Interested Party Comments Combined_Redacted
Argyll and Bute Council · 8 October 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 8 October 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 24/0014/LRB REVIEW OF CONDITION 5 ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSION 23/02065/PP – ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLINGHOUSE TO FORM TWO RESIDENTIAL FLATS, GRIANAIG, LOCHAWE, DALMALLY, ARGYLL, PA33 1AW
Page 2
The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Ms Tracey Peedle (“the appellant”). The agent is Mr Ross Peedle / Ross Peedle Architecture (“the agent”) Planning permission 23/02065/PP for alterations to dwellinghouse to form two residential flats at Grianaig, Lochawe, Dalmally, Argyll PA33 1AW (“the appeal site”) was granted by the Planning Service under delegated powers on the 28th May 2024. This decision in respect of Condition 5 attached to that permission is the subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site is located within the ‘Minor Settlement’ of Lochawe immediately to the south east of the A85 trunk road and within a relatively dense residential area. The access serving the appeal site also serves two other residential properties, ‘Tigh-na-Bruaich’ and ‘Trade Winds’. The appeal property, ‘Grianaig’, at the time of planning application 23/02065/PP was a single storey hipped roof detached dwellinghouse with roof accommodation; with a low pitched roof kitchen / porch projection to the north east elevation and a flat roof conservatory to the south east elevation. At the time of the planning application, the property was a Class 9 dwellinghouse operating within the private rental sector. The planning application the subject of this Review proposed the following alterations to the existing dwellinghouse to form two residential flats (the proposed use of the property as confirmed by the applicant’s agent on the 16th May 2024): Removal of the existing flat roof conservatory to the south east elevation. The erection of a small single storey extension measuring approximately 4.5 square metres to extend the new dining area to the south east elevation. The ground floor flat will accommodate three bedrooms, a shower room, a living room, a kitchen, a laundry area and a dining area. Finishing materials proposed are of pre-stained vertical timber cladding. The formation of a raised decked area to the south east elevation. Finishing materials proposed are of painted render with a glazed balustrade. The decked area will be accessed externally via a set of steps and internally via the living room area to the ground floor apartment. Removal of the existing hipped roof and the replacement with a raised pitched roof to allow for a first floor flat. The first floor flat will accommodate two bedrooms, a shower room, an open plan living room / dining area / kitchen / breakfast bar area. Finishing materials proposed to the first floor are of pre stained vertical timber cladding with a standing seam metal roof covering. Seven roof lights and two Juliet balcony dormer windows are proposed. The formation of a raised decked area with parapet above the single storey kitchen / laundry / dining area projection to the north east elevation with a wrap-around to the south east elevation. The raised decked area will be accessed by an external stairwell to the north east elevation which will be the main access to the first floor flat. Installation of a replacement septic tank. Planning permission was granted on the 28th May 2024 subject to various planning conditions, one of which (Condition 5), and the one the subject of this Review, stated:
Page 3
“The development hereby permitted shall be occupied solely as two residential flats for permanent occupancy. No part of the development shall be utilised as a short-term holiday let (or lets) without the express permission of the planning authority through the submission and approval of a planning application in that regard. Reason: To reflect the development applied for, as confirmed by email dated 16th May 2024, and in order to comply with NPF4 Policy 30 which seeks to prevent the loss of existing permanent residential accommodation to short-term holiday letting uses.” 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. REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING It is not considered that any additional information is required in light of the appellant’s submission. The issues raised were assessed in the Report of Handling which is contained in Appendix A. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. Given the above and that the proposal has no complex or challenging issues, and has not been the subject of any significant public representation, it is not considered that a Hearing is required. STATEMENT OF CASE This Review rests on the single issue of whether or not the planning authority were correct to grant planning permission subject to conditions and, specifically, Condition 5. The Report of Handling (ROH) is attached as Appendix A to this Statement as background information. The planning officer submits that, in her opinion, the ROH accurately summarises the material planning issues raised by the development proposed, this being informed by the application as submitted, by the clarification of the scope and intent of the application received from the appellant’s agent, and the then-recent pre-application enquiry (23/00016/PREAPP) for the same property, submitted by the appellant and responded to by the same case officer. Pre-application enquiry reference 23/00016/PREAPP was submitted by Ms Tracey Peedle using the services of Ross Peedle as agent. The pre-application form stated that the nature of the enquiry was to obtain advice from the planning authority for a development consisting of: “Remove existing bungalow’s roof and build another storey of accommodation at first floor level. It is proposed that the single dwellinghouse be transformed into two apartments with each having their own dedicated entrance. Entrance to the apartment at the upper floor will be by means of an external stair. The ground floor apartment will use the existing entrance doorway. Space will be provided within the curtilage for two car parking spaces.”
Page 4
Under the ‘Other Relevant Information’ section of the application form it was stated: “Change from a bungalow with room in roof accommodation to a full two storey house.” Members are invited to note that nowhere in the submitted pre-application forms, plans or details is it expressly stated or implied that either or both of the proposed two ‘apartments’ would be used for short term holiday letting (STHL) use. The appellant has attached a copy of the response from the planning authority to this pre- application enquiry. Upon review of the advice provided by the case officer I conclude that it is accurate in its detail and fit for purpose given the information provided in the application. It has been held in law that a STHL is a sui generis use of a building, meaning that it is a use class entirely of its own and, given these specifics, Members are invited to conclude that had the appellant and her agent intended the planning authority to provide advice on the suitability or otherwise of a development containing one or more STHL units they should have clearly said so. The written pre-application advice was issued on the 10th February 2023. Members are invited to note that although the appellant is now making play of the fact that the pre-application advice letter did not comment on any potential STHL use of the site, they did not seek to question or clarify this at any time in the 8 months before, or during, or after the submission, consideration and determination of the subsequent planning application. The subsequent planning application the subject of this Review was submitted some eight months later on the 23rd October 2023 and validated on the 15th November 2023. The application form submitted at the time stated the proposed development as: “Amendment to and extension of existing 2 storey room in roof dwelling to form two apartments.” Again, there was no mention in the application form, in the submitted plans or in any of the supporting information that what was actually proposed was a specific and materially different STHL development. Members are invited to ask why, given that the appellant is now stating that the potential for STHL use of the development is so critical to the project, they didn’t think to clarify the intended use of the development in their subsequent planning application. Members are invited to note that during our assessment of planning application 23/02065/PP, a letter of representation from a Maureen Harris, the occupier of the adjacent dwellinghouse Tigh na Bruaich was received on the 26th November 2023 (attached as Appendix B). This letter raised concerns that the intended occupancy of the proposed development wasn’t clear from the submitted details and that there might be a possibility that the development would be used for STHL purposes, a use Ms Harris opined would be “totally inappropriate as there would be a worrying noise issue.” A copy of this letter (plus other third party representations) was sent to the agent with a request for comments. An email response was received from the agent on the 4th December 2023 (attached as Appendix C). Whilst the agent mentioned potential ‘future rental’ of the property, there was no answer to the question of whether or not the application proposed any STHL use. Given that the property at that time had been lawfully used for private long term rental as a Class 9 residential use it is extremely surprising that the agent didn’t take this opportunity to answer the central question and to clarify that what was intended was indeed a sui generis STHL use; a materially different kind of development from the full-time residential occupancy
Page 5
development understood by everybody at that time to be the subject of the planning application, and subject to very different planning policy considerations. The case officer proceeded to consider the application on the basis of the understanding that she had formed both from the earlier pre-application enquiry and from the information (or lack of) contained within the planning application. With hindsight, one might consider it unfortunate that the case officer did not seek to robustly clarify the ambiguities inherent in both the pre- application submission and the subsequent planning application and to insist on a direct and unequivocal clarification of the exact specifics of the proposed development at an earlier stage. Conversely, one might wonder why the applicant and her professional agent didn’t clearly apply for (or clarify) the type of development actually intended; particularly given that there is a material difference between a Class 9 residential use and/or long-term residential occupancy flatted development (whether for sale or assured tenancy rental) on the one hand, and as sui generis STHL occupancy on the other. Notwithstanding the above, this matter was finally resolved when the area team leader intervened prior to signing off the officer’s ROH. An email was sent to the agent on the 15th May 2024 and a reply was received the following day (correspondence attached as Appendix D). The reply simply and unambiguously stated that, “The client has confirmed that the dwellings are not planned for short term lets.” Planning permission was subsequently granted on that basis with the description of the proposed development amended to accurately reflect the clarification received. COMMENT ON APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION • The appellant states that, “The likelihood of imposing such a restriction on the property was not raised at the pre application stage or throughout any on going discussions with the planning officer. Had this been the case, we would [not have?] proceeded with the planning application and incurred the significant associated costs, but we were never given this opportunity.” Comment Neither the pre-application enquiry or the subsequent planning application raised the prospect of the development being for a STHL use. It is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect the planning officer to somehow divine the unrevealed intentions of the applicant. Notwithstanding this, the appellant’s agent expressly states in his email of 19th May 2024 that the development is not for any STHL use. The planning condition the subject of this Review was attached to the planning permission to clarify the specific nature of the development approved and was deemed necessary due to the ambiguity and obfuscation encountered in the handling of the application. • The appellant states that, “We were only advised in a telephone conversation with the planning officer and subsequent email dated 15th May 2024 that the development would not be supported if it was to be used as a short term let. At this late stage having gone through a very elongated and expensive planning process we could only say that this was not currently our intention.” Comment This comment is noted with some frustration as detailed above. The appellant should have clearly applied for a STHL development if that was what they wanted to achieve. It is a very different type of development and is assessed under different planning policies (specifically NPF4 Policy 30). There was ample time between the pre-application enquiry and the submission of the planning application to
Page 6
have done so. Equally, there was scope for the appellant to have withdrawn the planning application and resubmitted it on the correct basis, particularly when the matter was first raised by the neighbour in November 2023. • The appellant states that, “The Short Term Let Licensing process is the correct process in Argyll and Bute through which to apply to use a property as a short term let and we understand that we would need to go through this process if we were to consider short term letting in the future. Separate planning permission is not currently required in Argyll and Bute to use a residential property for short term letting. We therefore consider that it is not reasonable to impose this planning restriction on us. Comment The STHL licencing requirement does not replace planning considerations. As previously stated, the STHL use of a property is a ‘sui generis’ use. There is no automatic right to use a property as a STHL and no ‘deemed consent’ under planning legislation. Whether or not the use of a residential property as a STHL requires planning permission is assessed on a case by case basis; the core test for planning being whether or not the STHL use of an existing building would constitute a ‘material change of use’. The erection of a building or extension of a building specifically for STHL use will usually always require planning permission under current planning legislation; both locally and nationally. In the case of the property the subject of this review, whilst the use of the existing Class 9 bungalow might not require planning permission for use as a single STHL (subject to an appropriate assessment of the specifics of the proposal by the planning authority and subject to separate statutory licensing requirements), the conversion of an existing Class 9 dwellinghouse into two or more residential flats for long-term residential occupancy requires planning permission. The conversion of a single Class 9 dwellinghouse for two or more STHL units also requires planning permission but the assessment required by the planning authority would be materially different for these two different types of development. They are not interchangeable and Condition 5 seeks to make this clear. In addition, the Council’s approved and publically available ‘Planning Advice for Short Term Holiday Lets’ guidance explains that whilst each proposal for use of an existing residential building is required to be considered on a case by case basis, the STHL use of an existing residential flat or flats is more likely to require planning permission because it is more likely that this will constitute a material change of use. Again, Condition 5 is there to make it clear that the future use of the building (if converted into two flats as granted by the planning permission the subject of this Review) would, in the assessment of the planning authority require planning permission. It is important that Members understand that Condition 5 of planning permission 23/02065/PP would not necessarily prevent the future use of one or both flats as a STHL but that a separate planning permission would be required. • The appellant states that, “No other similar development proposal in Argyll and Bute has before or since had this type of restrictive condition applied and so it is hard to see why it is relevant only to our proposal. (refer to attached relevant Decision Notices)” Comment This is simply inaccurate. Condition 5 is a minor variation of one of our ‘standard planning conditions’ and is widely used where appropriate to do so. The examples of other permissions provided by the appellant all relate to developments consisting solely or mainly of the erection of a single detached dwellinghouse (not flatted development) where it was considered that the precise scope of the development had been accurately and unambiguously described within the application
Page 7
and, notwithstanding this, where the planning authority had assessed that any potential future use of the resulting dwellinghouse as a single STHL would, at the time of decision and given current legislation, be somewhat unlikely to require planning permission such that it was not considered necessary to define the scope of the planning permission in the same way. Members are however invited to note that in the first example provided by the appellant (20/02266/PP – Erection of Dwelling House and Workshop/Storage Shed etc, Land West of Laggan Cottage, Stronmilchan) a similar planning condition was used to define and control any potential future use of the workshop/storage shed part of the development. Condition 5 of that permission states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1 - The domestic workshop / storage shed hereby approved shall be used for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwellinghouse and for no other use. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to control any subsequent change of use which might otherwise benefit from deemed permission in order to protect the amenity of the locale.” • The appellant states that, “When SEPA were consulted on this planning application they deemed that the development we were proposing constituted new residential development and was not considered to be extension of an existing property. The planning authority agreed with SEPA on this and consequently we were required to undertake a flood risk assessment at considerable cost. As the planning authority agreed that the application was a new residential development, then the justification for imposing the restrictive condition cannot apply as NPF 4 Policy 30 is applicable only to existing residential development.” Comment It is acknowledged that the planning application the subject of this Review was (or was purported to be at the time) for the extension and conversion of an existing residential bungalow (with accommodation in the attic space) to form two separate residential flats (or ‘apartments’ as the appellant described them). This was entirely understood both by SEPA and by the planning authority. The reason that SEPA required a flood risk assessment is because the proposed development is within the flood risk zone of a burn to the east of the site and that the development proposed an increased flood risk vulnerability by enlarging the building and doubling the number of residential planning units. The contested Condition 5 relates to the potential future use of the development or any unconsented alternative use of the development as one or more STHL units and explains that any such use would, in the assessment of the planning authority, require planning permission and that such a use might be contrary to the relevant part of NPF4 Policy 30 which seeks to prevent (as far as it is able) the loss of permanent homes to short term holiday letting uses and thus address the national ‘housing emergency’. The relevant part of Policy 30 states that: “Development proposals for the reuse of existing buildings for short term holiday letting will not be supported where the proposal will result in: i. An unacceptable impact on local amenity or the character of a neighbourhood or area; or ii. The loss of residential accommodation where such loss is not outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits.” • The appellant states, “The Report of Handling for the application makes no reference to NPF 4 Policy 30, either under the list of relevant policies against which the planning
Page 8
application has been assessed, or elsewhere in the report. It is therefore again difficult to see how this Policy is applicable, and consequently how the restrictive planning condition can be applied. Comment The report of handling does not mention NPF4 Policy 30 simply because that policy was not relevant to the development as proposed at the time. Had the planning application been submitted on the basis that the intended use of the development was for STHL units then Policy 30 would have been a material planning consideration and would have carried substantial weight. The planning condition the subject of this Review speaks to any future intent to use the extended and converted building not for the permanent residential use of the two flats created by virtue of the planning permission but instead as STHL units. It was considered reasonable and necessary to do so and, as it turns out, that decision has proved correct. • The appellant states, “Environmental Health raised no objections to the proposal but requested plans put in place to reduce noise if short term letting was proposed.” Comment This comment is noted but irrelevant as the application the subject of this Review was for the extension and conversion of a dwellinghouse to form two residential flats and not for any STHL use, as confirmed by the agent in writing. Should the appellant decide to develop the site for STHL purposes rather than for what she applied for then any comments of the Council’s environmental health officer will be a material planning consideration at that time. CONCLUSION Members are respectfully urged to dismiss this Notice of Review for the reasons stated above. Notwithstanding this, all parties are advised that even if the Review succeeds and Condition 5 is stricken from the decision, any alternative use of the development to provide STHL units will require a separate planning permission. Similarly, it remains the assessment of the planning authority that any future use of the building from the two residential flats approved under planning permission 23/02065/PP to a use consisting of STHL units in a flatted residential block is, at time of writing, likely to require planning permission and will be subject to an appropriate assessment against the planning policies in force at that time.
Page 9
APPENDIX A Report of Handling Relative to 23/02065/PP Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 23/02065/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Ms Tracey Peedle Proposal: Alterations to existing dwellinghouse to form two residential flats. Site Address: Grianaig, Lochawe, Dalmally, Argyll DECISION ROUTE ☒Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☐Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION
Page 10
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Alterations to existing dwellinghouse to form two residential flats • Replace and raise the roof to accommodate a first floor • Erection of small extension to the south east elevation • Removal of conservatory • Formation of a decked area • Formation of an upper decked area • Installation of septic tank (ii) Other specified operations • Internal alterations to the layout • Utilise existing vehicular access • Connection to the public water main (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Transport Scotland Letter dated 23.11.2023 advising that they do not propose to advise against the granting of permission. Environmental Health (EH) Memo dated 29.11.2023 advising no objection to the proposed development which, if appropriate, will be subject to The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 1992. The agent has advised that the two residential flats will not be used for short term lets but will form two full-time occupancy dwelling units. SEPA Report dated 23.04.2024 advising that the 200-year plus climate change level for Loch Awe is 42.32m AOD and the dwellinghouse appears to sit above the 60m AOD (above ordnance datum) contour, so SEPA are content that it is not at risk from high loch levels. However, there is a small burn that runs to the east of the site and we had concerns that a potential blockage on the upstream side of the road bridge may have resulted in flood waters finding their way onto the site. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and a topographical survey have been submitted which SEPA have reviewed and based on the information provided, SEPA are satisfied that any surcharged flow would not impact the house and would flow down the hill/ road that is close to the outfall of the culvert. Advisory comments were submitted and such a note to applicant will be attached. Area Roads
Page 11
Report dated 21.11.2023 advising no objections subject to a condition for the provision of parking and turning for two vehicles per flatted property. Flood Risk Management (JBA) Report dated 05.12.2024 advising no objections to the proposed development. JBA advise that the site is located in Lochawe, on the eastern side of the A85, on the banks of Loch Awe. LiDAR data suggests there is an unnamed watercourse that runs down the northeastern boundary of the site. LIDAR is present at the site alongside the provided rough topographic survey, which display elevations ranging from elevations of approximately 55.4 metres above Ordnance Datum (mAOD) in the eastern corner of the site, up to approximately 65.5 mAOD in the southwestern corner. No information pertaining to historical flooding at the site has been supplied within the application. The site lies outwith the limits of coastal and surface water flooding, however, fluvial flooding poses a slight risk upon the site, as per the SEPA Future Flood Maps. However, with reference to the site plan, it is evident that the dwellinghouse lies outwith the flood extent which is acceptable. The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the consultation responses are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (D) HISTORY: 23/00016/PREAPP - Change from a Bungalow with room in roof to a full two storey house Advice given. (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 21.12.2023 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Capt. George S Hannah, Stravaiger, Lochawe, Dalmally, Argyll, PA33 1 AW, dated 26.11.2023. Lindsay Kirkpatrick, Trade Winds, Lochawe, Dalmally, Argyll, PA33 1 AW, dated 02.12.2023. Maureen Hennis, Tigh Na Bruaich, Lochawe, Dalmally, Argyll, PA33 1 AW, dated 26.11.2023. Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: • Concerns with irregularities on the Neighbour Notification plan.
Page 12
Planning Authority Comment: The neighbouring properties were notified in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Development management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The attached plan is for indicative purposes only. • Concerns with the provision of parking which will cause major difficulties as there will no longer be sufficient vehicular turning space for all concerned. Planning Authority Comment: The Area Roads Authority were consulted on the proposal and a planning condition was recommended for the provision of parking and turning for two vehicles per dwellinghouse. The provision of other vehicles tuning within the applicants site is a civil matter and not a matter for the planning authority. • Concerns with noise should the flats be used as holiday lets. Planning Authority Comment: The agent has advised that the two residential flats will not be used for short term lets. • Concerns with residential amenity; the south east elevation directly overlooks Tigh Na Bruaich. Planning Authority Comment: As existing Grianaig is set back in an elevated position approximately 28 metres above Tigh Na Bruaich, therefore, given that there is sufficient height and distance separation it is not considered that there will be any additional impact on the residential amenity on Tigh Na Bruaich. • Concerns with noise disruption during the development. Planning Authority Comment: The Council’s Environmental Health (EH) department were consulted on the proposal and no objections were raised or planning conditions to be imposed for the construction of the proposed development. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) A Sustainability Checklist (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 and TNo7 have been submitted in support of the planning application together with the site visit undertaken, has demonstrated that there will be no significant adverse effect on landscape ☒Yes ☐No
Page 13
and visual amenity arising from the development of the site. In this instance, it is not considered that any further landscape/visual information is required to allow a decision on the proposal to be made. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods 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
Page 14
Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 11 – Design – Conversions and Change of Use Connected Places Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment 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 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Local Development Plan 2 Schedules (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • ABC Landscape Studies • ABC Housing Needs and Demand Assessment • ABC Housing Emergency Statement (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No
Page 15
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • North Argyll – Local Landscape Area (LLA) (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: 6.10 Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations
Page 16
Planning permission is sought for alterations to an existing single dwellinghouse to form two full-time occupancy residential flats at Grianaig, Lochawe, Dalmally in Argyll. Grianaig as existing is a single storey hipped roof detached dwellinghouse with roof accommodation; benefitting from a low pitched roof kitchen / porch projection to the north east elevation and a flat roof conservatory to the south east elevation. The planning application proposes the following alterations to the existing dwellinghouse to form two residential flats: Removal of the existing flat roof conservatory to the south east elevation. The erection of a small single storey extension measuring approximately 4.5 square metres to extend the new dining area to the south east elevation. The ground floor flat will accommodate three bedrooms, a shower room, a living room, a kitchen, a laundry area and a dining area. Finishing materials proposed are of pre stained vertical timber cladding. The formation of a raised decked area to the south east elevation. Finishing materials proposed are of painted render with a glazed balustrade. The decked area will be accessed externally via a set of steps and internally via the living room area to the ground floor apartment. Removal of the existing hipped roof and the replacement with a raised pitched roof to allow for a first floor flat. The first floor flat will accommodate two bedrooms, a shower room, an open plan living room / dining area / kitchen / breakfast bar area. Finishing materials proposed to the first floor are of pre stained vertical timber cladding with a standing seam metal roof covering. Seven roof lights and two Juliet balcony dormer windows are proposed. The formation of a raised decked area with parapet above the single storey kitchen / laundry / dining area projection to the north east elevation with a wrap-around to the south east elevation. The raised decked area will be accessed by an external stairwell to the north east elevation which will be the main access to the first floor flat. Installation of a replacement septic tank. It is considered that the alterations to the existing dwellinghouse to form two residential flats is an acceptable proposal which is of an appropriate scale, design and finishes which will respect the surrounding development. The access and servicing arrangements are discussed in more detail in the relevant sections below. 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.
Page 17
NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises seek to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate, Mitigation and Adaption seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. NPF4 Policy 3 – 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 secure biodiversity improvements, it is not considered that there are any issues of compliance with 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, as part of the proposed landscaping scheme for the site, 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. The proposed development 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. Whilst the site is located within the North Argyll Local Landscape Area, the proposal the subject of this planning application is seeking alterations to an existing dwellinghouse to form two apartments. Although the roof will be raised to accommodate the two apartments, there is adequate substantial screening surrounding the existing property and also to the opposite side of the A85 trunk road, therefore it is the considered opinion of the Planning Authority that the proposal will not result in any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified.
Page 18
The proposed development is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 4 and does not conflict LDP2 Policy 71, Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas. 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. NPF4 Policy 9(d) provides support for development proposals for the reuse of existing buildings, where consideration is given to their suitability for conversion to other uses. The proposed development to alter an existing dwellinghouse to form two residential flats would provide a suitable opportunity for the reuse of an existing building, where such a use requires some internal and external alterations. The proposal represents an appropriate opportunity for the reuse of brownfield land, redeveloping an existing building consistent with NPF4 Policy 9 which does not conflict with the spatial and settlement strategy set out in LDP2 Policy 01. 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 to alter an existing dwellinghouse to form two residential flats. 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. 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 alterations to an existing dwellinghouse to form two residential flats 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. The application proposes to utilise an existing vehicular access spurring from the A85 Oban – Tyndrum Trunk road. The Roads Authority were consulted on the proposal and no objections were raised subject to a planning condition for the provision of parking and turning for two vehicles per dwellinghouse. Transport Scotland were consulted on the proposal who advised that they do not propose to advise against the granting of permission. The site plan shows a parking and turning area to serve 4 vehicles which is compliant with the car parking standards set out in LDP2 to serve the proposed apartments. The proposal is consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 13 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policies 35, 37, 38, 39 and which collectively seek to ensure that proposed developments are served by a suitable and safe access regime
Page 19
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’. The development the subject of this planning application seeks to secure permission for alterations to an existing dwellinghouse to form two residential flats, the design and finishes of which are considered to be acceptable, ensuring that the proposal will integrate well within the site and wider landscape without any significant adverse visual impact arising. The application proposes to remove the existing hipped roof to form a first floor flat with a pitched roof. The proposed finishing material of pre stained vertical timber cladding to the first floor with a standing seam metal roof covering will result in a contemporary finish whilst acknowledging the various finishes in the immediate locale. Narrow transom windows, Juliet balcony dormer windows are roof lights are proposed to the south east elevation which will take advantage of views over Loch Awe. The development the subject of this planning application is considered to be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 and does not conflict with the sustainable siting and design principles set out in Policies 04, 05, 08, 09, 10 and 11 of LDP2 which collectively seek to ensure that developments are sited appropriately and are of a suitable, form, scale and design incorporating finishing materials which ensure that they will visually integrate into the site and wider landscape and not adversely impact on neighbouring properties. 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 proposal for alterations to an existing dwellinghouse to form two residential flats is in an area identified as being within a defined ‘Settlement Area’ where LDP2 Policy 01 gives a general presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is compatible with surrounding uses; provides suitable access and infrastructure; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and that it complies with all other relevant LDP2 policies. In this instance, it is considered that the 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 with the surrounding area where people can reasonably meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. The proposed development aligns with NPF4 and there is no conflict with LDP2 Policy 01.
Page 20
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’ due to the proposed development being of an appropriate scale, design and use for its site within the defined settlement. 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(a) 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. Policy 17(b) requires proposals for new homes in rural areas to consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account identified local housing needs. It is has already been seen at NPF4 Policy 15 above that the proposed development is consistent with our adopted settlement strategy policies and that it would have no materially harmful access or environmental impact. The proposed development seeks alterations to an existing dwellinghouse to form two apartments which would accord with the Council’s key planning policies aims of supporting and sustaining fragile rural communities by contributing to actions to reverse our falling rural populations and supporting the local economy. Policy 17(c) offers support to new homes in remote rural areas where such proposals (i) support and sustain existing fragile communities; (ii) support identified local housing outcomes; and (iii) are suitable in terms of location, access and environmental impact. 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. The development the subject of this planning application proposes a private drainage system comprising a replacement septic tank and soakaway with water supply via
Page 21
connection to the existing public water main. The Council’s Building Standards Service will apply suitable control over the detailed arrangements of the proposed private drainage system at Building Warrant stage. The proposed development aligns with NPF4 Policy 18 and is in accordance with LDP2 Policy 04, Sustainable Development, 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 drainage arrangements where connection to the public system 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 connection to the existing public water main. With regards to the management of rain and surface water at the site, this will be controlled thorough a condition imposed on the grant of permission to secure a suitable sustainable drainage system for the site. JBA and SEPA were consulted on the proposal and no objections were raised. SEPA advised that there is a small burn that runs to the east of the site and they had concerns that a potential blockage on the upstream side of the road bridge may have resulted in flood waters finding their way onto the site. However, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and a topographical survey were submitted which SEPA have reviewed and based on the information provided, SEPA are satisfied that any surcharged flow would not impact the house and would flow down the hill/ road that is close to the outfall of the culvert. The proposal aligns with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55, Flooding and Policy 61, Sustainable Drainage Systems. The development has been assessed against all of the above potential constraints and designations and has been determined to raise no issues or concerns except for any specifically referred to within this summary assessment and accordingly it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions contained within this report. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be 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 withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act.
Page 22
(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Judith Stephen Date: 28.05.2024 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 28.05.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 23
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO 23/02065/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 20.10.2023, 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 Existing Elevations 2303/03 23.10.2023 Existing Plans & Section 2303/02 23.10.2023 Location Plan 2302/01 23.10.2303 Proposed First Floor Plan 2303/07 23.10.2023 Proposed Ground Floor Plan 2303/06 23.10.2023 Proposed NE Elevation 2303/10 23.10.2023 Proposed NW Elevation 2303/08 23.10.2023 Proposed Section 2303/05 23.10.2023 Proposed Site Plan 2303/04 23.10.2023 Proposed SE Elevation 2303/09 23.10.2023 Proposed SW Elevation 2303/11 23.10.2023 Location Plan 12 of 13 25.10.2023 Topographical Survey 13 of 13 02.04.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. • Please note the advice and guidance contained in the response from SEPA details of which is available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. 2. PP – Timescale to be Agreed for Completion 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. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 3. 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 and Sewers for Scotland 4th Edition. The requisite surface water
Page 24
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 4. PP – Biodiversity Enhancement Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping for the development has 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) Surface treatment of proposed means of access and hardstanding areas; iii) Proposed hard and soft landscape works; iv) A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development. The development shall not be occupied until such time as the boundary treatment, surface treatment and any re-contouring works have been completed in accordance with the duly approved scheme. 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. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. 5. The development hereby permitted shall be occupied solely as two residential flats for permanent occupancy. No part of the development shall be utilised as a short-term holiday let (or lets) without the express permission of the planning authority through the submission and approval of a planning application in that regard. Reason: To reflect the development applied for, as confirmed by email dated 16th May 2024, and in order to comply with NPF4 Policy 30 which seeks to prevent the loss of existing permanent residential accommodation to short-term holiday letting uses.
Page 25
APPENDIX TO DECISION APPROVAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 23/02065/PP (A) Has the application required an obligation under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended): ☐Yes ☒No If Yes: The terms of the Section 75 obligation may be viewed on the Council’s website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk by recalling the application reference number on the Council’s Public Access Module and then by “Clicking” Section 75 Obligation under the attached correspondence or by viewing the Public Planning register located at Planning Services, 1A Manse Brae, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RD. (B) Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. ☐Yes ☒No (C) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan? ☒Yes ☐No (D) The reason why planning permission has been approved: The proposal is considered to be 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 withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act.
Page 26
APPENDIX B Letter of representation from a Maureen Harris, the occupier of the adjacent dwellinghouse Tigh na Bruaich Tigh Na Bruaich Lochawe Dalmally Argyll PA33 1AW 26th November 2023 Via email Planning.olandi@argyll-bute.gov.uk Dear Sir/Madam, I write in response to the Neighbour Notification Ref. No 23/02065/PP dated 17th November, however received by myself on 24th November, for the alterations to the existing cottage Grianaig to two apartments. I have several concerns. (1) Nowhere in the application does it state what the apartments are to be used for. The property is currently used to house staff from The Ben Cruachan Inn. Is this going to continue or are the apartments to be used as holiday lets? I feel this would be totally inappropriate as there would be a worrying noise issue. There has already been problems at this property when parties were held and dreadful noise during the night was heard throughout Lochawe village. A meeting of villagers subsequently took place with the ex manager of The Ben Cruachan Inn, who also managed the said property at the time, and a verbal apology was received. We therefore fear the impact these apartments will have on the residents living in all the neighbouring properties. (2) Access. The access to Tigh Na Bruaich must be kept open at all times due to health Issues. It is imperative the access to adjoining properties is never blocked. The access road to adjoining properties cannot be used for skips or contractor’s vehicles or builders lorries. Where are these going to go? (3) Residential amenity - The proposed South East elevation directly overlooks my property with 7 windows and 2 patio doors. Not acceptable. Plus there are two decking areas which also look directly into my property. Therefore I have huge concerns regarding lack of privacy and noise likely from this development. (4) There are irregularities on the map sent with your letter. My garage is shown on Stravaiger land. Obviously my garage is on Tigh Na Bruaich land. Plus, the name Tigh Na Bruaich appears on Stravaigar land and should be to the left of the stream. The disruption from this development is of great concern and causing much unwanted anxiety. I trust you will get back to me in due course. Yours sincerely,
Page 27
Maureen Hennis Mrs. Maureen Hennis
Page 28
APPENDIX C Email response was received from the agent on the 4th December 2023
Page 29
APPENDIX D Email was sent to the agent on the 15th May 2024 and a reply was received the following day.
Page 30
From: Planning.North To: localreviewprocess Subject: PCS-20002678 SEPA Response to 24/0014/LRB Date: 20 August 2024 10:38:18 Attachments: image.png To Whom It May Concern Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts 24/0014/LRB Intimation of Receipt of Notice of Review - Amendments to and Extension of Existing 2 Storey Room in Roof Dwelling to Form Two Apartments (23/02065/PP) Grianaig, Lochawe, Dalmally PA33 1AW Thank you for your email enclosing the intimation of receipt of Notice of Review in respect of the above case. We note the comments in point 5 of section 7 of the Notice of Review “When SEPA were consulted on this planning application they deemed that the development we were proposing constituted new residential development and was not considered to be extension of an existing property. The planning authority agreed with SEPA on this and consequently we were required to undertake a flood risk assessment at considerable cost. As the planning authority agreed that the application was a new residential development, then the justification for imposing the restrictive condition cannot apply as NPF 4 Policy 30 is applicable only to existing residential development” For the avoidance of doubt, SEPA understand the proposal is for the sub-division of an existing house into two dwellings. However, whether the proposal is constituted “new residential development”, or not, is wholly a matter for the Planning Authority to determine. I trust these comments are of assistance - please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information. Kind regards Nicki Dunn Senior Planning Officer Disclaimer
Page 31
The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipients. Access, copying or re-use of the information in it by any other is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by return email to postmaster@sepa.org.uk. Registered office: SEPA, Angus Smith Building, 6 Parklands Avenue, Eurocentral, Holytown, North Lanarkshire, ML1 4WQ. Communications with SEPA may be monitored or recorded or released in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. Dh’fhaodadh gum bi am fiosrachadh sa phost-d seo agus ceanglachan sam bith a tha na chois dìomhair, agus cha bu chòir am fiosrachadh a bhith air a chleachdadh le neach sam bith ach an luchd-faighinn a bha còir am fiosrachadh fhaighinn. Chan fhaod neach sam bith eile cothrom fhaighinn air an fhiosrachadh a tha sa phost-d no a tha an cois a’ phuist-d, chan fhaod iad lethbhreac a dhèanamh dheth no a chleachdadh arithist. Mura h-ann dhuibhse a tha am post-d seo, feuch gun inns sibh dhuinn sa bhad le bhith cur post-d gu postmaster@sepa.org.uk. Togalach Aonghais Mhic a' Ghobhainn, 6 Craobhraid Parklands, Eurocentral, Baile a' Chuilinn, Siorrachd Lannraig a Tuath, ML1 4WQ. Faodar conaltradh còmhla ri SEPA a sgrùdadh no a chlàradh no a sgaoileadh gus obrachadh èifeachdach an t-siostaim a ghlèidheadh agus airson adhbharan laghail eile.
Page 32
Print Date 27/08/2024 Page No 1 Revised October 2019 (Freeboard wording revised; CIRIA C753 reference added; UKCP18 reference added) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT - OBSERVATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION No Objections / No Objections subject to Conditions / Refuse / Defer Decision FLOODING AND DRAINAGE CHECKLIST Meets Requirements- Yes/No/Not Applicable 1. Fluvial/Coastal/ Pluvial Flood Risk Management 2. Surface Water Drainage Proposals 3. SUDS Design and Implementation (a ) Records of previous flooding incidents at the design location included in the application No (a) Drainage Layout and construction details provided with locations of surface water discharge shown. N/A (a) SUDS required and adequate levels of treatment provided as detailed in WAT-RM-08(SEPA) N/A (b) Site lies outwith flood plains as indicated by SEPA Fluvial & Coastal Flood Maps for the required return period (1:200 + CC year event). No (b) . Design calculations for proposed SWD system including freeboard allowance submitted. The 1 in 200 year plus CC flood event contained on site N/A (b)Design Calculations and construction details in accordance with CIRIA C753 or other approved provided and meets requirements N/A (c) Do proposed FFL’s exceed 1 in 200 year event plus CC plus 0.6 m freeboard. For coastal sites CFB level used with allowances for UKCP18 CC, wave height plus 0.6 m freeboard N/A (c) Existing site drainage identified and proved. Capacity and ownership identified. Relevant permissions granted for connections or removal. N/A (c) Section 7 Agreement with Scottish Water required and agreed between Roads Authority & Scottish Water N/A (d) Flood Risk Assessment provided and meets requirements N/A (d) ) Method statement detailing surface water containment during construction provided and meets requirements of GBR’s detailed in WAT-SG-12(SEPA) N/A (d)Suitable maintenance regime for SUDS documented and agreed by all relevant parties in application N/A (e) Methodology for estimating run off and design flows acceptable N/A (e ) Drainage Statement/Assessment provided as detailed in Drainage Assessment- A Guide For Scotland SUDSWP and relevant Planning Advice Notes (PAN) N/A (e) Site investigation / Soil Classification of site and method of determination for permeability provided and meets requirements N/A (f) Overland Flow risk, to and from site estimated and cut off drainage or other measures considered appropriate N/A Item Ref. COMMENTS 1 1a 1b-c 2-3 The site is located in Lochawe, on the eastern side of the A85, on the banks of Loch Awe. LiDAR data suggests there is an unnamed watercourse that runs down the northeastern boundary of the site. LIDAR is present at the site alongside the provided rough topographic survey, which display elevations ranging from elevations of approximately 55.4 metres above Ordnance Datum (mAOD) in the eastern corner of the site, up to approximately 65.5 mAOD in the southwestern corner. We have been informed of a Notice of Review regarding this application (reference 24/0014/LRB). We understand that this is regarding the applicants request for removal of Condition 5 regarding the application. Condition 5 attached to the application does not relate to flood risk, as such our consultee response, dated 5th December 2023, remains unchanged. This has been copied below for convenience. No information pertaining to historical flooding at the site has been supplied within the application. The site lies outwith the limits of coastal and surface water flooding, however, fluvial flooding poses a slight risk upon the site, as per the SEPA Future Flood Maps. However, with reference to the site plan, it is evident that the dwellinghouse lies outwith the flood extent. This is acceptable. Drainage assumed as existing. Infrastructure Design Argyll and Bute Council Civic Centre 38 East Clyde Street Helensburgh G84 7PG Planning Ref No: 23/02065/PP Design File Ref: R122004 / Date Received: 21/11/2023 Planning Application: Full Type File Ref : RP 1G Site Grid Reference : 211446 726638 Applicant : Ms Tracey Peedle Proposed Development : Alterations to existing dwellinghouse to form two apartments. Location: Grianaig Lochawe Dalmally Argyll And Bute PA33 1AW Documents submitted: Site plan, topographic survey
Page 33
Print Date 27/08/2024 Page No 2 Revised October 2019 (Freeboard wording revised; CIRIA C753 reference added; UKCP18 reference added) CONDITIONS/REASONS FOR DEFERMENT No objections. Signed : JBA Consulting Contact No.: 0131 319 2940 Position: Organisation: JBA Consulting Date: 27/08/2024
Page 34
From: H HENNIS To: localreviewprocess Cc: MacInnes, Hazel; Jackson, Iain Subject: Planning Application 23/02065/PP Date: 18 August 2024 12:02:26 Dear Sir, Review Ref. No - 24/0014/LRB Ref. No of Planning Application - 23/02065/PP Address of Review property - Grianaig, Lochawe, PA33 1AW I would refer you to my submitted letter of 26/11/2023. The objections in this letter still stand and I reiterate item 1 of my letter:- (1) 'The property is currently used to house staff from The Ben Cruachan Inn. Is this going to continue or are the apartments to be used as holiday lets? I feel this would be totally inappropriate as there would be a worrying noise issue. There have already been problems at this property when parties were held and dreadful noise during the night was heard throughout Lochawe village. A meeting of villagers subsequently took place with the ex manager of The Ben Cruachan Inn, who also managed the said property at the time and a verbal apology was received. We therefore fear the impact these apartments will have on the residents living in all the neighbouring properties.' We now know my fears have been confirmed, even though an email from Mr. Ross Peedle assured the council that there was no intention to use the apartments for short term lets. In the review request item (7) 5. it states the development is constituted a NEW residential Development and is not an extension of an EXISTING property, and states "As the planning authority agree that the application was a new residential development then the justification for imposing the restrictive condition cannot apply as NPF4 Policy 30 is applicable only to existing residential development". However, in item (6) Description of Proposal, it clearly states 'Amendments to and extension of existing two storey room in roof dwelling to form 2 apartments' Surely this is a contradiction. I would also reiterate my huge concerns regarding the two patio areas and large number of windows/patio doors looking directly into my property. This is a total invasion of my privacy. I must also voice my huge concerns about the amount of sewage the apartments would
Page 35
create. The septic tank at Grianaig overflows into the burn, which flows into Loch Awe. The smell from the burn is often overpowering and added sewage is only going to make this problem even worse. The parking situation is another concern as there needs to be space for residents of the existing properties to be able to turn safely from the A85 onto their own drives safely. There is certainly not sufficient space for the parking of 4 cars. Taking all these points into consideration, I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the property being used for short term (holiday) lets as the property is in a very quiet, totally residential area and the disruption/noise from this development would be a huge issue for existing residents. Yours sincerely Mrs. Maureen Hennis Tigh Na Bruaich Lochawe PA33 1AW
Page 36
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: G Hannah localreviewprocess MacInnes, Hazel Short term lets Grianaig Lochawe PA33 1AW 18 August 2024 19:14:09 Ref.No-24/0014/LRB Ref. No of planning Application – 23/02065/PP Grianaig, Lochawe,PA331AW. 16.08.2024 Dear Sir/Madam Regarding the email I received on the 14th.August 2024 about a change from Long term lets to short term holiday lets in the existing property of Grianaig Lochawe. Firstly I would like to strongly Object to this request to a change from long term to short term holiday lets. My reasons for objecting are listed below :- 1. In the past and under a different Manager of the Ben Cruachan Inn a party was held at Grianaig by some Staff members and various other male and female persons. This resulted in extreme noise and bad language from both males and females. The noise was heard by most neighbours and also by some residents in St. Conan’s road and some of the neighbours were frightened as to what may happen if things got worse. This party continued until around 4am the following morning and the neighbours were left to clear up the the broken glass on the driveway. 2. The Ben Cruachan Inn had some control over their staff but if paying short term let tourists are allowed then they expect to enjoy their holiday and if it means having a barbeque with friends until all hours then this can not be controlled. Why pay for a holiday and not be allowed to do what you want? 3. The Septic tank for this property was home made in the late 1920’s and is certainly not capable of handling sewage from two holiday apartments. The sewage is discharged into the burn which then flows into Lochawe. 4. The increased traffic may also cause many problems and as I said in the past they do not have adequate parking if this development takes place. 5. On 15th. May 2024 Judith Stephen, Planning Technician wrote to Mr. Ross Peddle Architect regarding whether the applicant Ms Tracey Peedle was intending the use to be for short or long term lets Mr. Ross Peedle replied that the client has confirmed that the dwellings are not planned for short term lets. 6. My wife and I have lived here since 1984 and this is the first time we have experienced such noise and bad behaviour and we believe that short term lets may result in many more incidents in the future, Kind regards,
Page 37
George S. Hannah. Stravaiger, Lochawe, Argyll PA33 1AW.
Page 38
From: Lindsay Kirkpatrick To: localreviewprocess Cc: MacInnes, Hazel Subject: Short term lets Grianaig Lochawe PA33 1AW Date: 24 August 2024 18:30:53 Ref.No. - 24/0014/LRB Ref.No. of planning application - 23/02065/PP Grianaig, Lochawe PA33 1AW Dear Sir/Madam, Having received your email on the 14th August 2024 regarding proposed changes to the letting arrangements for the above said property; I wish to inform you that I strongly object to this new proposal. Whilst the property was under the supervision of the previous manager at the Ben Cruachan Inn; local residents had no major complaints about the occupants - employees at the Inn - except for one occasion. During this incident. a party was held at the property and the surrounding neighbours were subjected to unacceptable noise, behaviour and bad language. Fortunately, the Ben Cruachan Inn had some control over its staff and the issue was resolved. However, if short term lets are to become the norm, there will be no individual available to prevent a repetition of this kind of behaviour. This is a very quiet residential area where neighbours look out for each other. Many are mature citizens who are not used to unpleasantness resulting from visitors bad behaviour. We do not wish to deter people from coming to Lochawe, however; we live here permanently and it would be totally unacceptable to have to constantly call the police to deal with unpleasant incidents that might occur- excessive noise being one of them. The constant changes of individuals or groups will certainly cause problems with a) parking and traffic - already mentioned in a previous letter; b) constant use of the Septic Tank which I understand is in need of repair - unpleasant smells already emanating from this; and c) constant overlooking of other properties and possible trespassing issues and damage to land that does not belong to said property. Finally, on the 15th August 2024, Judith Stephen, wrote to Mr Ross Peedle about the proposed lets. She wished to know whether Ms Peedle intended the dwellings to be used for short or long term lets. Mr Ross Peedle replied that the client had confirmed that the dwellings were NOT to be used for short term lets. Yours sincerely Lindsay Kirkpatrick (Mrs) Tradewinds, Lochawe, Argyll PA331AWn Sent from my iPhone