2001822PPP RoH east of Taliesin West
Argyll and Bute Council · 23 August 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 23 August 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 20/01822/PPP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mr Lorne Thomson Proposal: Site for the erection of dwellinghouse and public realm enhancements Site Address: Land East Of Taliesin West Garelochhead DECISION ROUTE ☒Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☐Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of dwelling house • Formation of vehicular access • Laying out of footpaths (improvement of informal ways) • Install memorial (ii) Other specified operations • n/a (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be refused and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Argyll and Bute Biodiversity Officer – 05/01/2021 [earlier comments have been superseded]: The applicant has not provided any ecological or biodiversity survey information for this proposal. The following surveys should be carried out by an appropriately qualified person at the optimum time of year and include mitigation: 1. European Protected Species- Otter and Bats; and Protected Species: birds, mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians and fish. 2. Trees and Shrubs: the location and condition of the trees especially those that are either on or close to the development site along with those that are in the public realm area need to be assessed for species, condition and wildlife. The shrubs,
Page 2
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 grass areas and the species within need to be included as part of the surveys along with advice on a Tree and Shrub Protection Plan. The proposal for the public realm works requires further information in relation to the details of the plant selection in the Landscape Planting Plan, the construction of the path, flood management, protection of the water course and a Maintenance Plan for the public area. [officer comment: the agent has challenged the scope of ecological surveying recommended, however these are considered proportionate given the undeveloped nature of the site]. Argyll and Bute Flood Risk Management – 04/11/2020: No objections. Kaya Consulting Ltd. was commissioned through MH Planning Associates to provide comment on the flood risk associated with this application, this has been submitted in the form of the updated Flood Risk Statement(FRS). This statement expands upon conclusions from the initial Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by Dr John Riddell dated October 2007. No information pertaining to historical flooding has been supplied with the application. The submitted FRA nor the updated flood statement include any historic flooding information. The site is partially overlain by the 1:200-year surface water, fluvial and coastal flood extents as shown on the SEPA Flood Map (2014). The surface water flood extent covers a small area to the north of the site, whilst the fluvial and coastal extents cover a larger area to the north, east and south of the site, overlying the McCauley Burn and estuary in close proximity to the site. However, with reference to the site plan and the FRS, it has been adequately demonstrated that the proposed structure lies outside of the indicative limits of flooding. No finished floor levels to mAOD have been included with this In Principle application, however, the supporting planning statement informs that the proposed site for the dwellinghouse is situated at circa 8.5-9.0m AOD. This is confirmed within the site plan. The updated FRS informs that the location of the dwellinghouse will be outwith the revised coastal floodplain and given its height above the burn there is little risk of fluvial flooding. The methods and allowances used to quantify the flood risk are current and acceptable. It is understood that the Finished Floor Level of the proposed development will not be lower than 7.0m AOD. On this basis, the FFLs will be at least 1.7m above the estimated 1 in 200-year plus climate change flood level, which is enough to encompass a freeboard and an allowance for waves. This is acceptable. Argyll and Bute Development Policy – 12/02/2024: The status of the application site as an Open Space Protection Area was considered at the examination of the Proposed Local Development Plan 2. The relevant parts of the Report of Examination are detailed below: “Area to the south of the B872 and east of the B833 6. This site is part of a designated open space protection area on land to the north and south of the B872, at its junction with the B833. There is however a significant change from the adopted plan, where the site forms part of AFA 3/7, which is a designated area for action identified as “local; enhance recreation and open space”. 7. The representation seeks the removal of land to the south of the B872 from the open space protection area, to provide for a residential development and a community building. This is supported by a statement indicating that the remainder
Page 3
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 of the open space protection area within the control of the prospective developer would be enhanced in terms described in the summary of the representation above. 8. There are essentially two elements to examine in relation to this representation. The first is the effect on the open space area, and therefore the character and amenity of the village, should this part of the open space protection area be removed. 9. From my inspection of the site and the surrounding area, the open space is accessible from the B872, adjacent to a small car park and redundant telephone exchange building. The open space is also accessible from the B833, and particularly from a footpath running from east to west in the southern part of the site. The open space constitutes informal grassland interspersed with mature trees, which although not appearing to have significant informal recreational use, nevertheless contributes significantly to the character and amenity of the village. 10. The second element to examine is the effect from the development of the part of the site to the south of the B872 for residential (and other) development. It is not clear whether the representation seeks the designation of the site for housing, but in any event, that appears to be the primary reason for seeking the removal of the site from the open space protection area. 11. The development of the site for housing would have some adverse effect on the character and amenity of the village, which would not necessarily be sufficiently compensated by the enhancement of the remaining area, although I accept that the removal of the area for action (from the adopted plan) perhaps makes the enhancement of any part of this open space protection area otherwise less likely. 12. However, the open space protection area is not an embargo on development. Any development would fall to be considered under Policy 81 of the proposed plan. This would include appropriate consideration being given to mitigation through the provision or improvement of recreational facilities or greenspace elsewhere. Given my findings above, I also find this is the correct approach which should be taken with respect to any proposals for development on the site. I note that pre- application advice was provided in November 2019, under the framework of the adopted plan. Such advice could also be sought under the framework of the proposed plan. 13. I do not consider that the loss of the area for action identified in the adopted plan makes a significant difference to the case for the removal of protected open space from the proposed plan. The action proposed through the adopted plan is to enhance recreation and open space, and so the change to an open space protection area merely changes the active consideration of open space enhancement to a more passive approach. I do not consider that residential development would necessarily be an appropriate approach to enhancing recreation and open space. Overall conclusions 14. I conclude that there is insufficient evidence to justify the removal of (or part of) either of the above open space protection areas, and that therefore no modifications should be made to the proposed plan in either case”. The Council have accepted the recommendations made by the Reporters. The Council have published the LDP 2 Proposals for Adoption and have notified our intention to adopt the plan following clearance by Scottish Ministers. While LDP 2 has not been formally adopted, given its advanced stage, it should be given significant weight as a material consideration in the assessment of this application. Argyll and Bute Roads – 25/11/2020: Confirmed no objections subject to conditions:
Page 4
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 1. Prior to Works Commencing on Site, a sightline visibility splay of 2.4 x 42 x 1.05 metres at the proposed new driveway access with B833 shall be provided in both directions and thereafter maintained in perpetuity; 2. A minimum 4.5 metre wide vehicle access is required and shall be constructed as per Operational Services Drg No SD 08/002; 3. The first 5 metres of each driveway access shall be surfaced in a bituminous material or other approved hard material. This work shall be completed prior to occupation of the dwelling houses; 4. The gradient of the new driveway accesses shall be no steeper than 1 in 20 (5%) over the first 5 metres and thereafter no greater than 1 in 8 (12.5%); 5. Surface water must not be able to flow from the site onto carriageway; 6. The provision of off street car parking and turning within the curtilage of the dwelling house shall be in accordance with SG TRAN 6. Note: Integral garages are not considered as part of the car park provision Defence Infrastructure Organisation – 09/12/2020: The site of the proposed dwelling house occupies the outer explosive safeguarding zone, the vulnerable building distance (VBD), surrounding Defence Munitions (DM) Coulport. This is the area contained between the yellow and purple lines shown on the DM Coulport statutory explosive safeguarding plan. All buildings occupying the VBD should be ‘non-vulnerable’ that is of robust construction and design so that should an explosion occur at the MOD storage facility, buildings nearby will not collapse or sustain damage that could cause critical injury to the occupants. In this context, buildings that contain large areas of glass, tall structures (in excess of 3 storeys) and buildings of light weight construction are of particular concern to the MOD. In principle the MOD has no safeguarding objections to this proposed development but due to the proposed sites location within the outer explosive safeguarding zone, the MOD will need to complete a more detailed assessment once plans and further information about the height and building materials become available. Such details required for our assessments are: • Details of the structural form • External wall make-up & details • Floor specification • Details of roof structure/make up & covering • Details of the extent of glazing on each of the elevations (drawings of the building elevations would be satisfactory for this) • Details of the window frame & glazing specification We therefore require the following condition to be included in any planning permission: “Prior to the construction of any dwelling associated with this permission details of the method of construction of the dwelling shall be submitted to the Planning Authority to allow further consultation with the Ministry of Defence (MOD) safeguarding department. Such details as may be approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the MOD shall thereafter be implemented. Reason: The site is located within a MOD safeguarding zone and construction of any dwelling requires to accord with necessary standards in the interests of safety”. In summary, with regards to the concerns identified above, please could DIO Safeguarding be consulted at all future planning/application stages of this development proposal. It is important that the conditions requested in this response are included in any planning permission granted. As per Planning Circular 2 2003: The Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) (Scotland), if Argyll and Bute Council decides to
Page 5
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 grant planning permission contrary to our advice then we must be notified 28 days prior to a decision being made. Scottish Water – 09/11/2020: Comments in relation to existing water and sewer infrastructure within/near the site boundary that could be in potential conflict with any future development. Scottish Water – 20/02/2024: There is currently sufficient capacity for a foul only connection in the GARELOCHEAD 1 Waste Water Treatment works. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) – 04/08/2022: The land to the east of the McAuley Burn is within the functional flood plain and therefore not suitable for development. However, the west past of the site is shown to be mostly outwith the functional plain and therefore suitable for development above a level of 5.19mAOD. We would have no objection provided a condition is applied which ensures that development is limited to land on the west of the McAulay Burn where ground levels are greater than 5.19mAOD and a free board of 0.6m should be applied to finished floor levels with a minimum level of 5.79mAOD being achieved. The condition should also ensure that permitted development rights are removed for the land to the east of the McAulay Burn. This is to ensure that a precautionary approach is taken to flood risk from all sources, as is required by the policy principles set out in paragraph 255 of Scottish Planning Policy. Further technical flood risk advice is given in Section 3 below outlining why we object to any development on land to the east of the McCauley Burn. This response supersedes our previous response 5789 dated 13 July 2022. [officer comment: the indicative siting is for land to the west of the McCaulay Burn and no development is proposed in this application for land to the east of the McCaulay Burn]. Scotways – no comments received. (D) HISTORY: 20/00703/PPP: Site for the erection of dwellinghouse. Withdrawn 01.10.2020. (E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application Expiry Date: 10.12.2020 19 neighbouring properties were notified in writing. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: 8 letters of representation have been received. 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.
Page 6
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (ii) Summary of issues raised: The matters of objection are summarised as follows: • Principle of development within an Open Space Protection Area as identified in LDP2 (2019); • Impacts upon the value of the semi-natural and accessible land to the community; • Impacts on character and appearance of site and surroundings; • Harmful impacts upon natural environment - as established semi-natural unimproved grassland with copses of native woodland along with individual trees and shrubs together with wildflowers and space for birds; • No need for public realm improvements, as the site is already accessible; • Since the application has been submitted, it has been observed that the site has been physically damaged through clearance and some forms of groundworks; • Road and pedestrian safety concerns relating to visibility of/from proposed access; • Flood risk impacts elsewhere; • Precedent for further development on the land; • Note alleged unauthorised works carried out on part of the site; • Objections to previous application should be taken into account [officer comment: the application is assessed on its own merits in light of the development plan and any material planning considerations which may include representations made on the application]. Representations have also been made in support of the application on the following grounds: • Treating of invasive species, removal of rubbish and wider improvements in proposed public realm works would benefit the site; • Enhancements would reduce antisocial behaviour and improve the appearance and utility of the land. These concerns are noted and where relevant to material planning considerations they have been taken into account in the assessment of the application. (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: ☐Yes ☒No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport ☒Yes ☐No
Page 7
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc. - Covering letter dated 05/10/2020 - Supporting Planning Statement - Flood Risk Assessment by Gavia Environmental dated 28/03/2022 (P21286) - Flood Risk Statement by Kaya Consulting dated 30/06/2020 (KC1901/AM) - Untitled topographical survey (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 (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 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 10 – Coastal Development 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 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure NPF4 Policy 21 – Play, Recreation and Sport NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management
Page 8
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted Feb 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green and Blue Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 26 – Informal Public Outdoor Recreation and Leisure Related Development Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 54 – Safeguarding Zones of Notifiable Installations Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Homes for People Policy 66 – New residential development on non-allocated housing sites within Settlement Areas High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 81 – Open Space Protection Areas (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) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023)
Page 9
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Garelochhead - Settlement Zone • MOD Safeguarding zone Ref P/SLR/20/DN/2 – Coulport • Open Space Protection Area (LDP2 2024) • Coastal and River Flooding – High Likelihood (parts of site) (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☒Yes ☐No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☒No details to be secured by condition ☐N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield
Page 10
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: Open Space Protection Area (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations NPF4 Policy 1 seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions, and this will be considered as part of the overall assessment below. The key issues for consideration are: • Principle of Development • Impact on Character and Appearance • Impact on Neighbour Amenities • Highways Impacts • Drainage and Infrastructure • Natural Environment Site description The site is located in the Garelochhead settlement zone as identified in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2024. The site is situated alongside the junction of the B872 and B833, to the south-west of a telephone exchange building, and opposite a ribbon of detached dwellings at the west side of the B833. The site is traversed by the McAulay Burn. The land slopes principally to the south and east towards the Gare Loch. Much of the site, excluding its westernmost reach, are identified as at 10% chance of flooding each year from river, coastal and surface sources. The site is traversed by trodden paths which are not mapped but have been indicated to an extent on the submitted location plan. The site is largely accessible to the public. Core Path C280(a) (Garelochhead to Loch Long Way) runs adjacent to the south side of the site and a bench is situated close to its junction with the main road (B833). The site is within a wider area that was previously identified in LDP 2015 as an Area for Action 3/7 for enhancement of recreation and open space but now in the adopted LDP2 it is allocated as an Open Space Protection Area. A portion of the site at its north-east corner – on the east side of McCaulay Burn – has been subject to recent clearance of trees and shrubs, and development including the formation of hardstanding and siting of freestanding modular fencing. No record of planning permission has been found for these works. The western portion of the site has also been subject to recent clearance of trees and shrubs, and appears to that earthworks have taken place. No record of planning permission has been found for these works.
Page 11
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The application describes the site as vacant land. It does not appear to be brownfield, or previously developed, land. It is not considered by officers to be vacant land but a greenfield site given there is no evidence of previous development. The Proposal Planning Permission in Principle is sought for the erection of a dwelling house and public realm enhancements. The supporting statement confirms that detailed design and external appearance are to be reserved matters. The submitted location plan also indicates a ‘Potential Future Development Area’. The Potential Future Development Area does not form part of the application, which is for one single dwelling house, already identified indicatively on the site and location plans, and public realm enhancements, and is therefore not subject to further assessment other than in scope of the application for one single dwelling house and the public realm enhancements indicated. An informative can be added to the decision with regard to this. The submitted Proposed Landscape Layout plan 1561-01-E received 13/01/2021 and Site Location Plan 2019_0057-03D show proposed access taken from the B833 at the west side of the site. They show an indicative siting of the proposed dwelling at a position within some 30m of the site’s western boundary, and a domestic curtilage extending up to some 70m into the site form its western boundary with the B833. This is also reflected on drawing 2019_0057-04-A. Plan 1561-01-E shows proposed shrub planting within the domestic curtilage. Plan 1561-01-E also shows proposed public realm enhancements outside of the proposed domestic curtilage, comprising tree, shrub planting and soft landscaping. In addition, it shows a proposed footpath following the lines of the existing trodden paths, and location for a proposed memorial with gravel surfacing situated at the southeast corner of the wider site. The public realm enhancements are identified in the Covering Letter as including “the implementation of a scheme of tree planting and woodland management; and the facilitation of the erection of a memorial to those lives lost when HMS K13, a steam- propelled First World War K class submarine, sank in Gare Loch on 29 January 1917”. It also states that “initial discussions with Garelochhead Community Council [have taken place]. In principle the Community Council are supportive of this package of proposals, particularly the K13 memorial”. The application states that the dwelling would be connected to the public water supply, public drainage and would include Sustainable Urban Drainage for surface water. The site plan identifies trees on the site. Trees appear to have been recently removed and should the application be found acceptable an updated tree survey would be required. The application is supported by a planning statement and a flood risk assessment. A revised flood risk assessment has been submitted since the initial flood risk assessment undertaken in 2007 does not consider up-to-date data or take current methods and guidance into account. Further work undertaken by Kaya dated 30th June 2020 Ref. KC1901/AM is a review of topographic ground levels and the risk of coastal flooding.
Page 12
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The revised flood risk assessment by Gavia (2022) considers the north-east portion of the site identified as ‘Potential Future Development Area’. Principle of Development Policy 1 of NPF4 seeks to promote nature-positive places, promoting nature recovery and restoration. Further to NPF4 Policy 3, Development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats. At (c) it states that Proposals for local development will include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, in accordance with national and local guidance. Measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development. NPF4 Policy 4 states that Development proposals that are likely to have an adverse effect on species protected by legislation will only be supported where the proposal meets the relevant statutory tests. If there is reasonable evidence to suggest that a protected species is present on a site or may be affected by a proposed development, steps must be taken to establish its presence. The level of protection required by legislation must be factored into the planning and design of development, and potential impacts must be fully considered prior to the determination of any application. The policy notes that The precautionary principle will be applied in accordance with relevant legislation and Scottish Government guidance. NPF4 Policy 6 states that Development proposals on sites which include an area of existing woodland or land identified in the Forestry and Woodland Strategy as being suitable for woodland creation will only be supported where the enhancement and improvement of woodlands and the planting of new trees on the site (in accordance with the Forestry and Woodland Strategy) are integrated into the design. NPF4 Policy 9 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. It 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. NPF4 Policy 10 relates to coastal development. At (b) it states that: Development proposals in undeveloped coastal areas will only be supported where they: i. are necessary to support the blue economy, net zero emissions or to contribute to the economy or wellbeing of communities whose livelihood depend on marine or coastal activities, or is for essential infrastructure, where there is a specific locational need and no other suitable site; ii. do not result in the need for further coastal protection measures taking into account future sea level change; or increase the risk to people of coastal flooding or coastal erosion, including through the loss of natural coastal defences including dune systems; and iii. are anticipated to be supportable in the long-term, taking into account projected climate change; or iv. are designed to have a very short lifespan. Policy 15 of NPF4 seeks to support local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods within settlements. Policy 16 of NPF4 supports development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in limited circumstances including those where the proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary.
Page 13
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Policy 20 of NPF4 notes the multiple benefits of blue and green infrastructure, including climate mitigation, nature restoration, biodiversity enhancement, flood prevention and water management, and community benefits of accessible high quality blue, green and civic spaces. At paragraph (a) it states that Development proposals that result in fragmentation or net loss of existing blue and green infrastructure will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in blue or green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained. The planning authority’s Open Space Strategy should inform this. At (e) it notes that Development proposals that include new or enhanced blue and/or green infrastructure will provide effective management and maintenance plans covering the funding arrangements for their long-term delivery and upkeep, and the party or parties responsible for these. Policy 21 of NPF4 notes that spaces and opportunities for play, recreation and sport are beneficial for physical and mental health, and that these can include informal and incidental opportunities within existing green and blue infrastructure. Policy 22 of NPF4 states that development should be avoided in areas at flood risk as a first principle. It states at (a) that: Development proposals …in a flood risk area will only be supported if they are for: i. essential infrastructure where the location is required for operational reasons; ii. water compatible uses; iii. redevelopment of an existing building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use; or. iv. redevelopment of previously used sites in built up areas where the LDP has identified a need to bring these into positive use and where proposals demonstrate that long-term safety and resilience can be secured in accordance with relevant SEPA advice. The LDP2 Policy 01 directs development to identified settlement areas, where it would normally be acceptable provided, among other matters, it is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed, and respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density scale massing design external finishes and access arrangements. Policy 04 seeks to support sustainable development, (b) making efficient use of vacant or derelict land including appropriate buildings, (g) avoiding the use of important recreational and amenity open space, and (h) conserving and enhancing the natural and built environment and avoiding significant adverse impacts on biodiversity natural and heritage assets, (i) respecting the landscape character and the setting and character of settlements, among other matters. Further to Policy 05 of LDP2, the design of development should respect site topography, green and blue infrastructure should be an integral part of the design process, the design should develop the area's sense of identity, among other matters. Policy 06 of LDP2 notes how informal open space can contribute to a high quality place, and states that proposals should demonstrate that the development would not have a negative impact upon existing green and blue infrastructure or result in the fragmentation or loss of integrity of existing green networks. Long term management including maintenance and funding arrangements should also be demonstrated. The preamble to Policy 26 of LDP2 notes that the tourism-based economy can benefit from the provision of informal outdoor recreational, leisure and access facilities which can also provide services to local communities. Where they are provided within settlements they will be most accessible to the widest range of potential customers/users.
Page 14
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Policy 54 relates to Safeguarding Zones of Notifiable Installations. The DIO has commented on the application and should it be found acceptable, a suitably worded condition can be attached to any planning permission. Policy 55 of LDP2 reflects NPF4 policy relating to flood risk. Policy 59 seeks to protect Water Quality and the Environment. Policy 73 states that Development proposals will be encouraged to incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity wherever possible. Applications for new developments may be required to complete a biodiversity checklist related to the scale, nature and location of the development (see LDP2 TN04 Technical Note: Biodiversity Checklist). Were the application otherwise found acceptable, … Policy 77 of LDP2 requires that Where woodland, hedgerows or individual trees are removed in association with development, adequate provision must be made for the planting of new woodland resources, including compensatory planting in accordance with the sequential approach set out in Policy 78 – Woodland Removal. Policy 81 of LDP2 states that Development proposals resulting in the loss of Open Space Protection Areas will not be permitted, except in circumstances where one or more of the following apply: a) The proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site or only involves a very minor part of the site and in either case would not affect its integrity and continued existing use or amenity value. b) Where a proposal would involve the loss of an outdoor sports facility; the facility which would be lost would be replaced by a new facility of comparable or greater benefit and in a location that is convenient for its users, or by the upgrading of an existing facility to provide one of better quality either within the same site or at another location which is convenient for its users and which maintains or improves the overall capacity in the area. c) Where a proposal would involve the loss of an outdoor sports facility; a relevant strategy, and consultation with SportScotland, has demonstrated that there is a clear excess of provision to meet current and anticipated demand in the area, and that the site would be developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision. In this situation it should be adequately demonstrated that all reasonable attempts have been made to sell or transfer the facility for an alternative sports or recreational use. d) Where a proposal would involve the loss of a recreational facility or a site for the growing of food; the facility which would be lost would be replaced by a new facility of comparable or greater benefit and in a location that is convenient for its users, or by the upgrading of an existing facility to provide one of better quality either within the same site or at another location which is convenient for its users and which maintains or improves the overall capacity in the area. e) In the case of greenspace amenity areas (public or private); it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no loss of the amenity value it provides through either partial, or complete development and that an alternative provision of equal benefit and accessibility can be made available. Location The site is within the settlement area of Garelochhead. LDP2 Policy 01 directs development to identified settlement areas. Policy 16 of NPF4 supports development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in limited circumstances including those where the proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing
Page 15
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 settlement boundary. Development at the site would be capable of meeting these broad objectives. Infrastructure and connectivity Policy 15 of NPF4 seeks to support local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods within settlements. Policy 18 of NPF4 supports an ‘infrastructure-first’ approach to development. Policy 04 of LDP2 seeks to support sustainable development. Located in an existing settlement, development at the site would be capable of meeting these aims in general. Vacant land NPF4 defines Vacant Land as Previously developed land, without physical constraint, which the Planning Authority has indicated is currently available for redevelopment. Policy 9 of NPF4 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. Historic mapping and the site characteristics (notwithstanding apparent recent unauthorised works) indicate that the site is not previously developed. The site is therefore considered to be greenfield site and this weighs significantly against the proposed development at the site in principle. Green and Blue Infrastructure The development would form a large domestic curtilage, and comprise a dwelling with associated access and likely domestic paraphernalia – fencing, outbuildings. It would fragment the green space and lead to a net loss of green space in the settlement contrary to the objectives of Policy 20 of NPF4 and Policies 5 and 6 of LDP2. This is a negative aspect in terms of the principle of the proposal. Watercourses and the coastal setting would not be significantly affected, subject to conditions relating to construction management for example. The development by reason of its scale, character and layout would be reasonably capable of maintaining water standards further to Policy 59 of LDP2. There would be some improvements offered to the quality of the green space and these carry weight, although some aspects of land management relate to responsibilities covered by other legislative frameworks and should be carried out regardless of planning permission. Furthermore, while some works could be reasonably secured by condition other aspects of the proposed public realm enhancements would require legal agreements (e.g. future maintenance) and no indication has been given by the applicant in this regard. In addition, trees appear to have been removed from the site since the application was submitted, along with apparently unauthorised earthworks. On this basis the potential for improvements to the green and blue infrastructure, as part of any planning permission carries a reduced weight. Flood risk The proposed indicative siting of built form would be situated more than 7.0m above ordnance datum. SEPA has confirmed no objection subject to conditions, including removal of relevant permitted development rights. In this regard the proposal is complaint with NPF4 Policy 22 and Policy 55 of LDP2 acceptable in principle on flood risk grounds. Open Space Protection Area (OSPA) The site has been noted as comprising informal grassland interspersed with mature trees, which although not appearing to have significant informal recreational use,
Page 16
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 nevertheless contributes significantly to the character and amenity of the village. It is part of a wider OSPA which includes Bendarroch public park. The development as shown on the indicative layout would occupy a significant portion of the identified OSPA, and particularly the area of the OSPA south of the B872, as domestic curtilage. The application proposes enhancements and a memorial to improve the amenity value of the remaining area which would mitigate the impacts of the loss to a degree. The loss of a significant part of the OSPA within this parcel would harm the amenity of the settlement, for residents and visitors. There is no scope in the application for alternative provision. While enhancements of the remaining area would be welcome, subject to details, and maintenance provisions which in the context of planning permission would have to be secured by legal agreement, it is not considered that these would outweigh the effects of the fragmentation and reduction of informal recreational space. This would be contrary to NPF4 Policy 21, and LDP2 Policies 26 and 81. MOD Safeguarding The site is in scope of notification for MOD Safeguarding zone Ref P/SLR/20/DN/2 – Coulport. The DIO has commented and this matter can be dealt with by conditions, and therefore does not affect the principle of the development in accordance with Policy 54 of LDP2. Proposed public realm enhancements The public realm enhancements would not involve a material change of use or significantly affect flood risk at the site or elsewhere, subject to details that can be addressed at reserved matters stage or by conditions. They are acceptable in general principle. Character and Appearance Policy 14 of NPF4 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle. Development design should improve the quality of an area. Development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported. The LDP2 Policy 01 directs development to identified settlement areas, where it would normally be acceptable provided, among other matters, it is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed, and respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density scale massing design external finishes and access arrangements. Policy 08 of LDP2 requires that 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, and have been sufficiently mitigated through landscape and visual impact assessments among others.
Page 17
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Policy 08 also states that 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. Policy 10 of LDP2 states that The design of any development must: Demonstrate an understanding of and appropriate response to the proposed development site and wider context including consideration of character and, where applicable, urban grain. This is also reflected in Policy 66 of LDP2. The land subject to the indicative siting is on a pronounced slope eastwards towards the Burn and Gareloch. Flood risk dictates that the dwelling would be positioned close to the top of this slope. The land appears to have been subject to unauthorised earth works as well as significant tree and shrub removal since the application was submitted. Notwithstanding this, which appears to be an aberrant and temporary situation, the land is a natural or semi-natural scrubland with informal access to the burn, providing a general amenity to the public through its intrinsic value and contributing to the character and quality of the settlement. The building in the indicative location would be an isolated feature at the top of the slope. At the time of assessment, the trees that populated the site have been largely removed. Its relatively bare character as a result would magnify the prominence of a dwelling at this point. Although it would be situated opposite a ribbon of substantial dwellings, the indicative siting indicates an isolated and stark feature within the townscape which would sit uncomfortably in the wider grain of the settlement pattern. While matters relating to ground levels and detailed design including underbuilding could be addressed at reserved matters stages, it is not considered that this would overcome the issues arising from the siting in this instance. Softening of the context through tree planting could mitigate this impact to a degree but would take a considerable time to establish. The loss of the area given over to the siting of a house and domestic curtilage would additionally remove to an extent the qualitative benefits of the undeveloped land to the character and amenities of the settlement, and its contribution to health and wellbeing. While permitted development rights could be removed, and landscaping secured, by conditions, there would nonetheless be a diminution of the natural or semi-natural space with consequent impacts on the character and appearance of the area. The proposed public realm enhancements are limited detail but as far as can be ascertained appear acceptable in character and appearance terms. It is considered that the development would not be a positive response to the established settlement pattern, or to the local topography, and would present an isolated, stark and incongruous feature. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and surroundings, in addition to the loss of the inherent contribution made by the existing natural or semi-natural space. In these regards the development would be unacceptable and contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4, and LDP2 Policies 01, 08 and 10. Neighbour amenities
Page 18
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Policies NPF4 14, and Policies 08 and 66 of LDP2 (2019) seek to ensure that development maintains the amenities of its surrounding area. The proposed siting would be relatively remote from surrounding properties and separated from them by the public realm. For this reason the development would not significantly impact the amenities of nearby residential occupiers in any relevant regard. Specific impacts arising from detailed design and scale for example could be reasonably addressed in this instance in a reserved matters application. Roads NPF4 Policy 13, LDP (2015) and LDP2 (2019) policies 34, 35, 36 and 39 collectively seek to ensure appropriate infrastructure and that developments are served by a safe means of vehicular access and have an appropriate parking and turning area within the site. ABC Roads offer no objections subject to conditions which can be reasonably attached to planning permission or secured through reserved matters. Natural Environment NPF4 Policy 3 (Biodiversity) seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets including protected sites and species. Full consideration is to be given to legislation, policies and conservation objectives such as the Habitats and Species Regulations, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) in relation to protected species and habitats. Policy 6 of LDP2 (Green and Blue Infrastructure) seeks to preserve and enhance biodiversity and water environment conditions. Policy 73 of LDP2 (Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity) states that “Development proposals will be encouraged to incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity wherever possible”. Trees The proposal is on a site which has been wooded. The application indicates that further planting would take place. Trees appear to have been removed from the site, along with apparently unauthorised earthworks, since the application was submitted, and this is a negative aspect to the application context. No arboricultural survey has been provided. There is no Tree Preservation Order relating to the site. Further to NPF4 Policy 6 and LDP2 Policy 77, replacement and any additional planting could be secured by condition and therefore the wooded characteristics of the site would not affect the acceptability of the development in this instance. Biodiversity The site is not specifically identified in relation to protected habitats and species. However it is a mixed natural and semi-natural environment, and noting its characteristics and the precautionary principle, it is reasonable that a proposal is required to address the potential for protected species that may be affected, and to identify how biodiversity at the site would be enhanced or restored. Were the application otherwise found acceptable, an ecological survey would be required. It would not be reasonable to leave this matter to a planning condition. In the absence
Page 19
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 of a proportionate ecological survey, the application is unacceptable and contrary to NPF Policies 1, 3 and 4 and LDP2 Policies 06 and 73. Soils The application site is sloping, has no agricultural land classification and is not within an identified area of peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Refused: The indicative siting would occupy greenfield land within the settlement boundary, and create a net loss and fragmentation of green space and identified open space, with consequential harmful impacts on character and amenity within Garelochhead. This would be unacceptable and contrary to Policies of 01, 09, 14, 16, 20 and 21 of NPF4, and Policies 04, 05, 06, 26 and 81 of LDP2. There would be modest benefits to the community arising from proposed enhancements, but there would not be a clear mechanism for their delivery and maintenance and in any regard it is considered that the benefits would not outweigh the harmful impacts identified. The benefit of the provision of one additional family home would not be sufficient to outweigh the identified harm. By reason of its isolated position, the development would be starkly and incongruously situated, and thus poorly integrated into the established settlement pattern. The harmful effect of this would be magnified by the prominence of the siting at the top of a slope and its proposed site area which cuts across the open space. For these reasons the siting would be unacceptable and contrary to NPF4 Policy 14, and LDP2 Policies 01, 04, 05, 08 and 10. These concerns could not be reasonably overcome through reserved matters considerations or details to be secured through conditions, and the benefits of the proposal would not be sufficient to overcome the harmful impacts identified. No ecological survey has been provided. The application has not demonstrated potential impacts on species and biodiversity, and how any such impacts would be avoided or mitigated. This is unacceptable further to Policies 01, 03 and 04 of NPF4 and Policies 06 and 73 of LDP2, and cannot be dealt with by planning conditions or reserved matters. The requirement set out in other legislative frameworks such as the Habitats and Species Regulations, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) would not obviate the need for these matters to be addressed prior to a grant of planning permission in principle. (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
Page 20
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Author of Report: Rob Lilburn Date: 23.02.2024 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 11.03.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 21
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO.20/01822/PPP 1. The indicative siting would occupy greenfield land within the settlement boundary, and create a net loss and fragmentation of green space and identified open space, with consequential harmful impacts on character and amenity within Garelochhead. This would be unacceptable and contrary to Policies of 01, 09, 14, 16, 20 and 21 of NPF4, and Policies 04, 05, 06, 26 and 81 of LDP2. There would be modest benefits to the community arising from proposed enhancements, but there would not be a clear mechanism for their delivery and maintenance and in any regard it is considered that the benefits would not outweigh the harmful impacts identified. The benefit of the provision of one additional family home would not be sufficient to outweigh the identified harm. 2. By reason of its isolated position, the development would be starkly and incongruously situated, and thus poorly integrated into the established settlement pattern. The harmful effect of this would be magnified by the prominence of the siting at the top of a slope and its proposed site area which cuts across the open space. For these reasons the siting would be unacceptable and contrary to NPF4 Policy 14, and LDP2 Policies 01, 04, 05, 08 and 10. These concerns could not be reasonably overcome through reserved matters considerations or details to be secured through conditions, and the benefits of the proposal would not be sufficient to overcome the harmful impacts identified. 3. No ecological survey has been provided. The application has not demonstrated potential impacts on species and biodiversity, and how any such impacts would be avoided or mitigated. This is unacceptable further to Policies 01, 03 and 04 of NPF4 and Policies 06 and 73 of LDP2, and cannot be dealt with by planning conditions or reserved matters. The requirement set out in other legislative frameworks such as the Habitats and Species Regulations, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) would not obviate the need for these matters to be addressed prior to a grant of planning permission in principle.
Page 22
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE PLANS LIST Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Site location plan 2019_0057-03 D 13/01/2021 Proposed landscape and indicative siting 1561-01-E 13/01/2021 Proposed landscaping 1561 02 05/11/2020 Site plan showing flood level 2019_0057-04 A 06/10/2020 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS LIST Document Title. Dated Ref. No. Date Received Covering letter 05/10/2020 06/10/2020 Supporting Planning Statement 06/10/2020 Flood Risk Assessment by Gavia Environmental_2007 28/03/2022 P21286 01/07/2022 Flood Risk Statement by Kaya Consulting_2000 30/06/2020 KC1901/AM 06/10/2020 Untitled topographical survey 06/10/2020 Superseded documents: • Flood Risk Assessment received 06/10/2020 Draft 4/10/2007 John Riddell Not relevant to the assessment: • Untitled topographical survey of Potential Future Development Area received 01/07/2022 • OSPA Boundary 2019_0057-02 received 06/10/2020