain River ● Partial Screening of site from the North East, which is the location of the 2 neighbouring dwellings that have a view of the site ● Does not compromise the relevant area designation ● Materials and colours used on the proposed development will be in harmony with the surrounding landscape ● Will provide a dwelling for applicants who will continue to use the croft inline with its history, will also free up applicants existing accommodation for other residents of Mull ● No loss of existing landscape features as site is covered in grass only ● Minimal groundworks required, existing track in place although overgrown with vegetation ● Overall there are no significant constraints on the proposed site. ● Views from common public accessed areas are over 1km away over Loch A Chumhainn e.g Core paths on Quinish Estate and Viewpoint at Kilmore Standing stones ● Sustainable development - renewable off grid energy supply, and telecommunications- limits the amount of trenches required. Page 64
Page 65
9.Appendices Appendix 1 Resources used in preparing this document ● OS Maps 374 & 47 ● Google Maps ● Google Earth ● National Planning Framework 4 ● Argyll and Bute LDP2 ● Nature Scot ● West of Scotland Archeology Service ● Past Maps ● Argyll and Bute Core Paths ● Historic Environment Scotland Page 65
Page 66
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 67
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF: ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 20/0001/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE, OUTBUILDING AND INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK LAND NORTH OF PENMORE MILL PENMORE DERVAIG ISLE OF MULL ARGYLL AND BUTE 08/10/2024 Page 67 Agenda Item 3b
Page 68
BACKGROUND OF CASE The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr and Mrs Phil and Rae Tiernan (“the appellant”). Planning permission 19/01737/PP for the erection of dwellinghouse at Land North of Penmore Mill, Penmore, Dervaig, Isle of Mull, Argyll and Bute (the appeal site”) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on 19/11/19. The planning application has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town 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. SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT Further to the previous supplementary statement and at the request of the Local Review Body, the appellant has submitted additional planning policy information sufficient to enable a new officer assessment of the proposed development under the provisions of the current adopted Development Plan. This assessment is summarised here: (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy 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 Page 68
Page 69
NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 20th November 2023) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith 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 15–Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Connected Places Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources (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. • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) Page 69
Page 70
Settlement Strategy In terms of the adopted LDP2 the site is defined as ‘Outwith Settlement Areas’ within an area identified as ‘Countryside Area' (CA) where Policy 02 of LDP2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development, but only where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2, notably Policies 70 to 76 in respect of the impact of the proposed development on the landscape and natural environment. Development proposals will be required to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (either individually or cumulatively) on natural heritage resources, built and/or cultural heritage resources, and landscape and visual amenity. For any development where there is preliminary evidence that there may be such adverse effects, a landscape and visual impact assessment, natural heritage assessment, or built and/or cultural heritage assessment may be required. Policy 02 further states that certain development will be supported, generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments, with these comprising, infill, redevelopment opportunities of clusters; or previously developed sites. The development the subject of the current Review is not considered to fall within any of these development categories. In CAs, where there are nature conservation or landscape designations in place, Policy 02 details that development proposals will have to demonstrate that they are compatible with the designation interests. Proposed Development The application the subject of this Review proposes the construction of a relatively large detached, one and a half storey dwellinghouse with a first floor balcony wrapping around the entire north east facing end of the dwellinghouse, plus a detached single storey ‘pool house’ with attached ‘workshop’. This incidental building is lower in height that the proposed dwellinghouse but would have a footprint area of approximately three quarters that of the main dwellinghouse. Both buildings are of a traditional gable-roofed design and would be finished in rough-sawn timber cladding and corrugated metal roofs. Servicing and Infrastructure The application proposes to utilise and extend an existing private vehicular access spurring from the B8073 public road. A new private water supply and private sewage treatment plant is proposed to serve the development. Compliance with National and Local Development Plan 2 Policy Argyll and Bute ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) was adopted on 28 February 2024 which, together with NPF4 which was adopted 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. Page 70
Page 71
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. Policy 04 of LDP2 requires developers to demonstrate that they have considered a range of sustainable development principles, a) to k), usually through the submission of sustainability checklists for siting and building design and/or through the submission of an appropriate level of information within a detailed written design statement. This requirement is further highlighted by LDP2 Policy 08 ‘Sustainable Siting’ and Policy 09, ‘Sustainable Design’. 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. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. With regards to the need in NPF4 Policy 3 to protect biodiversity, it is not considered that there are any specific issues of compliance with this part of Policy 3. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority and whilst no specific proposals for biodiversity improvements have been submitted it is considered that adequate and proportionate measures for biodiversity enhancement and protection can be delivered by planning condition. With a condition to secure adequate and proportionate biodiversity enhancement and protection measures within the development, the proposal aligns with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 3 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity. NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. Page 71
Page 72
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 local landscape area or a site designated as a local nature conservation site 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 associated policies set out in LDP2. NPF4 Policy 5 - Soils seeks to protect carbon-rich soils, to restore peatlands and to minimise disturbance to soils from development. The development proposed by the current planning application seeks to exploit a relatively level but elevated area of ground which is covered by a broad Class 3 Carbon and Peatland designation and an agricultural land designation of 5.1 – improved grassland. No part of the development site is within any priority peatland habitat or would affect high quality agricultural land. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 5 and LDP2 Policy 79. NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees seeks to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. Whilst the application site is immediately adjacent to an area of ancient woodland to the south and east, no part of the development proposals will harm these important wooded areas. Although the built development itself does not involve the felling of any trees, it is considered that the proposed works to extend and consolidate the access to the site may result in some minor tree loss. However, it is not considered that this limited tree loss will conflict with the overarching policy aims of NPF4 Policy 6. In this regard a planning condition is recommended on any grant of permission to secure a tree protection and retention plan to ensure that tree felling is kept to a minimum and that trees to be retained are protected during the construction period. This approach satisfies the requirements of NPF 4 Policy 6 and LDP2 Policies 77 and 78. NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places seeks to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. The development the subject of this application will not affect a Listed Building and neither is it located within a Conservation Area or any other historic designation. Part (a) of Policy 7 seeks to ensure that any proposals which are likely to have a significant impact on historic assets or places are accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and/or place. In this case, it is not considered that the proposed development will have a significant impact on historic assets or places. Part (h) of Policy 7 seeks to ensure that proposed developments do not have an adverse impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM) and their settings. With regards to Part (h) of Policy 7, whilst there are two SAMs within the vicinity of the site; SM10566 ‘Druimghigha Dun’, approximately 0.6 kilometres to the south of the development site, and SM10564 ‘Dun nan Dall Dun’, approximately 0.8 kilometres to the north west of the development, it is considered that the proposed development will have no materially harmful impact upon the setting of either of these historic landscape features. Page 72
Page 73
Part (o) of Policy 7 seeks to ensure that where there is potential for non-designated buried archaeological remains to exist below a site, developers will provide an evaluation of the archaeological resource at an early stage to allow the Planning Authority to assess impacts. However, notwithstanding the provisions of Policy 7 (o), whilst the site is within an area identified as being archaeologically sensitive, it must be acknowledged that the West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) appear to have raised no objection to the planning application as submitted in 2019. It is therefore considered that, whilst there is the potential for archaeological discoveries within the site, this can be adequately addressed by a planning condition being imposed on any grant of planning permission to secure an archaeological watching brief for the site to be undertaken and agreed prior to work starting on the proposed development. Accordingly, with a condition to secure adequate and proportionate protection measures for the potential presence of archaeology, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy NPF4 Policy 7 and does not conflict with the historic environment policies set out in LDP2 namely Policy 15, Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Built Environment, Policy 19, Scheduled Monuments and Policy 21, Sites of Archaeological Importance which collectively seek to protect, conserve and enhance the historic environment, ensure that the setting of SAMs is not affected by inappropriate forms of development and that the archaeological heritage of Argyll and Bute is protected. NPF4 Policy 9 - Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings 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 the subject of this Review is within the CA as defined by LDP2 and the site is an area of greenfield land. In this regard Part (b) of Policy 9 states that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. Whilst LDP2 Policy 02, Outwith Settlement Areas, seeks to promote a more flexible approach to development in areas identified as CA with Part A of Policy 02 giving general encouragement to sustainable development, this applies only where the proposed development is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies. Given the relatively isolated and somewhat elevated nature of the site for the proposed development, it is considered that the Appellant must be able to demonstrate that the development proposed is appropriate in terms of its local and wider landscape impact as required by both national and local planning policy. This should be through the submission of a ‘light’ landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA). An LVIA has now been submitted and examined. This body of work is both comprehensive and robust. It accurately describes the landscape characteristics and qualities of the site and its surrounding area and identifies the key viewpoints both to and from the development site. Officers welcome the submitted study and commend the quality of the work. Whilst it must be recognised that the proposed development, due to its scale and location, is less than ideal resulting in a minor to moderate landscape impact, officers agree with the overall conclusions of the LVIA which state: ● Higher ground to the North and West of the proposed site will provide a natural backdrop to the proposed developments building envelope Page 73
Page 74
● Screening of site from B8073 from trees bordering the Allt Torr a’ Bhacain River ● Partial Screening of site from the North East, which is the location of the 2 neighbouring dwellings that have a view of the site ● Does not compromise the relevant area designation ● Materials and colours used on the proposed development will be in harmony with the surrounding landscape ● Will provide a dwelling for applicants who will continue to use the croft inline with its history, will also free up applicants existing accommodation for other residents of Mull ● No loss of existing landscape features as site is covered in grass only ● Minimal groundworks required, existing track in place although overgrown with vegetation ● Overall there are no significant constraints on the proposed site. ● Views from common public accessed areas are over 1km away over Loch A Chumhainn e.g Core paths on Quinish Estate and Viewpoint at Kilmore Standing stones ● Sustainable development - renewable off grid energy supply, and telecommunications- limits the amount of trenches required. On balance, therefore, it is considered that the proposal is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 9 and there is no conflict with the spatial and settlement strategy set out in LDP2 Policy 02. NPF4 Policy 11- Energy seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of renewable energy development, including energy generation, storage, and new and replacement transmission and distribution infrastructure. NPF4 Policy 11(a) states that development proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported. Part of the proposed development, through the provision of solar P.V. panels to part of the roof of both the dwellinghouse and the detached pool building, would contribute to the expansion of low-carbon and zero emission technologies and is thereby supported to that extent by NPF4 Policy 11 and there is no conflict to this limited degree with the relevant parts of LDP2 Policy 09, Sustainable Design, which seeks proposed developments to consider renewable sources of energy. NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste 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 a new single dwellinghouse and ancillary pool and workshop building. Whilst this is a development likely to generate waste when operational, it will benefit from regular waste uplifts by the Council and will be expected to comply with our adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. In this regard, the proposed development is considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 12 and does not conflict with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 63, Waste Related Development and Waste Management which seek to ensure that effective provision for waste/recycling is provided within developments. Page 74
Page 75
NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport 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 is seeking to secure permission for a single dwellinghouse with ancillary pool house and workshop which is not considered to be a significant travel generating use or a proposal where it is considered important to monitor travel patterns resulting from the development. Part (b) of Policy 13 requires consideration of the sustainable travel hierarchies including provision for vehicles and cycle charging points and therefore a condition is proposed to secure an Electrical Vehicle Charging (EVC) point within the site. The Area Roads Authority in their consultation response to the refused planning application the subject of this Review raised no objections subject to improvements to the visibility splays at the junction of the public road, the construction standard of the access and the provision of three car parking spaces within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. These required improvements can be secured through the use of planning conditions and the proposed development is therefore consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 13 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policies 34, Electric Vehicle Charging Points, Policy 37, Development Utilising an Existing Private Access and Policy 40, Vehicle Parking Provision which collectively seek to ensure that proposed developments are served by a suitable and safe access regime and provide appropriate parking provision commensurate with the scale of the development proposed. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. Policy 14 states that development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places. This is underpinned by LDP2 Policy 5, Design and Placemaking, Policy 08, Sustainable Siting, Policy 09, Sustainable Design and Policy 10, Design: All Development. These policies, in summary, collectively seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, are sited sensitively within the landscape making use of existing infrastructure, are of an appropriate scale, sustainable design and finishes for their site; and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise. The applicant has submitted a design statement which adequately demonstrates that the proposed development has been conceived through a design-led approach and the application of the place principle. In this regard, the development the subject of this planning application is considered to be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 and the sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2 namely Policy 5, Design and Placemaking, Policy 08, Sustainable Siting, Policy 09, Sustainable Design and Policy 10, Design: All Development. NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the ‘Place Principle’ and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. In terms of our adopted settlement strategy, the site of the proposed dwellinghouse is in an area identified as being Outwith Settlement Areas where LDP2 Policy 02 seeks to promote a more flexible approach to development in areas identified as CA, within which the site is situated, with Part A of Policy 02 giving a presumption in favour of sustainable development Page 75
Page 76
where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies. The appellant has submitted the following statement seeking to address the requirements of Policy 15: “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.” In this instance, it is considered that the relatively small scale of the proposed development, and its rural location, would reasonably comply with Policy 15 of NPF4 given the existing dispersed geographical scale of the environment within which the development is to be located, and given its compliance with the existing settlement pattern and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development to both the minor settlement of Dervaig and the main centre of Tobermory where people can reasonably meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. It is considered that the proposed development aligns with NPF4 Policy 15 and there is no conflict with LDP2 Policy 02. NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes in the right locations and providing choice of tenure to meet diverse housing needs. Policy 16(c) supports development proposals for new homes that improve affordability and choice by being adaptable to changing and diverse needs, and which address identified gaps in provision, including ‘self-provided homes’ of which the proposed development represents. With regards to Part (f) of Policy 16(i) an agreed timescale for build-out will be covered through the use of a planning condition; 16(ii), whilst the development proposed by this planning application is not on land actively allocated for housing in the LDP2, it would wholly accord with the adopted settlement strategy and would accord with the principles of ‘local living’ and ’20 minute neighbourhoods’; 16(iii) the proposal is consistent with NPF4 Policy 17, Rural Homes, being a suitable site which is in keeping with the character of the area. The proposed development is deemed to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 16 and there is no conflict with LDP 2 Policy 01, ‘Settlement Area’. NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. Policy 17 supports development proposals for new homes in rural areas where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and where the applicant has demonstrated how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account local housing needs (including affordable housing), economic considerations and the transport needs of the development as appropriate for the rural location. The appellant has submitted a brief statement in this regard that states: Page 76
Page 77
“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. 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.” It is considered that the development proposed accords with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 17 and does not conflict with LDP2 Policy 09, Sustainable Development, Policy 10, Design all Development, and Policy 67, Provision of Housing to Meet Local Needs. NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. Due to the lack of public water or drainage infrastructure within the vicinity of the site the application proposes private arrangements comprising a private water supply and private drainage system. At the time of planning application 19/01737/PP, the Council’s environmental health service were recommending that no objection be raised subject to a planning condition on the grant of permission to secure a report on the proposed private water supply to ensure that it is sufficient to serve the proposed development and does not impact on existing users of the same supply or adjacent supplies. A condition can also be imposed to secure details of the private drainage system. With the aforementioned conditions the proposed development aligns with NPF4 Policy 18 and is in accordance, in this regard, with LDP2 Policy 04, Sustainable Development, Policy 58, Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation and Policy 60, Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems which seek to ensure that suitable infrastructure is available to serve proposed developments and give support to private water supply and drainage arrangements where connection to the public systems is not available. NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. As detailed at NPF4 Policy 18 above, the development the subject of this planning application proposes a private water supply the details of which can be sought by planning condition. With regards to the management of rain and surface water at the site, this can be controlled thorough a condition imposed on the grant of permission to secure a suitable sustainable drainage system for the site. The proposal aligns with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55, Flooding and Policy 61, Sustainable Drainage Systems. Conclusion Page 77
Page 78
Whilst officers remain of the opinion that the decision to refuse planning permission in November 2019 was the correct response given the national and local planning policy provisions in force at that time, it is recognised that the framework against which the development must now be assessed has changed substantially since that time. The currently adopted Local Development Plan, in particular, has opened up opportunities for appropriate forms of sustainable development no longer necessarily constrained by board locational factors. Having carried out a detailed reassessment of the development the subject of this review against the current Development Plan and with the benefit of the additional information provided by the appellant it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan which comprise National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to recommend the withholding of planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. It is therefore now recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and reasons: CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 19/01737/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 15/08/19, supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Site and Location Plan As Proposed 605(L)001 16/08/19 Ground and First Floor Plan and Elevations as Proposed 605(L)002 16/08/19 Additional Information 605(L)003 16/08/19 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP – Timescale to be Agreed for Completion Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until details of the proposed timescale for completion of the approved development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved timescale for completion unless an alternative timescale for completion is otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Page 78
Page 79
Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F 3. PP – Junction with Public Road Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, the proposed access at the junction with the public road shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08/004a and visibility splays of 2.4 metres to point X by 53 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access. Prior to work starting on site the access hereby approved shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Note to Applicant • A Road Opening Permit under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 must be obtained from the Council’s Roads Engineers prior to the formation/alteration of a junction with the public road. • The access shall be constructed and drained to ensure that no surface water is discharged onto the public road. • No walls, fences, hedges etc. will be permitted within 2 metre from the channel line of the public road. 4. PP - Parking and Turning Further Details Required Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until full details of the layout and surfacing of a parking and turning area to accommodate 3 vehicles within the application site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Roads Engineers. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 5. PP - Electric Vehicle Charging – Residential with Off Street Parking Prior to the commencement of the development (or such other timescale as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority), a scheme detailing the provision of a minimum 7kw electric vehicle charging point shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Where charging cannot be provided then the appropriate ducting to future proof the property must be installed. The approved charging point, or where relevant, the approved cable ducting shall be installed in full prior to the first occupation of the development, and thereafter retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority Reason: To comply with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 13 Sustainable Transport and Page 79
Page 80
LDP2 Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging. 6. PP - Sustainable Drainage System Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. Note to Applicant: Further advice on SuDS can be found in SEPA’s Standing Advice for Small Scale Development – www.sepa.org.uk. 7. PP – Landscaping/Boundary Treatment/Biodiversity Enhancement Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until the detailed landscaping arrangements within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of: i) Location, design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; ii) Proposed hard and soft landscape works; iii) A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be implemented and maintained for the lifetime of the development. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures (bird nesting boxes, ‘swift bricks’, wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes etc.) shall be implemented in full before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next available planting season following the development first being brought into use. All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme during the first planting season following the commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The biodiversity statement should refer to: Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate and the development shall not be occupied until such time as the physical biodiversity enhancement measures have been completed. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity, and to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. Page 80
Page 81
8. PP – Private Water Supply No development shall commence until an appraisal of the wholesomeness and sufficiency of the intended private water supply and the system required to serve the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The appraisal shall be carried out by a qualified hydrologist and shall include a risk assessment having regard to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Private Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2006 which shall inform the design of the system by which a wholesome and sufficient water supply shall be provided and maintained. The appraisal shall also demonstrate that the wholesomeness and sufficiency of any other supply in the vicinity of the development, or any other person utilising the same source or supply, shall not be compromised by the proposed development. The development shall not be brought into use or occupied until the required water supply system has been installed in accordance with the agreed specification and is operational. Reason: In the interests of public health and in order to ensure that an adequate private water supply in terms of both wholesomeness and sufficiency can be provided to meet the requirements of the proposed development and without compromising the interests of other users of the same or nearby private water supplies. Note to Applicant: • Regulatory requirements for private water supplies should be discussed with the Council’s Environmental Health Officers in the first instance. 9. PP – Residential Outbuilding Notwithstanding the provisions of Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, the detached workshop/pool building hereby permitted shall be used for purposes incidental to the main dwellinghouse and shall not be occupied independently thereof as a separate dwelling unit or as a short term holiday let or otherwise for any commercial purposes. Reason: To protect the amenity of the area and to define the permission on the basis of the Planning Authority’s assessment of the use applied for. Page 81
Page 82
This page is intentionally left blank